Say what, Politico?
Politico’s lead story this afternoon is entitled: “McCain takes aim at Obama’s character.” I don’t have a problem with the article itself, except I think the characterization that McCain is “attacking Obama’s character” rather than his platform is questionable. McCain’s earlier charges that Obama is among the most liberal members of the Senate and a flip-flopper are more of a character attack than the example cited within the story, which was the Troops ad released by the McCain campaign Saturday that criticized Obama for cancelling a visit with wounded U.S. servicemen in Germany last week.
Also not to be missed is the story’s hint at a “resemblence to the third-party Swift Board campaign that denigrated Kerry’s service in Vietnam.” The line was subtly placed deep in the story, but screams for attention, since Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was a 527 organization, and 527s have received so much scrutiny in this campaign from the media and the Obama campaign. It seems quite a leap to compare the compare ad with the campaign mounted by SBVT in 2004.
But I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the lead-in, or teaser, to the story: Directly beneath the headline, “McCain takes aim at Obama’s character,” is the text, “The Democrat’s Achilles’ heel is a sense that the new arrival on the national stage isn’t American enough.” The implication seems to be that McCain is playing on the illogical fears harbored (and, in some cases, promoted) by some conservatives that Obama is unpatriotic, a Muslim, or any of a number of other rumors that have emerged thus far in the election cycle.
Obviously, McCain has done nothing of the sort, and the lead-in is misleading. Politico does attempt to make the argument, though it offers little in way of support, that McCain’s attack will be benefited by those illogical fears, and even — incredulously — attempts to bring race into the equation, saying, “It’s also an attack that taps into another major source of unease — Obama’s race — and is especially likely to pay dividends with a relative newcomer to the national stage such as Obama, whose public image is not yet as clearly defined as McCain’s.”
Talk about reading a lot into a 30-second ad. How about taking the ad at face value: As an attack on a botch by the Obama campaign in Germany. Simple as that. Then if we want to speculate, we can speculate on a point truly worth speculating: Whether McCain intended the ad as an attack on Obama’s patriotism. I don’t think it was an attack on Obama’s patriotism; it was simply an opportunity to take a swipe at his opponent. And, let’s face it, the Germany debacle was pretty big, as political gaffes go. Nevertheless, if one assumes that McCain did intend an attack on Obama’s patriotism, then we can also assume that the ad was an attack on his character rather than his platform. All of that is legitimate speculation. But to speculate that McCain is taking a “tempting” approach to playing on fear because 55% of Americans (according to a recent poll) find Obama as a riskier choice for president? That’s a pretty far slip down the slope of illogical speculation by a normally thoughtful political news source.
It should be noted that Politico’s GOP blogger, Jonathan Martin, was co-author of the story (along with his Democrat counterpart Ben Smith). Of course, Martin isn’t necessarily a McCain-supportive blogger. Not that he is supposed to be; Politico bills its blogs as political bloggings with a focus on the respective parties. Focusing on either party and serving as a homer for either party hardly go hand-in-hand. But the Martin blog does have a decidedly less pro-McCain feel than the Smith blog has a pro-Obama feel. Of course, that’s just more speuclation.
Nobody said speculation couldn’t be fun, however illogical it may be.