In her character attack, Palin questions Obama's association with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground. Her reference was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.
Emphasis mine. Great, right? Sort of does what the press is supposed to do: Report what the politicans say, and then go on to say whether or not any evidence supports it.
But in a classic sort of "on-the-other-hand-ism," this piece goes on to suggest that
Obama isn't above attacking McCain's character with loaded words, releasing an ad on Sunday that calls the Arizona Republican "erratic" - a hard-to miss suggestion that McCain's age, 71, might be an issue.
Wait a minute. Nothing about the word "erratic" suggests the issue of age. "Erratic" means "having no certain or definite course; wandering; not fixed." Anyone seen McCain in the last few weeks, even days? How is that behavior not erratic?
Oh! And for that matter, even if that were a reference to his age...why shouldn't the age of a man in his 70's, with a history of cancer, be an issue?
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that there was any case to make that it should not--and I think that would specious at best, if not totally implausible.
But any such argument would be derailed by McCain's selction of such an unqualified, inexperienced person as his VP. His age is an issue. He made it one. Obama didn't.
And it's not a personal attack, either, as some other news items are suggesting. The Obama ad explicitly calls McCain "Erratic in a crisis," referring to the economy.
"Our financial system in turmoil," an announcer says in Obama's new ad. "And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."
A harsh and plainly partisan judgment, certainly...
Certainly? Certainly not. The plainest thing about this judgement is that we all heard John McCain say "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," as Wall Street was imploding.
That's why the Obama campaign gets to say he's "out of touch on the economy."
And then he wouldn't even stand by his own words, which--I think--a real "maverick," would do. He backed away from them. That's why the Obama campain gets to call him "Erratic in a crisis."
Anyone who thinks getting called those things, in this context, is "harsh," probably isn't going to be too comfortable in the oval office anyway.
Calling McCain's reactions "erratic" is A, self-evidently true, and B, professional. It's talking about how McCain does his job.
Click to see full size.
Oh, and "partisan?" Well...yeah. There's an election going on. By their very nature, those are partisan. Elections should be partisan. Governing should be bi-partisan.
That's (one of the places) where George Bush fucked up. As Chris Rock said, "so bad he's made it hard for a white man to run for president."
Or, as the most effective President I'm likely to see in my lifetime said...
BARTLET
...I don't think Americans are tired of partisan politics; I think they're tired of hearing career politicians diss partisan politics to get a gig. I've tried it before, they ain't buying it. That's okay, though. That's okay, though, 'cause partisan politics is good. Partisan politics is what the founders had in mind. It guarantees that the minority opinion is heard, and as a lifelong possessor of minority opinions, I appreciate it.
Aaron Sorkin and Paul Redford, The West Wing, "Game On."
No comments:
Post a Comment