Steve Benen, frankly has never been one of my favorites. He’s always seemed to me too much an apologist for the out -of -touch -left. HIs history in terms of who he’s been carrying water for (TPM, and Carpetbagger as two examples) tells the story in my book.
Today, at his new perch at Washington Monthly he solidifies that image with what can only be described as a left- baised reactionary piece [1], to Ron Fournier’s piece on the AP wire this morning.
FOURNIER IS AT IT AGAIN…. The latest piece from Ron Fournier, the AP’s Washington bureau chief and the man responsible for directing the wire service’s coverage of the presidential campaign, on Joe Biden joining the Democratic ticket, is drawing a fair amount of attention this morning. More importantly, McCain campaign staffers are pushing it fairly aggressively to other reporters, in large part because it mirrors the Republican line with minimal variation.
By choosing Biden, Fournier argues, Barack Obama is showing a “lack of confidence,” and is siding with “the status quo.”
There are two ways to consider Fournier’s piece: substantively and in the broader context.
First, on the substance, Fournier’s analysis seems a little lazy. By his logic, any potential running mate shows a “lack of confidence” — picking Hillary would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over women voters; picking Bayh would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over independents and conservative Dems; picking Webb would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over voters concerned about national security; picking Kaine would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over voters in the South; etc. For that matter, “the status quo” in Washington has been conservative Republican rule. Biden may be an old pro and a DC insider, but he’s anything but “the status quo.”
Well, OK, look; I more than grant that what Benen says is true, here… mostly. It’s what he doesn’t say about why it’s true that I find so troublesome. The fact of the matter is that there are serious negatives to be attached to any choice Obama might have made. that’s not a function of the strength of Obama, that’s a function of the weakness within the list of candidates of possible VP choices. Of course, I’d not expect Benen to look at that aspect at all. Hard to find a cheerleader screaming “We suck, too”. (There is an argument to be made that Biden is the worst possible choice Obama could have made… The right side of the blog has been salivating over just this for the last week. I’ll get to that later today.. and I see David’s already touched on it)
Given Benen’s history though, I find this passage particularly amusing:
Second, in context, Fournier’s objectivity covering the presidential race continues to look shaky. We are, after all, talking about a journalist who, as recently as last year, considered working for the McCain campaign.
Now, look, I don’t have much use for AP, either, but let’s get real…. Glass houses, Steve.
Go ahead, Steve; Tell us how you’d not snap up a chance to work for Obama, were it offered. Tell us how this defense of Obama, in your new position, to say nothing of your history, doesn’t give us a clue as to which direction YOU lean. Go ahead, Steve, tell us about how you’re unbiased. I’ll call you a liar to your face. More, I’ll do it with your own cheerleading. Example. [2]
Honestly, the more I consider this, the more frustrating it becomes. For one thing, Dems, no matter how competitive the primary, should simply refrain from suggesting the Republican candidate is preferable. We’re supposed to be on the same team.
Who is ‘WE”, Steve?
Spare us the pretense of objectivity, Steve… you don’t do it very well.