On Tuesday, the conservative Washington Times ran a front-page item under the headline: “Shift on war hits Obama’s liberal base.”
Sen. John McCain on Monday accused his Democratic presidential rival of flip-flopping on the war in Iraq, as a pair of new polls showed the Republican’s strategy of painting Sen. Barack Obama as politically expedient is beginning to take hold with voters.
As Mr. Obama repositions himself for the general election after exclusively targeting the Democratic base of committed liberals, it leaves some voters on the left feeling he is abandoning them on their top issue — Iraq — and has independents questioning his veracity.
This awful reporting was, of course, consistent with two straight weeks of non-stop talk in media/Republican circles about non-existent “changes” to Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. Charles Krauthammer insisted that Obama is already “done” “flipping” on Iraq. On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Bob Herbert said there’s “concern” that the senator is “doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq.”
This item from Mark Halperin over the weekend went under the headline: “McCain Team Takes Offensive on Iraq.”
On afternoon conference call, aides to the Republican pound the “total confusion” of Obama’s stance on Iraq. Michael Goldfarb: “We have seen him all over the map in the last couple of weeks.” Says plan on Obama’s Web site does not match his rhetoric. “He is sending so many different signals to so many different people.” […]
Randy Scheunemann: “There’s nothing less than total confusion about where Sen. Obama is on Iraq… the exact opposite of what we’ve seen” from McCain.
Now, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize this taking the “offensive”; I’d characterize this as “lying.”
But I can’t help but notice something: this entire bogus, manufactured narrative disappeared about as quickly as it emerged.
For two weeks, the media establishment hyperventilated about a “change” that hadn’t happened. Obama’s position on the war hadn’t shifted at all, but that apparently didn’t matter.
So, on Tuesday, Barack Obama gave a high-profile speech in DC on foreign policy and national security, during which he re-emphasized exactly the same policy on Iraq he’s held all along. The long-awaited flip didn’t happen. The reversal did not exist. Everything the McCain campaign and his barbecue-eating, donut-delivering friends had said about Obama abandoning his Iraq policy turned out to be completely wrong.
And in the aftermath of this realization, the political establishment seemed to say, “Hmm, I guess it’s time to talk about something else now.”
I’m wondering where the accountability is. The New Republic noted the other day:
So Obama will listen to his generals and consider the facts on the ground before fully withdrawing from Iraq. OMG! WTF? Rick Klein of ABC News exclaimed, “There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.” Time’s Mark Halperin told Anderson Cooper, “This is one of the biggest things that’s happened so far in the general election.”
Except, nothing had happened. The apoplexy was based on an imaginary change.
Here’s a radical idea: how about some of the same media personalities who misled the public every day for two straight weeks for no reason now mention to voters, “By the way, Obama’s been completely consistent about Iraq all along, and we were wrong to argue otherwise.” How about every news outlet who blared talk about an Obama “flip-flop” on Iraq devote a little time to talk about Obama not “flip-flopping” on Iraq.
That, of course, isn’t going to happen; it’s just not how the drive-by system works. News outlets jump on a meme, screw up the story, realize they’d chased a dead-end, and move on to the next meme. If voters are left with misinformation in the process, so be it — there’s no time to look back.
It’s worth taking a moment to appreciate this as a case study in how reporters fall for clumsy cons.