I yield to no one in my boundless admiration for the Financial Times. But they really need to do something about their US political coverage.
Today’s paper has this headline: Clinton scorns Obama as running mate. Edward Luce reports, “Pouring cold water on the ‘dream ticket’ that a number of Democratic lawmakers have put forward, Clinton campaign officials reiterated charges that Mr Obama’s national security credentials derived solely from a speech he gave in 2002 opposing the war.”
But wait! Who were those Democratic lawmakers? Well, Hillary Clinton for one in several interviews over the weekend. Bill Clinton for two, who said it would be “unstoppable”. And yesterday, Clinton’s chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, stumbled through a response on how Obama may not have passed the “threshold” to be commander-in-chief now, but it could be different by August, by which time he might well be ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency as Hillary’s VP.
I think Edward Luce and the editors who wrote that headline have been having too many late nights because of campaign coverage. Today’s article is misleading and, in many ways, exactly the wrong way around. And to make matters worse, Obama himself yesterday amusingly flattened the speculation about a Clinton-Obama ticket rendering the whole discussion moot. A truly mystifying choice by my beloved FT.