The two AP pieces unquestioningly advance McCain mythology (including his self-professed, but phony comparison to Teddy Roosevelt, pretense at reform, and the phony "maverick" claim), while trying to undercut Obama. McCain's dozens of major "flip-flops" (including his undermining every single one of his "bipartisan efforts," as few and as overblown as they really were) are there to report, if the AP, would. I urge readers to look at the article "Make Believe Maverick" (Rolling Stone, Oct. 16, 2008). There's a long list of McCain double talk here and in video at MSNBC. Over at the DNC is a list of 157 deceptions by McCain here. Check some of them out for yourself.
The McCain article includes Palin's reduction of the important issues to an empty promise of "reform," which neither candidate has ever actually accomplished previously; energy independence (ditto to their lack of previous effort at alternatives); and children with special needs. As laudable and important as that third item is, it is not more important than bringing health care to ALL Americans. Without peace and the resulting "peace dividend," retooling our economy, bringing jobs home, real energy independence; green technologies, restoring our manufacturing base, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and health care for all Americans--none of which will happen under McCain Palin--Americans will continue to lose out.
In the companion piece, the AP pretends a Barack Obama administration would look like that of GW Bush, if only in "style." The subtext for this phony charge, designed to scare voters, is that, the Washington Press Corps is miffed because it hasn't had enough "access" to Obama's campaign staff. Thus, the AP insults us with the petty nature of this critique. We already know what a great job Obama's staff does. They've run a brilliant campaign. They are ahead. They have gotten donations averaging just over $80 dollars from millions of ordinary Americans who stand with them. We know they work in service of better days for America. We also know they work on the issues we care about. But most of all Obama's campaign staff knows this isn't all about them. They stay on task, which is what they should do. Unlike some working under the past two presidents (e.g., Carville, Stephanopoulos Rove, Frum, McClellan, et al), they aren't seeking celebrity for themselves. That's really putting country first, don't you think?
Perhaps the most reprehensible aspect of the Loven article is that she tends to reduce an Obama presidency to its historic implications... As in code language. There are so many important reasons why Obama is the preferable candidate. And yet Loven reduces the article to what is actually far, far less important. How about Barack Obama's politics of inclusion? Or his work to unify America. How 'bout the importance of having a consensus builder in the White House for a change? Or what his constructive policies would mean for America? Sadly, the AP just isn't interested. But the rest of the print media is weighing in and its nearly 3 to 1 in favor of Barack Obama. Here's the story. And they leave the AP in the dust.