Obama's Ads are Dishonest, Says the NYT?
1:43 PM, Sep 26, 2008 • By MARY KATHARINE HAM
Speaking of arguing against interest...This article shall be there defense against cries of bias from now until Election Day. "Bias? Remember that one time we wrote about Barack Obama's ads critically? Now, leave me alone while I investigate Sarah Palin's aunt's citation for hunting out of season."
Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign gleefully publicized a spate of news reports about misleading and untruthful statements in the advertisements of his rival, Senator John McCain. Asked by a voter in New Hampshire if he would respond in kind, Mr. Obama said, "I just have a different philosophy, I'm going to respond with the truth," adding, "I'm not going to start making up lies about John McCain."
Yet as Mr. McCain's misleading advertisements became fodder on shows like "The View" and "Saturday Night Live," Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain's more questionable spots.
It touches on the egregious Spanish-language ad about immigration and the dishonest ad about Social Security, each about a week too late, but credit where credit is due. I have a feeling the timing may have had more to do with the McCain campaign's blasting of the NYT as an openly partisan, pro-Obama organization just days ago.
In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain's positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year's untruthful spots ("Pants on Fire," the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama's advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; "False!" FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.)
Democrats quoted in the story profess to be pleased to see Obama fighting back in "eye-for-an-eye" fashion because, after all, who ever really bought that "new politics" stuff anyway?
I wonder if the reporters on this story, Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman, get to sit at the cool-kids table in the Sulzberger lunch room anymore?