Isn't it outrageous?
Outrageous that Barack Obama hired a guy who received favorable home loans from Countrywide Financial to help sift through his vice-presidential prospects? And outrageous that John McCain, when asked by NBC's Matt Lauer this morning if he could estimate when American troops will return from Iraq, responded by saying "No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties"? If you're employed by one of the campaigns, then yes, you are probably outraged--breathlessly, eye-poppingly, histrionically outraged. For the past 48 hours, Team McCain has hammered Obama for the rank hypocrisy of letting Washington insider Jim Johnson anywhere near his "change our politics" campaign. Meanwhile, Team Obama has spent the day slamming McCain for being “confused” and “unbelievably out of touch” when it comes to the war and American troops in Iraq. Likewise, if you're a hardcore partisan, you probably think that your candidate's opponent has finally exposed himself as a unredeemable subhuman slimeball--Obama for suggesting that the Johnson attacks are a "game" after once attacking Hillary Clinton for her connections to Countrywide, and McCain for failing to recognize that, as Obama backer John Kerry put it, "it’s the most important thing in the world when [the troops] come home." So it goes.
But let's assume, instead, that you're a normal human being. In that case, I imagine it's hard not to see all the outrage as the most outrageous thing of all. Truth be told, getting a good deal on a home loan--a deal that was apparently within standard industry practice--doesn't compromise an individual's ability (or moral right) to evaluate potential running mates, and it certainly doesn't corrupt an entire campaign. And it's totally ridiculous to claim that McCain, who knows more about the pain of war than any politician in America, was telling Lauer it doesn't matter when U.S. troops come home--instead of saying, as his campaign has rightfully pointed out, that what's "not too important" is his ability to estimate when they will. Of course, McCainiacs will disagree with my assessment of Obama's error, and Obamaniacs will rail against my reading of McCain's mistake--a tidy divide that only proves how fully partisanship skews their perspectives.
I'll fully admit that once the campaigns--and the MSM, which is always hungry for "breaking news"--amplify these blips into full-blown battles, all kinds of absurdity ensues. Today, for example, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice cited McCain's "pattern of confusing the basic facts" on Iraq, repeating the word "confused" a half dozen times in the course of a few minutes and insinuating that McCain is too old to be president; if that's not a pure example of "politics as usual," then I don't know what is (as I've written before). Meanwhile, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded to the news that Obama had cut Johnson loose by claiming that "America can't afford a president who flip-flops on key questions in the course of 24 hours," as if cutting Johnson loose wasn't exactly what Bounds and Co. have spent two full days demanding that Obama do. But this silliness is a reaction to the original, overblown outrage--a playing of the game. Fact is, there was no real reason (other than cheap political point scoring) to start these spats in the first place.
That said, here we are. Empty, manufactured outrage is still the story of the day--and I'm covering it yet again.
Outrageous, right?
