Adam Nagourney reads minds

Josh Marshall flags another example of a political reporter pretending to read people's minds -- here's what Adam Nagourney of the New York Times wrote about the bogus "lipstick" controversy (more on that soon):

Here in Lebanon today, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois also made his own lipstick allusion, drawing on a very old aphorism as he belittled attempts by Senator John McCain and Republicans to embrace the change mantle that has been central to his campaign.

“John McCain says he’s about change, too – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not change. That’s just calling the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig – it’s still a pig.”

At that point, Mr. Obama paused for just a moment, no doubt imagining the whoops that were going up at the McCain headquarters where they were no doubt monitoring the speech, and aware of the extent to which both campaigns are seeking to seize on anything even approaching a slip of the tongue.

So he added: “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

For the record, Mr. Obama did not even mention Ms. Palin until a few minutes later in his speech. Still, within 45 minutes, Mr. McCain’s campaign – well aware of the competition for the women’s vote and how this might be interpreted among women voters – leapt onto the remark.

And this isn't Nagourney's first offense either -- back in July he and Patrick Healy pretended to read Evan Bayh's mind too:

In Indiana last week, Mr. Obama appeared with two of the more speculated-about names on Democratic lists, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia...

This is not, aides to both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama were quick to say, the kind of vice-presidential Off Broadway run-throughs that some past candidates — think Walter F. Mondale in 1984 — have forced potential running mates to endure.

But it is indeed calculated and does provide a chance for the candidates and their aides to assess how they and their prospective running mates look as a ticket, in the newspaper photographs and television images these events are producing. That is no small thing, as could arguably be seen in Mr. Bayh’s eyes last week as he cast a vice-presidential gaze at Mr. Obama.

The best part is "arguably" -- what's arguable about it? Either Nagourney can read minds or he can't. I'm pretty sure he can't. Does the Times have reason to think otherwise, or does it just think its readers are stupid?

Comments

[toro toro]

Seriously, why don't you change your name to Brendan F. Skinner and be done with?

[David]

I'm with Brendan on this issue. I'd guess that one reason for this sort of nonsense is the requirement that columnists write something about the campaign, even when there's no real news.