08:28 pm
Is The New York Times Channeling Ron Fournier?
My colleagues in the progosphere has, quite rightly, called out Ron Fournier, the Associated Press’s hack-in-chief, for his extraordinarily awful piece today that argued Obama’s choice of Biden demonstrates a “lack of confidence.”
Now that Fournier is completely discredited, they might want to turn their attention to The Caucus, The New York Times‘ politics blog. In roughly ninety minutes this afternoon, it published not one, not two, but three separate pieces that indirectly criticize Obama’s choice of Biden.
Check out the following posts, all of which went up between 4:29 and 6:00 pm today.
First at 4:29 came a summary by Michael Falcone of blog commentary on the choice. Falcone describes the left’s reaction to Biden as “underwhelming, conventional, even boring — perhaps at best, pragmatic.” That description is based on four bloggers — Paul Rossberg at Open Left, Jerome Armstrong and Jonathan Singer at MyDD, and David Jones at Mother Jones.
Although it is true that Rossberg is not happy with Biden and Armstrong is at best ambivalent, the other two actually described the pick in terms far stronger than Falcone describes. First, Singer:
Biden is a pick that I’m decidedly comfortable with, one that brings a whole lot to the Democratic ticket — even beyond the foreign policy credibility that the media is so overwhelmingly focusing on — one that reinforces the important message of the Democrats being in touch on the economy while John McCain, George W. Bush, and the Republican Party are completely out of touch.
Now, Corn:
Biden is a smart legislator who has shown that he can suppress his own faults when he must. He had a good campaign this past year as a presidential candidate. He won few votes but performed well at the debates and demonstrated he could keep his infamous verbosity under control. At the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, while other Democrats got bogged down in legal jargon practically indecipherable to the average person, Biden peppered Roberts with straightforward questions about Roberts’ claim that he merely wanted to be an umpire on the bench who calls constitutional balls and strikes. “Much as I respect your metaphor,” Biden countered, “it’s not very apt, because you get to determine the strike zone. The founders never set a strike zone.” It was the best moment of the hearing.
On foreign policy, Biden has always been an activist, thinking and engaging with the issues and crises generating headlines and those that don’t make the evening news. He has a fancy for cooking up proposals. And even if he devises ideas that may raise objections–such as his plan to partition Iraq–he often deserves credit for the effort.
To be fair to Falcone, Corn does go on to say that Biden is conventional, and that there is plenty of grist for the GOP mill. But that’s not “underwhelming,” but rather thoughtful and balanced in a way that the Caucus does not even approach.
Furthermore, there were plenty of others — Ezra Klein, E.J. Dionne, and Steve Clemons all come to mind — who were enthusiastic about or actively promoting Biden. Falcone’s post makes it look like all progressives are unhappy with the pick (and that all conservatives are salivating at the opportunity to pick Biden apart). That, of course, is ridiculous on both counts — all you have to do is read Andrew Sullivan, a conservative supporting Obama, to realize just the degree to which Falcone is creating a false dichotomy.
If this were the only post, I could live with it. But the Caucus was just getting warmed up. At 5:42 pm came a link to a Times-generated list of the 79 times that Biden and Obama did not vote the same way in the time since Obama has been in the Senate. There is no comparable list of 799 times (799!) they voted the same way. So the Caucus (and the Times more broadly) chose to focus exclusively on the few occasions the two men disagreed rather than the overwhelming majority of times where they did.
Then if that were not enough, at 6:00 pm came a piece by John Broder entitled “On Obama-Biden Chemistry, Clues are Scarce.” Here’s the “evidence” Broder uses to prove his thesis:
In his introductory remarks, Mr. Obama spoke respectfully of Mr. Biden’s record of public service, and reverently of the personal trials he has endured. But there were few notes of personal connection, and no anecdotes about moments they had shared in the Senate or on the campaign trail. . . .
The Obama campaign was stingy with details about how Mr. Obama came to choose Mr. Biden as his electoral partner. We do not know (yet) of any secret rendezvous or late-night telephone calls in which the two men bonded; no stories of how their wives sneaked off to the Four Seasons for coffee. All we know is that Mr. Obama called Mr. Biden on Thursday night and offered him the job. Mr. Biden obviously accepted, as he said in several interviews in recent weeks that he would do if asked.
So let me get this straight. Since nobody at the Times sat in on the phone calls, we have no evidence of a personal connection. And the time that the two men spent working together on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I think we can assume included conversations that did not take place in front of the cameras, doesn’t count. And since there are no wacky or hilarious anecdotes, there must be no chemistry.
I’m sorry, but if I were Obama, the key point I would be making is that Biden is uniquely qualified to be my VP — and to be President if necessary. I would address his qualifications, his biography, and his reputation. I would not focus on the fact that he’s a great guy — even if I think he is.
The funny thing is that Obama did talk about Biden’s personality — and the Caucus even quoted him:
I have seen this man work. I have sat with him as he chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and been by his side on the campaign trail. And I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it. He’s that unique public servant who is at home in a bar in Cedar Rapids and the corridors of the Capitol; in the VFW hall in Concord, and at the center of an international crisis.
That sounds pretty personal to me. But apparently, Broder won’t be happy unless he can find evidence that the two men bonded over doppio cappuccinos at the Starbucks at 4th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., SE.
Individually, the three pieces are barely worth a second look. But taken together, especially when published so close to one another, they begin to look like an agenda.
So what’s going on here? Is this New York calling out a Philly rival? Are they unhappy that Obama cold dissed their home girl Hillary?
Or maybe, just maybe, they’re angry that Obama managed to keep the choice secret; and their competitors beat them to the story.