When the Only Tool You’ve Got is a Hammer…

…Everything looks like a nail. The Politico reaches new depths of transparently insipid coverage.

There is, nonetheless, a political logic to vacationing in Hawaii. Part of Obama’s success was always his authenticity. Aside from some wince-inducing bowling and sipping of beer, he rarely attempted to be somebody he wasn’t. He didn’t hoist a shotgun or pretend to be a hunter; on the other end of the spectrum, he never pretended to have other politicians’ gift for feeling individuals’ pain, or cry at town halls. Vacationing in Hawaii, for no reason except the obvious ones, is good politics because that authenticity is, these days, perhaps the most valuable political commodity. It will be interesting to see if Hawaii remains the “Western White House” after he takes office.

How about it’s because he spent a great deal of his childhood there and it’s a fantastic place to spend a winter holiday?Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

On a related note, how long gone is our society’s moral compass when acting earnestly is read not simply as genuine, but as an act that projects earnestness? Can anyone just be something anymore?

More Politico

In the ongoing church-gate scandal, Ben Smith sarcastically points out that Politico’s coverage of Obama’s church habits was “so boring that HuffPo’s media writer was compelled to spill another 776 words on the subject.” Of course, Jason Linkins wasn’t writing about the story itself, but rather Politico’s insipid coverage, which predictably has created a minor controversy. And this was precisely Politico’s intention.

Ben Smith can demure all he likes about simply “reporting the facts,” but the story wouldn’t have been covered had it not been expected to produce interest in one way or another. The story wasn’t an invasion of privacy as Judis asserted, it was just garden-order mischief. Ben Smith’s coy protestations just make it more annoying. It’s like that one friend you have who refuses under any circumstances to admit an argument is lost, and indeed, is emboldened by your frustration.

Context

So yesterday I posted, exasperated that Ben Smith at Politico would post noting that Obama did not attend church this past Sunday. Apparently, John Judis at TNR and Media Matters picked up on the post as well, with somewhat less restrained commentary. Ben Smith responds:

If nothing else, the tone of the responses reflect how defensive the left still is on faith. The Media Matters post was four times longer than my item, and I don’t really think that a single story and a blog item constitute “such a big deal.”

But on the substance, there was nothing in my blog item or our story to suggest we, or anyone, consider skipping church an “offense against God.” And unlike Judis, Obama doesn’t seem to consider his faith private: He talked about it all the time on the campaign trail, wrote about it in searing detail, and campaigned on it before Rick Warren’s megachurch in a forum broadcast live on CNN. Meanwhile, hs campaign hinged for a moment this spring on whether or not he’d been at Trinity for specific sermons. So it doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable to note his habits of observance.

Look, I think Ben Smith has a point — both Judis’ item and the Media Matters’ post both of knee-jerk defensive impulses, but Smith basically misses the point: What difference does it make whether or not Obama regularly attended church? Why is this even being reported in the first place? Just because something is available to be reported doesn’t mean it it’s not an unproductive waste of space.

And to engage the argument on its merits — as Media Matters points out — neither Jonathan Martin’s original story nor Ben Smith’s blog item bother to mention that George W. Bush wasn’t a frequent church goer himself. Now, this shouldn’t be viewed through the lens of “fairness” (i.e., that George Bush got a free pass from the media on this), but rather that devoid of such details the reader is left with the impression that Obama’s churchgoing habits are unusual. Now, there would be nothing wrong with this if the issue pertained to some banal topic like working out, but religion is a highly volatile topic, especially for liberals, who are not uncommonly attacked from the right wing media as secular fascists. Thus, in terms of the public discourse surrounding Democrats and their faith, the uncontextualized assertion that Obama isn’t a frequent churchgoer does seem to be relatively negative, and my guess is that Ben Smith knows it. After all, this sentence oozes with passive-aggressivism:

The Media Matters post was four times longer than my item, and I don’t really think that a single story and a blog item constitute “such a big deal.”

To use a sports analogy, Ben Smith’s post was tantamount to an article reporting that C.C. Sabathia had just left Fourth Meal at Taco Bell. This, of course, is reported fact, but it sounds a whole lot different if you mention that the rest of his team also just left Fourth Meal.

Robert Gates Uncertainty Principle

Sorry to keep writing about this topic, but it comes up too frequently:

The most likely Republican for a top Obama post, based on published speculation and reporting within his transition team this weekend, is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who might keep his job in at least the opening phase of the new administration. Obama has said foreign policy is the area most in need of more bipartisanship, and the likely appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) leaves few other openings.

A Gates reappointment would send a message of caution and continuity within national security circles — not exactly the message that Obama’s most ardent anti-Iraq war supporters are yearning for.

The reappointment of Gates would be neither tokenism nor a message of “caution and continuity,” at least not with respect to the Bush Administration’s neoconservative ideology. Gates is closely associated with Brent Scowcroft, a notable critic of George W. Bush, an informal Obama adviser, and former national security adviser under Bush I. Matt Yglesias is right to note that cooperation with Republican realists actually counters some of the views advanced by Hillary Clinton during the primary. There’s been a lot of talk of the disappointment of these suspiciously unsourced “anti-Iraq war supporters” (by the way, wouldn’t a better way to say that be “Iraq war critics”?) have been disgruntled about the Clinton pick (rightly, to a degree), so if they are also disgruntled about the apparent Gates nod, they don’t know what they are talking about. But wait, this is Jonathan Martin we’re talking about, so more illogic can’t be far around the corner…

But it would hardly signal a dramatically new style of partisan bridge-building. For one, Gates is not a sharply partisan figure. Before becoming president of Texas A&M, he was a lifelong national security official, spending most of his career in the CIA and heading the spy agency under the first President George Bush. For another, he almost certainly would be a transition figure, rather than one expected by the public or colleagues to stay put or be a decisive policymaking voice for a full term.

Nor would there be novelty in Obama reaching to a moderate figure from the opposition party to lead the Pentagon. That was exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1997 when he tapped then-Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine) to be his second-term defense secretary.

So let me get this straight, Gates is a moderate, so picking him as Secretary of Defense wouldn’t signal bipartisanship, but at the same time, he’s not a moderate figure from the opposition party that can serve as a token? And war critics have been disappointed in the Clinton pick because she has been a Liberal Hawk, and yet, they’re also disappointed that someone from the Realist camp will serve as a Defense Secretary?

When did Politico start applying quantum mechanics to political appointments? (And on a somewhat related and completely immature note…lawlz. Sorry, mom).

Really?

Jonathan Martin from Politico:

While President Bush and Sen. McCain — not to mention House leaders — couldn’t reel in the House Republicans needed to pass the bailout, a key constituency over which Barack Obama has considerable sway also opposed the bill.

More members of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose heavily black districts include many of Obama’s most ardent supporters, opposed the bill than supported it.

Few of these members are in, or will ever have, tough re-elections.

Obama, it seems, could have helped deliver some of these votes if he had been more invested in the bill.  

Please Jonathan, tell me why it is that Barack Obama has “considerably sway” in the Congressional Black Caucus? I’d really like you to elaborate in a way that doesn’t cost you your job. 

For what it’s worth, Martin somehow fails to champion John McCain’s enormous success in securing a whopping zero votes from the Arizona delegation, with whom, you know, it might be reasonable to expect he has some sway. Of course, Martin doesn’t note this, because if he did, he’d probably have to point out that blacks are disproportinately likely foreclosure candidates and Arizona ranks 8th in foreclosures in the country and just maybe, these Representatives were seeking more foreclosure protection for their constituents and not disobeying the universal axiom of shared black conciousness.

In addition, it seems McCain had quite a bit of trouble rallying the troops in the Congressional White Caucus Republican Party, with whom John McCain claimed to have so much say he took credit for the bill’s passage this morning, before it kind of awkwardly failed.

More Bang Up Reporting from Politico

Jonathan Martin reports:

Sarah Palin reminded Pennsylvania voters of one of Obama’s most notorious gaffes, at a Tuesday rally in Lancaster, reports Lisa Lerer

“Here in Pennsylvania, we just don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening and then turns around and talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and their guns when those people aren’t listening,” said Palin to the crowd of more than 5,000. “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Lancaster and then maybe another way in San Francisco.”

If it sounds familiar, it’s because it’s basically the exact same thing she said in her acceptance speech, which incidentally is the same speech she gives on the stump. Why was this reported as news?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.