I was doing my rounds today, checkin’ the old Google Reader, and happened upon an AP analysis that really confused the hell outta me. I normally like the AP, but this piece on Obama’s choice of Biden struck me as… peculiar.
He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate – the ultimate insider – rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t even make his short list.
The picks say something profound about Obama: For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn’t beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative – a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.
The entire article is almost frightening in its obvious bias. It’s entirely based on the premise that since Obama didn’t pick someone with his exact level of experience and lockstep with his policies, it’s highlighting his weaknesses and showing a lack of commitment or something. Then the article twists in with the almost glaringly Rovian tactic of complimenting Biden in order to further attack Obama (remember how nice the right was toward Hillary near the end?). So I was a bit suspicious.
Turns out, my suspicion was well-founded. In fact, there’s been a whole mess of controversy surrounding the author that passed me by entirely. Ron Fournier, as Media Matters brilliantly outlines, has been in the GOP’s pocket for a while now, but his association to John McCain is beyond the pale.
Politico, which manages to surprise me constantly, noted that Fournier actually had a job offer from the McCain camp, that could extend to the potential McCain White House.
In October 2006, the McCain team approached Fournier about joining the fledgling operation, according to a source with knowledge of the talks. In the months that followed, said a source, Fournier spoke about the job possibility with members of McCain’s inner circle, including political aides Mark Salter, John Weaver and Rick Davis.
Salter, who remains a top McCain adviser, said in an e-mail to Politico that Fournier was considered for “a senior advisory role” in communications.
It’s not exactly out of line to suggest that Fournier could find himself with quite the cushy job if McCain wins, and his nigh-hysterically partisan articles (which is all he writes) are evidence of one of two things:
- He’s cozying up with McCain as he did Rove, compromising pretty much every journalistic credo.
- He’s so viciously partisan that the McCain camp loves him.
Neither option is the kind of quality that should be writing for the Associated Press. Much as I love Mike Malloy or Sam Seder, they have no business wearing the mask of an unbiased journalist. And it would be downright stupid if Obama’s campaign advisor was writing articles “analyzing” the race. Either they’re inherently biased or they’ve got a conflict of interest.
But there he is. C&L has some contact info, I’d suggest you go there.
