A Rather Revealing Piece from the MSM

Fred Hiatt is, in my opinion, a rather typical MSM pundit. It is not too hard to tell where his loyalties lie in this election. That said, he wrote a piece that was rather revealing in the manner in which he attempted to defend Barack Obama. He starts it with the boiler plate attack of the moment by the MSM on John McCain.

As a week of name-calling and rapid responses faded into history, political practitioners seemed to agree that John McCain had diminished himself and his straight-talk brand with negative ads and petty misrepresentations. Yet, surprisingly, a consensus also seemed to be forming that Barack Obama, at least tactically, had not come out on top.

Hiatt doesn't seem to mention which attacks were petty, and he certainly places a lot of weight behind the opinion of so called "political practioners"however this sort of analysis has become the M.O. of the MSM in the last week. What's more interesting is what Hiatt says next.

I was more struck by the preamble to that comment: by Obama's statements that McCain and the Republican Party are so bankrupt in policies that they can win only by spreading fear .

This resonates with an article of faith among many Democratic believers that has been so long and deeply held it is hardly considered noteworthy: that Democratic policies are so obviously superior, and so much more in the interest of a majority of voters, that only some form of chicanery can explain Republican election victories.

Mr. Hiatt would likely be surprised to know that just about everyone with a firm political philosophy finds those of the opposite philosophy to be an individual bankrupt of ideas. It isn't merely those that occupy the space on the left that are convinced the other side ideologically bankrupt and can only win through underhanded and dirty tactics. As I always say, in any debate both sides think they are right. If I thought the other position was correct I would take it. No one takes a position because they don't think it is wrong. In other words, what Barack Obama did wasn't merely old school for liberals but frankly old school for all politicians.

Then, he says something even more revealing.

Middle-class voters who believe passionately that life begins at conception, for example, may find it insulting to be told that if they vote for a candidate who opposes abortion and favors tax cuts for the rich, they are being bamboozled. Even middle-class voters making their decision primarily on economic grounds may resent an assumption that they should vote for whoever promises the most tax breaks for their bracket, rather than weighing arguments about economic growth and societal benefit. This year, voters may not want to hear that concerns about Obama's relative paucity of national and international experience must stem from fear of his race or unusual name.

Now, maybe Hiatt doesn't realize it, but in effect, he just admitted that in his own opinion Obama's tax policy is nothing more than class warfare. After all, if a voter should "weigh arguments about economic growth and societal benefits" over merely someone that promises them something at the expense of someone else, isn't that statement in and of itself an indictment of Obama's tax plan. Of course,I have been saying for a while that Obama's tax plan is a political motivated bit of class warfare not rooted in any good policy. It's just good to get someone in the MSM admit it as well, even if they didn't mean it. Furthermore, it's good to know that some in the MSM recognize that there are those out there that simply see life as an important issue and aren't scared into voting for a candidate through demonized zealotry.

Then, Hiatt says his most interesting thing.

Which brings us back to the question of how Obama should respond to McCain's negative campaign. Not long ago, the Democratic candidate rejected the Republican's offer of weekly, informal town hall debates. That was the smart move, most consultants said: The town hall forum is best for McCain, a wooden speaker who can't compete with Obama on the stump, so why would Obama play on his turf?

But by questioning Obama's substantiveness, McCain has begun to diminish the advantage of Obama's skill in rhetoric; and besides, there's no reason to think Obama -- who, after all, is deft, eloquent, quick-thinking and supremely well informed -- wouldn't be every bit as skilled in town halls as McCain. The forums would return attention to the issues, where Obama believes he has a clear advantage. And if McCain sought to use them for personal attacks, he would at least have to bear full personal responsibility for doing so.

Just after Obama clinched the nomination, he received a phone call from McCain. "He called me to congratulate me," Obama said the next day. "I had called him after he had won the nomination. We joked about the fact that, if you'd asked the pundits a year ago who were going to be the two nominees, it wouldn't have been me and John McCain.

"And we pledged to have a substantive debate, a debate that's not personal but is about our respective visions for the country."

Now, there is no doubt that McCain isn't the speaker that Obama is. Yet, if that's true, why in the world would townhall debates be McCain's "turf" as Hiatt suggests? Hiatt never explains, and in fact, he goes onto explain that this is exactly the forum where Obama can get back to the issues where he has "a clear advantage" according to Hiatt. Why then is Barack Obama not taking the challenge? After all, according to Hiatt, he is just as quick on his feet, and certainly he is right on the issues.

Maybe, just maybe, he isn't all that Hiatt thinks that he is and that's why Obama's handlers won't allow him into the debates. Hiatt calls the townhall debates Plan A, but likely they were never in the plans. That's because Barack Obama isn't so witty and charismatic when his lines aren't already prepared. This might be a good idea if Barack Obama really had a "clear advantage" on the issues, and that's likely why he refuses to agree to such a format. As such, I think Fred Hiatt will be waiting an awfully long time for Barack Obama to take his advice.