NYT's baseless assertions about Obama & the economy are undermined by its own polling
September 26, 2008 9:26 am ET by Jamison Foser
Today's New York Times features an article by Patrick Healy that portrays Barack Obama as "out of sync" with Americans who are upset about their struggling economic conditions and accuses Obama of "convey[ing] a certain distance from the ache that many voters feel."
But Healy does not support his thesis with any poll results. And for good reason: his own newspaper's public polling badly undermines his point.
A CBS/New York Times poll conducted September 12-16 found that 60 percent of Americans "think Barack Obama understands the needs and problems of people like yourself." Only 48 percent say the same of John McCain.
That same poll found that 60 percent of Americans are confident of Obama's "ability to make the right decisions about the economy." 53 percent said the same of McCain. And 66 percent said Obama "shares the values most Americans try to live by," compared to 61 percent who said the same of McCain.
If Healy distrusts his own newspaper's polling, he could have looked to the LA Times poll, which found that by a margin of 48-32, more Americans think Obama has "better ideas for strengthening the nation's economy." Or Pew, which found that by a margin of 47-35, more Americans think Obama would "best address the problems investment banks and companies with ties to the housing market are having."
Instead of providing public opinion polling relevant to his thesis (polling that, for the most part, completely falsifies the thesis) Healy included several quotes from "experts" that are contradicted by the polling. Incredibly, Healy didn't include a single quote from a source saying Obama's approach has been effective - despite the fact that the polling shows it has been more successful than McCain's.
Healy did, however, find a way to work Obama's race into an article that would seem to have nothing to do with the topic:
For Mr. Obama, the financial crisis poses different risks. He wants to appear fired up over the economy, but he has written before about wanting to avoid appearing like a stereotypical angry black man. Unlike Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders whose fulminations could scare white voters, Mr. Obama is not from and of New York, Detroit, or the segregated South; he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. To some degree Mr. Obama faces the opposite challenge from fiery black leaders who came before him: Is he too cool for a crisis like this one?
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
What a strained and strange effort that was, for patrick healy to remind us yet again, of what every one of us knows already, and that even blind people have by now known for a long time: that one of the Presidential candidates is an African-American.
The guy writes this into his article, by making Mr. Obama seem conflicted: conflicted by perhaps appearing angry, like a lot of us are at what's been going on in the Bush administration of our Federal Government?
No, conflicted by perhaps appearing as an "angry black man"... and in case nothing came immediately to your mind in response to those words, this guy healy then drew you a picture, of two former or present political activists (one is now a Fox hack I believe), who by being African-Americans also, are (I assume) "angry black men" too.
But of course the specter of the "angry black man" wasn't invoked by patrick healy because that's what Sen. Obama is acting like, but because he's not acting at all like that: "Is he too cool?"
Now, how strained and strange is that logic?
I guess if you're African-American and you're running for President, then you'll have to find that narrow strip of ground between being an "angry black man" and being "to cool for school": and if you're confused as to the distinction, and confused as to where such a middle ground (however narrow a strip or line) is, then just ask patrick healy, because he knows...
He'll even draw you a picture if you don't get it from the words alone... a picture of two political activists ("angry black men") on one side, and of a Presidential candidate ("too cool") on the other, and then there's whatever space that exists in between, for you to fit into, if you're an African-American running for President, and were seeking your identity in this matter, from a guy named patrrick healy.
Pundits and columnists like Patrick Healy live in bubble world where everyone is of the same mindset. The "liberal media" believes most people like Bush and McCain, thinks things are a bit tough but not unbearable, and unquestionably have a nagging problem with Barack Obama that they just can't seem to put their finger on -- SOMETHING about him isn't quite right! Something! And clearly, whatever THEY feel is what AMERICANS feel. Whether it's Tom Friedman or Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd or even far-right wackjobs like Bill O'Reilly, they "know" that what they think is what most "Americans" think.
Patrick Healy doesn't connect with black people ... uh, I mean, Barack Obama ... so EVERYONE feels that way, despite polling that shows the exact opposite to be true.
On Obama's "coolness," Time magazine said: if a white candidate fumes and shows anger, he is a populist. If a black candidate does it, he is called a
militant.