Pundits and reporters who have looked into McCain’s eyes and seen his soul have designed a rule for shielding McCain from criticism. The shield works like this:

If the reporter thinks a criticism contradicts their own preconceived notion of McCain’s character, the criticism is dismissed out of hand, because "its just not McCain."

We’ve seen reporters use this rule to shield McCain from any criticism of his "honor" or his "mavericity," notwithstanding McCain’s increasingly dishonest campaign and his consistent cheerleading for Bush’s policies. Now we see the rule used to shield McCain from questions about his ability to empathize with ordinary Americans.

It is a legitimate question to ask whether a very wealthy man who owns at least 8 lavish homes and budgets over $270,000 per year for house servants [update: or half that amount] can sufficiently relate to the economic plight of struggling Americans, whose median income is closer to $50,000, and be trusted to lead government efforts to address their problems.

It’s not that being rich is a per se disqualification — Democrats FDR and LBJ strengthened the working/middle class and their economic safety net, while Republicans Reagan and Bush I & II did not. So given Republican McCain’s advocacy of continuing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, insisting the economy is fundamentally sound, and surrounding himself with advisers who think Americans’ economic concerns are just psychological and whining, it’s reasonable to wonder why a pampered McCain finds it acceptable to continue Republican policies that made the rich even richer but left America’s workers and middle class behind.

But when it comes to McCain, some media types already know the answer, so it’s not a worthwhile question. ThinkProgress cites a few opinions on McCain’s embarrasing housing collection:

- Paul Kane, Washington Post: It’s a "manufactured flap," and "not a huge deal"

– Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic: “[T]he word ‘John McCain’ means a lot of different things, but rich isn’t one of them.”

– Howard Kurtz, Washington Post: The “assumption” that “McCain’s personal wealth makes him insensitive to the struggling economy…is highly debatable.”

And we shouldn’t leave out the rich and famous Robin Leach, who dismissively adds this reassuring assessment:

Leach said McCain "tends to answer questions very rapidly without thinking of the correct answers. … I would call it honest confusion."

In other words, given what they personally believe to be true about McCain, these folks assure us that McCain’s pampered life style does not make him insensitive to the desperate plight of millions of struggling Americans, so they can dismiss that concern out of hand.

So if the criterion is to be, "that’s not who he is," shouldn’t the same rules apply to Obama?

Every responsible, fair-minded reporter knows and believes that Obama loves his country, that he’s patriotic, that he does not advocate violent overthrow of the US government or acts of terrorism nor support organized crime. So the next time the McCain campaign, the Republican Party or the media itself tries to suggest otherwise, smearing Obama with sinister references to Wright or Weather Underground or Rezko, I expect the media to dismiss these smears out of hand as outright lies, as inconsistent with what they know to be true about Barack Obama.

We can argue for an honest, skeptical brand of journalism in evaluating all candidates for office, but if the rule above is the one our media use, let them apply it fairly to both sides.

Update: Just like clockwork, Saturday’s Washington Post editorial provides a perfect example of the double standard of shielding McCain and smearing Obama.


Related posts:

  1. Media Complain About Media Being Too Easy On Obama
  2. Why is Obama Debating Cheney About the Rule of Law?
  3. McCain, Lieberman Schooled on Rule of Law by Kris, Johnson
  4. Obama to Use Trumka as Human Shield on Labor Day
  5. GOP/Media Complex Blows Smoke In RE: Obama and Poland and Russia