 |
Media Elites Desperately Trying to Save McCain |
 |
With a new poll showing Obama leading McCain by 15 points, McCain needs a boost. He should be grateful that his base of supporters in the media stand ready, willing, and able to take up his cause, evenhandedness and the facts be damned.
On this morning’s Meet the Press, Andrea Mitchell and Jon Harwood were falling over each other in their eagerness to denounce Obama’s duplicity with regard to financing of his camapign. Neither they nor “moderator” Brian Williams uttered one word regarding McCain’s own woefully underreported flip-flop. I read and follow the news pretty regularly, but I have heard precious little about this: McCain applied for and recived federal funding for the primaries, but then turned face and opted out of federal funding, only after he had used the promise of federal funding as security for a private loan he obtained. As Americablog says, this is quite serious and may violate criminal law.
McCain’s friends in the media are all too willing to bury his campaign finance improprieties in the archives while they serve as a mouthpiece for the McCain campaign. I always try to remind myself that, when reading a David Broder column, it’s best to keep an eye out for the false premises, undisclosed biases, and outright misstatements. Today’s column is a case in point. Broder begins innocently enough by citing a poll showing that voters don’t think they know enough about either candidate’s positions on the issues, are evenly split on which candidate would be the stronger leader, and are unsure about which would be a safe choice for the presidency. (Less innocently, Broder ignores the Newsweek poll showing Obama leads McCain by 15 points, and unequivocally declares that McCain only trails Obama by six points, declining to give even a moment’s attention to the Newsweek poll)
Showing a breathtaking disdain for his own words, Broder concludes that the big question in this campaign may be “whether people become comfortable with the prospect of Obama as their president.” Keep in mind that Broder just got done telling us that voters have an equal amount of uncertainty about the two candidates. Broder apparently breaks the tie decisively in McCain’s favor by relying on the media’s well-established view of McCain as a straight-shooter, despite the well-documented fact that McCain is anything but.
Like Mitchell and Harwoord, Broder presents a decidedly unbalanced take on campaign finance, pointing to Obama’s decision not to take public financing as a strike against Obama but inexplicably neglecting to inform his readers that McCain has flip-flopped on this issue himself, as discussed above.
What can explain Broder’s dizzying game of hide and seek with the facts? Broder never tells his readers that he has a rooting interest in this election, having written several pieces effusively praising McCain and advancing McCain talking points. As I have written before, Broder is a columnist and is entitled to his own opinions. He does owe it to his readers, however, to explain that he has a clear bias in favor of McCain. Otherwise, he’s like a financial commentator who tells you to buy Yahoo! but doesn’t mention that he owns shares of that stock.
I think Obama is running a solid campaign, and I am glad to see that, as I personally think he is leaps and bounds ahead of McCain as a candidate. I am confident that Obama will continue to to do well. What remains to be seen is whether McCain’s supporters among the media elite can give McCain a nudge, or a shove, forward.
Good observations. No doubt, Obama is well aware he will get swift boating from the media as well as the right wing PACs.
A really hilarious treatment of the Broder political ad from a regular at Eschaton:
OK, trifecta, I’m gonna live blog my reading of Broder. I do this to spare my fellow Atriots.
“towering majorities that disapprove of President Bush (68 percent)”. What?! Bush has approval ratings hovering around 23 percent. How the hell does Broder get an implication of 32 percent approval?
“Despite those fundamental weaknesses, McCain trails Obama in that same poll by only six points, hardly an impossible margin to overcome.” Yeah, well, a few other polls have Saint Maverick down by 15. Not so easy.
“What may be crucial in the end is whether people become comfortable with the prospect of Obama as their president.” What’s the point, here? Oh, I get it, Obama is black. Don’t worry, Dean, a hell of a lot of Americans seem to think that isn’t a deal breaker.
Broder talks about Obama’s ditching public funds, and overlooks that McCain has his own issues about funding (too bad Michelle doesn’t have $100 M in the bank, eh?)
And as to Obama’s turning down the meetings McCain wants, (a) didn’t he already have about 20 debates already and (b) it’s always the guy who’s losing who wants the debates.
Broder wants Obama to throw away his advantages, and help McCain in ways that handicap Obama. And he admits it:
“Obama supporters note that town halls are McCain’s favorite campaign seettings, so it’s no surprise that he prefers them to formal speeches, where Obama excels. They point out that public financing helps McCain, who has lagged all year in private fundraising, while it would inhibit Obama, who has tapped into a rich vein of small contributors using the Internet.” You know, actual public funding.
But then Broder says, “But it’s also the case that multiple joint town meetings would be a real service to the public” (why, because they might help McCain get elected?) and that suspending the dollar chase for the duration of the campaign as McCain but not Obama will do would be a major step towards establishing the credibility of the election process.” Not hardly. Obama isn’t chasing money; people are throwing it at him. McCain will continue to go after it. And what the public funding does is equip Obama with an anvil.
Broder should simply say at the bottom: Paid for by the Campaign to Elect John McCain.
But he’s not in the habit of revealing his payments, is he?
David Derbes, ochen’ pissed. | 06.22.08 - 8:11 am | #
thanks Ruth!