He's at it again. Ron Fournier shows his complete lack of bias (/snark) in this opinion article just up at NYTimes.com:
Analysis: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's
Interestingly enough, the byline is The Associated Press. Someone at the NYT added an editor's note IDing Fournier as the author, with the bland addition that he "has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years".
Consider the headline. It implies that Palin and Obama are equally inexperienced. The first paragraphs provide details on how McCain's choice of Palin is one a maverick would make, and why it might be good, or bad, for the McCain presidential bid. Fournier admits that her choice was red meat to the GOP fundi-conservatives. He also mentions her ethical issue.
Sounds fair and balanced, right? Well... follow me below the flip.
In the 17th of 18 paragraphs, Fournier gets to the gist of his comparison:
Palin is 44, Obama 47. She served in her statehouse 20 months. Obama served in his statehouse for eight years. Obama and Palin are running less on their resumes than on they are on their promise. The promise of change and new politics.
The difference: Obama wants the top job, Palin the No. 2.
20 months as Alaska governor for Palin vs. 8 years in the Illinois state legislature for Obama is quite a difference in experience, doncha think? Guess Ronnie also forgets that Obama is a standing US Senator and has been since 2006.
McCain turned 72 today. All the more reason to pick an "experienced" person for his VP, no?
But desperate men do desperate things. This will just make it a bit tougher for boot polishers like Ron Fournier to crank out happy, McCain-as-Prez-is-inevitable prose.
I cannot wait until the first Vice Presidential debate!