Joint New York Times/Atlantic Monthly Death/Washington Post/AP Spiral Watch

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times:

Bayh, Kaine and Dodd Are Out; Obama’s Announcement on Saturday: As Mr. Obama sought to capitalize on the anticipation building around the disclosure of his new political partner, his campaign was reveling in the collection of tens of thousands of cellphone numbers, with people rushing to sign up to be notified of the announcement through a text message...

In email, Mark Nickolas of http://www.politicalbase.com points out that the campaign claims three million people have signed up to receive the text message.

And Mark Ambinder of The Atlantic Monthly:

Marc Ambinder: Says an Obama aide:  "It's [McCain's] Bush grocery scanner moment - but far worse."... [T]he word "John McCain" means a lot of different things, but rich isn't one of them.... If McCain's gaffe had been somehow age-related, then they'd have an easier time...

John McCain and his wife spend more money--$270,000--on servants in a year than the average American's house is worth. There may be 4,000 households in America today richer than John and Cindy McCain. There may not.

To say "'John McCain' means a lot of different things, but rich isn't one of them" shows an extraordinary degree of ignorance about America, and about John McCain.

And Ron Fournier of AP:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence: In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.... 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...

To whom Lindsay Beyerstein has the only possible response:

Majikthise : Ron Fournier: If Obama were confident, he would have picked a ficus tree:

Because nothing says confidence like picking a VP who adds nothing to your ticket. A photosynthesizing running mate would have been a decisive break from the status quo, not to mention a source of fresh air. By picking a ficus tree, Obama would have signaled his readiness to win the entire election by himself.

Of course, such a bold selection by Obama would have telegraphed arrogance to many observers, especially Ron Fournier.

In that last, Lindsay is referring to:

Kevin Drum Steve Benen: In March, for example, Fournier wrote an item -- whether it was a news article or an opinion piece was unclear -- that said Barack Obama is "bordering on arrogance," "a bit too cocky," and that the senator and his wife "ooze a sense of entitlement." To substantiate the criticism, Fournier pointed to ... not a whole lot. It was basically the Republicans' "uppity" talking point in the form of an AP article...

Meanwhile, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post says that John McCain pays no attention to what his chief advisors tell him--and that that is a good thing:

From Matthew UYglesias:

Matthew Yglesias: Jim Lehrer and Ruth Marcus talk about John McCain’s lobbying ties to the Georgian government:

JIM LEHRER: Yes. What about the McCain lobbyist who lobbied for Georgia and is now McCain’s number-one foreign affairs adviser? Is that going to come up to bite McCain more, do you think?

RUTH MARCUS: So the Obama campaign hopes. I look at this on two different levels. On the substantive level, anybody who knows Senator McCain knows that he would have the same views on Georgia no matter what lobbyist came to talk to him. He feels this one in his bones. And he wasn’t going to — this is not a shift in position because some lobbyist came and whispered in his ear.

Matt is dumbstruck by:

[T]he extraordinary... benefit of the doubt that John McCain... get[s] from the press.... Normally reporters are ruthless about the motives behind politicians’ decisions, but everything McCain does is above question.... [I]t’s possible that America’s interests vis-à-vis Russia are identical to Georgia’s interests, but that doesn’t seem very likely to me....

His commenters:

El Cid Says: August 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm.... I am surprised she didn’t go on to mention that those were awesome, America-serving bones, the kind of bones that not just any politician would have, not the kind of ordinary politician to get involved in some cheap banking scandal in the 1980s, but a towering, magical figure, a Leader whose bones cry out to us of honor, truth, and Maverickness.

Nell Says: August 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm: “Whispered in his ear”? How about: was employed as his major foreign policy advisor?

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Don't trust them. Don't patronize their advertisers. Don't believe them. Listen, instead, to people with substantive expertise and knowledge trying to convey that knowledge rather than the ignorant trying to score points with their owners, editors, and sources.

Comments

[Leila Abu-Saba]

That Fournier "analysis" was the last straw for me. I saw it early this morning and immediately migrated my primary email account of twelve years from Yahoo to GMail.

This is momentous for me... I've relied on Yahoo for continuity of email address through one half of my adult working life. I'm one of those freelance people and have been since 1996. Using my college's alumni email has been too much of a hassle. I have not wanted to leave Yahoo mail.

But they don't allow me to turn off the wretched AP news wire feed that sticks to my inbox. I am utterly sick of being forced to read crap AP news propaganda every time I check my mail. I'd already changed my home page to avoid the My Yahoo home, but now I've decided - screw 'em - I'm leaving Yahoo mail completely.

Months ago I quit going to news.yahoo.com because of its AP feeds. I am experimenting with news.alltop.com and its siblings. I also use news.google.com

I don't believe that writing letters to AP management will do a darned thing. My puny email account won't matter, either, but I can boycott AP by refusing my eyeballs and clicks wherever I can. It may be trivial, but I even find myself avoiding AP links on the NY Times - I don't need to read it, I'll wait for the real reporters.

The netroots need to organize around boycotting AP, especially online sources.

[Measure for Measure]

Just removed AP from my iGoogle page. No loss: I had not clicked on it for months.

Just added McClatchy to my iGoogle page. Eh, I'll add the Manchester Guardian as well.

Google's top stories remains, as does the Financial Times, Reuters and the BBC.

I'm keeping the New York Times: sorry, but some of their work is serious. I haven't canceled my Atlantic subscription and don't plan to.

[Martinius]

Ambinder isn't saying McCain isn't rich, only that people don't think of him as rich. You elided the sentence that provides context: "Also: the word 'John McCain' means a lot of different things, but rich isn't one of them. _So Obama and the Democrats must use this moment to convince Americans in real time to think differently about McCain._"

[Leila Abu-Saba]

I'm keeping NY Times -- but they clearly mark AP-written articles on their home page and I avoid those as much as possible.

I hadn't explored iGoogle - will do so now, thank you.

[athEIst]

Cheap banking scandal? Lincoln Savings was one of the bigger pieces of the Savings and Loan scandal that cost several HUNDRED BILLION when paid off in the 90's. The Lincoln investors however received nothing. They were wrongly told their Lincoln bonds were deposit-insured.

[bigTom]

Brad needs to realize that there are two realities. The external reality, which Brad spends most of his waking hours trying to discern, and the subconscious emotional reality buried deep within the mind of the average voter. The later can be decisive when it comes to winning elections. Whenever a columnist describes a reality of the second type, which is at odds, with the former type, Brad blames the columnist. In this case, the columnist is just the messenger, it is the sloppy thinking habits of the vast bulk of the people that are the real culprit. So, when Marc talks about, McCain not being seen as rich, he is talking about the later reality, and his observation that just maybe, the too many houses to count thing is a way to change that reality.

[alimta]

Martinius is right. You misinterpreted Ambinder.

[Slocum]

"So Obama and the Democrats must use this moment to convince Americans in real time to think differently about McCain._"

They can try, of course. But so far McCain's remark comes off more as indifference to his domestic arrangements than anything else. Here's a short piece on McCain's Sedona house:

http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/dc_home_tours_other/article/0,1793,HGTV_3460_1384975,00.html

Or scroll down for pictures in the house and on the deck here:

http://mccainblogette.com/postings/082208_1727.shtml

Doesn't look quite baronial, does it? I mean look at the photos in the kitchen. Pretty ordinary.

Democrats can try to make more of the houses comment, but it seems like it just provides an reason for John & Cindy to invite some more press over for another BBQ and bring their cameras so they can show Americans how they live.

In fact, if I were McCain, I'd do exactly that...and then challenge Obama to show off his home for the American people, too. I can't quite imagine Obama grilling ribs in backyard in a baseball cap, can you? Or seeming natural and comfortable if he did. It's more about culture than money, and Democrats do seem to have a hell of a time figuring that out. You can be loaded and spend the money on a bigger, nicer version of what millions of Americans have (or aspire to) in a way that shares and validates their tastes and desires. Or you can spend your money in a way that appears to be an attempt to set yourself above and apart (see John Kerry).

[Michael Turner]

Thanks, bigTom. "The Unreality-Based Community" -- I like it!

Making "McCain=Rich Swine" happen in the minds of American voters isn't going to be so easy. To many Americans, he's the guy who traced a crucifix in the dirt in a North Vietnamese POW camp. If, decades later, he's got so many houses that he's lost count, why, that's just yet more evidence that God has been on his side in his lifelong triumph over adversity!

It's the difference between a mere picture -- McCain fumbling over the number of houses -- and a compelling story, however simplistic. GOP hitmen are pretty good at the latter. McCain's campaign fired right back with the Obama-Reszko ad. That's not a clear, simple story, it's more like "There's this nasty episode, I'll fill you in on the details later, but lemme tell you, it's bad, and here's the juicier bits...."

What's the score after this exchange? In the Unreality-Based Community, maybe not so good for Obama.

McCain -- "After all his suffering and travails, God favored McCain so much that he can actually lose track sometimes about how lucky he's been."

Obama -- "Nice house, eh? He's richer than you thought, and there were some deals with the Devil along the way."

This kind of thing is hard to fight.

[Cranky Observer]

> In fact, if I were McCain, I'd do exactly that...and
> then challenge Obama to show off his home for the
> American people, too. I can't quite imagine Obama
> grilling ribs in backyard in a baseball cap, can you?
> Or seeming natural and comfortable if he did.

I take it you are not aware that has already been done, videoed, and aired? Plenty of footage of Obama doing stuff in his neighborhood with his kids as well. Whole family seems fairly "comfortable", whatever that means, to me.

Cranky

[Slocum]

"I take it you are not aware that has already been done, videoed, and aired?"

Link please? I'm not much of TV-watcher, so if the video isn't on the web, I haven't seen it. And if you google "Obama house" it's pretty much the Tony Rezko story.

Maybe my assumptions about Obama's house are wrong, but they're based on having seen the insides of the houses of many well-off leftish academics. They would never decorate with Cindy McCain's 'kitchy' Americana -- instead you'll find modernist paintings (probably originals rather than prints) and African tribal masks and that sort of thing on the walls. And if they served ribs (which they probably wouldn't) the ribs would be organic, free-range, grass-fed ribs from Whole Foods, not Costco ribs packed in heat-sealed plastic.

Maybe you can easily imagine Obama in a ballcap and apron cracking jokes and cooking up a heap of ribs, but it strikes me as out of character. Of course this is in no way a necessary qualification for a president, but I think it's a mistake for Obama to try to turn the focus on the domestic lives of the candidates and assume that most Americans will conclude that he and Michelle live 'more like them' and share their cultural tastes and values.

[macheath]

And Ruth Marcus forgot to add that not only does John McCain "feel that in his bones," but those bones were in a prison cell in Hanoi!

[howard]

slocum, at this late date, aren't you embarassed pretending that you know something about obama's (or mccain's) character? if not, you should be: you don't know them. you don't know their characters. you don't know their lifestyles. you don't know anything other than simple-minded stereotypes that you've typed out for us this fine day.

as for reality, i don't care what mccain cooks in his backyard (although i do care that reporters love to eat there), but from a political standpoint, a guy not knowing how many houses he owns is a disaster. you can tell that because the mccain camp answer is "the poor guy was a pow."

[donna]

But McCain was a POW for five years -- he didn't have a kitchen table to sit at -- how could he be rich? ;^)

God, I'm sick of it. Gee, my mom was mean to me, does that excuse all the crap I've done in my life, too? Shut up about it already, John!

[PeterE]

"Don't trust them. ... Listen, instead, to people with substantive expertise and knowledge trying to convey that knowledge rather than the ignorant trying to score points with their owners, editors, and sources." I agree as probably do 100 times the readers of your blog. That's perhaps 10 million. What about all the other Americans? How do you make them savvy?

[Slocum]

"slocum, at this late date, aren't you embarassed pretending that you know something about obama's (or mccain's) character? if not, you should be: you don't know them. you don't know their characters. you don't know their lifestyles."

Obviously, I don't know either candidate personally -- what I'm talking about is how their lifestyles will be *perceived* by voters.

"...as for reality, i don't care what mccain cooks in his backyard (although i do care that reporters love to eat there), but from a political standpoint, a guy not knowing how many houses he owns is a disaster."

A disaster? I really doubt it will work out that way. I do know that Democrats were incredibly frustrated that Kerry was thought of as an elitist while the same tag would never stick to Bush, despite the Crawford ranch and the Connecticut blue-blood, and the Kennebunkport family 'cottage'. And so now, four years later, the Dems will try yet again with McCain and his Sedona ranch. And, I predict, they will be puzzled again when the gambit doesn't work. But we'll see.

[howard]

slocum, you'll understand my confusion when you spend your 8:24 talking about "my" (your) assumptions and now you say, no, really, you were talking about the great unwashed (whom, for the record, you don't know either).

as for disaster, you can tell how the mccain camp perceives it by how they are responding: if they thought it was no big deal, they would say it's no big deal. instead, what they're saying is "mccain was a pow so it doesn't matter how many houses he owns" and "obama has a nice house too, so what's the big deal."

the nature of the political issue, i repeat, is that mccain doesn't know how many homes he owns, not whether or not he's rich (which is, of course, a separate political issue). it won't, by itself, decide the election (nothing, by itself, decides the election), but as i say, if the rove thugs around mccain (who live entirely in a world of political atmospherics) are floundering around with the kinds of responses they are, we can draw reasonable conclusions....

[Slocum]

"....slocum, you'll understand my confusion when you spend your 8:24 talking about "my" (your) assumptions and now you say, no, really, you were talking about the great unwashed (whom, for the record, you don't know either)."

You're getting yourself in a huff. I happens I know a couple professors at the University of Chicago. I know more profs in the college town where I live. I have a pretty good idea of what they eat, wear, and drive, and hang on their walls, where they go on vacation, etc. Perhaps the profs in Obama's neighborhood (and the Obamas themselves) are nothing like them ... but I really doubt it. And I'm not saying that I don't like these folks -- I do. And I wouldn't decorate my house like Cindy McCain does either.

As for knowing average Americans--I certainly know my share and am as well-grounded to speculate on how they'd evaluate McCain's vs Obama's lifestyles as anyone. I have a high degree of confidence that very few Americans would feel that the photos of McCain's Sedona house represent extravagance (I'm pretty positive that they wouldn't). Just as I doubt that most voters will think McCain's "I'll have to get back to you" answer means what the Obama camp thinks it means. But we'll see.

I'm still waiting for the 'Obamas at home' article or video link, BTW.

"as for disaster, you can tell how the mccain camp perceives it by how they are responding: if they thought it was no big deal, they would say it's no big deal. instead, what they're saying is 'mccain was a pow so it doesn't matter how many houses he owns' and 'obama has a nice house too, so what's the big deal.'"

That's not response I saw from McCain in person. And from the 'camp' the response I saw wasn't 'Obama has a nice house too' but rather 'Obama's nice house was bought with help from a corrupt Chicago political deal-maker -- now a convicted felon -- who was Obama's long-time associate and biggest early campaign contributor'. Not quite the same thing as 'Obama has a nice house too, is it?'

"the nature of the political issue, i repeat, is that mccain doesn't know how many homes he owns, not whether or not he's rich"

He knows that he spends time in a condo in DC, a condo in Phoenix, and the ranch in Sedona. But Cindy McCain has also bought other condos for relatives to use. I would not be surprised if he did not know all the details on those. I also understand that McCain personally owns none of them -- that his name is not on the titles, and a pre-nup keeps their finances separate. Is the right answer 'zero' (because McCain personally owns none of them), or 'three' (because of the three residences where he actually spends time) or 'eight/whatever' (including the units Cindy McCain bought for other uses and where he never lives)?

This is obviously an involved explanation and those predisposed to dislike McCain will have none of it -- but they weren't going to vote for him anyway. Will the undecideds react the same way?

[derrida derider]

To get elected you have to appeal to the heart, not the head, precisely because swing voters are the most woolly-headed and least engaged segment of the population. Those interested in and able to think through issues usually have plumped for the left or the right early in their adulthood.

The reporter's right - the McCain "rich swine" line aint gonna play because he doesn't look like a rich swine. The only way I can see you might make it fly is to link it to his tax policies (ie say he's looking after his buddies who are rich swine).

[OdinofAzgard]

Fournier is a partisan hack, of course. Maybe Obama is confident he's going to win the election and his primary concern was selectiing someone who'll be able to help shepherd legislation through Congress.

[OdinofAzgard]

"I think it's a mistake for Obama to try to turn the focus on the domestic lives of the candidates and assume that most Americans will conclude that he and Michelle live 'more like them' and share their cultural tastes and values."

I disagree. I doubt the general public will make a distinction between who in the McCain household owns what, they'll simply see a couple that pays $270,000 a year for domestic help in several houses, a candidate with $500 shoes who thinks $5 million is the dividing line between middle class and rich, with an economic advisor who says American is a nation of whiners.

Even worse for McCain is the comparison of how the two candidates came by their money, keeping alive the "cheating-on-the-wife story, the kept man who signed a pre-nup story, and perhaps even the Cindy-the-drug-addict thief story.

McCain's already begun taking media fire for overusing the POW cred. If that snowballs with the stories of his cross-in-the-dirt lie and the Mother-Theresa-gave-us-our-baby lie, Mr. Straight Talk is probably have all his flip flops dragged into the limelight and his reputation and candidacy will go down the tubes.

[OdinofAzgard]

And Lou Dobbs is a dishonest partisan hack. Saw him today whining about how Obama has had more stories in the
press than McCain and asserting that it showed media bias favoring Obama. Dobbs is bright enough to know that some of those stories were negative ones and simply comparing numbers of stories printed isn't valid evidence of bias, so the only rational conclusion is that Dobbs is dishonestly propagandizing for the McCain campaign.

[George Darroch]

Obama-Ficus 08! The _real_ change nomination for this fall.

[nick]

I think words like "servants" should be used frequently--"McCain's quarter-million dollar yearly servant bill"--if regular fuzzy-thinking folks imagine themselves sharing a culture with John McCain, as slocum argues, conjuring up images of an extensive domestic staff will help dispel this fantasy....