OBAMARAMA

Once again, The Politico manages to take a perfectly benign — some might even say positive — news story about Sen. Obama and twist it into something ugly.

As has been widely reported in much less loaded tones, the Federal Election Commission ruled yesterday on Sen. Obama’s request that he have the option to return money raised for the general election in order to accept public matching funds. The FEC declared that he could.

Yet, rather than reporting that Sen. Obama’s request was accepted and that he is now well-positioned to challenge his Republican opponent to accept matching funds (something, as we’ve noted, they will feel pressure to do — especially if they are Sen. John McCain), Politico writer Kenneth P. Vogel opted instead to headline his article “Obama Ruling Could Prove Moot, Backfire.”

What is his evidence for this claim? I’m glad you asked.

In fact, it’s nothing more than the idle speculation of the ubiquitous Larry Sabato, an oft-quoted University of Virginia political science professor (”Need a quote? / Do not tarry. / Call U-Va. and ask for Larry!“). Providing nothing to back up his assertion — which goes entirely unchallenged by Vogel — Sabato suggests that “Media and observers outside the arena may insist that Obama follow through on public financing in the general election, even if his opponent isn’t doing so.”

Except, that is absurd. Even Vogel’s article notes that the Obama campaign made this request of the FEC explicitly on the grounds that it would use it to encourage the Republican nominee to join Sen. Obama in accepting public financing:

“Should both major party candidates elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fundraising,” wrote Obama’s lawyer, Bob Bauer of Perkins Coie.

Sen. Obama’s request was the principled move, insofar as it keeps the public financing option alive. It was also politically savvy. Should the Republican refuse the challenge, however, the issue is settled. No major party candidate in their right mind would opt to take less money if their opponent didn’t as well; it would be political suicide. And no pundit of any credibility would expect them to do it.

But that common sense explanation doesn’t seem to matter to Vogel, who takes Sabato’s dubious suggestion and vaults it up into the article’s headline.

Such is the state of journalism at The Politico, apparently. What is it with this website/newspaper/blog? Do they think they’re too good to just report the news? Is this what is meant by the “Foxification” of the media? Whatever the case, today’s incident gets added to an already lengthy list of anti-Obama articles from The Politico. Pretty soon we’ll be ready for a “Greatest Hits.”