WSJ uncritically reported McCain's accusation that Obama raised age issue, ignoring Obama's actual charge about negative campaigning
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article reported that "Sen. [Barack] Obama suggested Sen. [John] McCain was 'losing his bearings,' " and noted the response of a McCain adviser, who "called it a 'not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue.' " But the Journal did not note the context of Obama's remark, which he made after accusing McCain of violating his pledge to avoid negative campaigning, and it did not report an Obama spokesman's denial that Obama was referring to McCain's age.
A May 9 Wall Street Journal article about Sen. John McCain's presidential run reported: "A preview [of the general election] erupted yesterday when, in an interview on cable news, Sen. [Barack] Obama suggested Sen. McCain was 'losing his bearings.' McCain adviser Mark Salter quickly countered with an open memo to reporters. He called it a 'not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue.' " But the Journal did not report the context in which Obama made the remark: He was discussing a smear by McCain that "Senator Obama is favored by [the terrorist organization] Hamas" and accused McCain of violating his pledge to avoid negative campaigning. Rather than noting Obama's actual charge and indicating whether the McCain campaign responded to that charge, the Journal printed Salter's accusation that Obama was referring to McCain's age.
During Obama's interview on the May 8 edition of CNN's Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer quoted McCain as saying, "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare. Senator Obama is favored by Hamas. I think people can make judgments accordingly." In response, Obama told Blitzer that McCain's assertion was "disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics." Obama went on to say: "I've said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they're willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."
Moreover, while Journal reporters Laura Meckler and Elizabeth Holmes reported that Obama spokesman Bill Burton "called Mr. Salter's email a 'bizarre rant' and accused him of wanting to 'distract and attack,' " their article did not include Burton's denial that Obama was referring to McCain's age. Responding to Salter's memo, Burton said:
Clearly losing one's bearings has no relation to age, given this bizarre rant that Mark Salter just sent out. It's clear why a candidate offering a third term of George Bush's disastrous economic policies and failed strategy in Iraq would want to distract and attack, but it's not the kind of campaign John McCain has promised the American people that he would run.
From the May 9 Wall Street Journal article:
Sen. Obama already has begun pivoting toward the general election. Soon, he is likely to unleash attack ads aimed at defining Sen. McCain. With vastly more money, Sen. Obama will be able to flood the airwaves as voters are forming impressions.
A preview erupted yesterday when, in an interview on cable news, Sen. Obama suggested Sen. McCain was "losing his bearings." McCain adviser Mark Salter quickly countered with an open memo to reporters. He called it a "not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton swiped back. He called Mr. Salter's email a "bizarre rant" and accused him of wanting to "distract and attack."
One of Sen. Obama's emerging attacks on Sen. McCain is to try and link him with the unpopular incumbent. "We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term," he told a North Carolina victory rally Tuesday.
From the May 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: He also is going after you now, today, the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence. He says you're not necessarily endorsing policies that would be good for Israel.
He says this, for example: "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare. Senator Obama is favored by Hamas. I think people can make judgments accordingly."
OBAMA: Yeah, this is offensive.
And I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics. And then to engage in that kind of, you know, smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy towards Hamas has been no different than his.
I've said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they're willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.
We don't need name-calling in this debate. What we're going to need is to have a serious conversation about how do we keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranian regime, how do we broker a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians that allows both sides to benefit, Israel assuring its security and its status as a Jewish state, the Palestinians able to have a contiguous, functioning state, where their people can prosper?
And, if we end up continuing to be locked up in these ideological arguments, playing politics of the sort that we've seen John McCain doing recently, then I think, frankly, we're going to miss an opportunity to really move this country in a better direction and to reset our foreign policy in a way that I think the world is anxious for.
The world wants to see the United States lead. They've been disappointed and disillusioned over the last seven, eight years. But I think there is still a sense everywhere I go that, you know, if the United States regains its -- its sense of who it is and our values and our ideals, that we will continue to set the tone for creating a more peaceful and more prosperous world.
















I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.
Subtle....
But yeah it sounds like a reference to McCain's age. Obama's camp can deny it till the cows come home, but most folks aren't going to buy it..
McCain's claim not to resort to negative campaigning didn't last long. Obama takes a swipe back.
Welcome to Politics 101
LOL. A lot more subtle than running racist ads in North Carolina? Yeah subtle. See I read it as McCain is inconsistent in his stances. You read it as McCain is getting too old to remember what the hell he's talking about. Bottom line is if that is an attack McCain took offense to, I shouldn't be hearing anything about Barack's pastor, which Big Mac has already commented on.
What's good for the goose . . . and all that other catchy stuff.
"I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States," -McCain
I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.-Obama
Ahmed Yousef, political advisor to Hamas did say they'd be happy with an Obama victory.
Now of course McCain was being snarky here, but so was Obama.
Both gave each other digs.
Bill,
Trust me if a Con had made that remark about an older Lib...many Libs wouldn't think it was a stretch. They'd be crying "Smear!!"
As I just wrote to SportsGuy...how we view things are often in the eyes/ears/mind of the beholder.
I won't argue that some liberals might, but I just don't see it in this case. As I pointed out below, it doesn't hold together as an age reference when taken in context with what he said immediately before.
Jeter wrote:
>>As I just wrote to SportsGuy...how we view things are often in the eyes/ears/mind of the beholder.
This is really a stupid argument, Jeter. McCain smears Obama, and Obama responds in a simple, direct way, and McCain smears him again--and yet, somehow Obama is to blame! And then you fall back on the argument that it is just a matter of interpretation of what a smear is. That is silly, a way to back your completely indefensible position. If everything is just a matter of perception, then there is no such thing as a smear, or a racist comment, or any other misinformation.
And then you fall back on the argument that it is just a matter of interpretation of what a smear is. That is silly, a way to back your completely indefensible position. If everything is just a matter of perception, then there is no such thing as a smear, or a racist comment, or any other misinformation.
First of all I did not say everything was a matter of perception. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I wrote: how we view things are often in the eyes/ears/mind of the beholder. Often is not always.
Sometimes a smear, or a racist comment is a matter of perception.
Bill Clinton suggesting that a Black candidate winning South Carolina as not being totally unexpected given the large Black population was perceived as racist & a smear.
Bill Clinton suggesting that Obama's stance on the Iraq War was a "fairy-tale" was perceived as racist & a smear.
Hillary Clinton giving LBJ & JFK credit along with MLK for the eventual passing of the Civil Rights Act was perceived as racist & a smear.
Barack Obama suggesting that White blue collar folks were bitter & clung to their guns & church was perceived as a smear.
All of the above could have been interpreted either way...depending on one's perception.
Hi Doris
Just like in the other thread , I will ask you again, this time do you have proof that Karl Rove works for McCain?
Of course the reference to "losing his bearings as he pursues the nomination" has nothing to do with Mr. McCain's advanced years... not in the context it was said, or even taken out of context, would any sensible person think it referred to the man's great age... it obviously refers to McCain's political expediency in his ambition to be the 44th President of the United States.
But it's understandable that his advisor Mark Salter would misunderstand, and be defensive about the "losing his bearings" reference.
Because that's what the kin and friends and other close people often do, when they notice the Old Man's gears are starting to slip: they get defensive, and protective of him... they become overly sensitive to anyone commenting on the thing that they themselves notice, up close and firsthand.
Yet in this case, Mark Salter (and others) waste their time defending Mr. McCain's advanced years (and seeming slippage of gears)...
They should defend him on the point that Mr. Obama obviously made: John McCain's ambition to be the 44th U.S. President, has him taking all manner of politically expedient positions, on a number of political issues...
That's called "losing his bearings as he pursues the nomination", and the Old Man's advisors should defend him on that, instead of not-so-cleverly distracting from it... that's a handful right there... they should save the overly-sensitive defense of the slipping of the Old Man's gears until a little later on, like in two years or even just next year... that's when they'll need that energy, because that's how fast and to such a great degree these things advance, once they start to evidence themselves in the Old Man.
Jeter wrote:
>>But yeah it sounds like a reference to McCain's age. Obama's camp can deny it till the cows come home, but most folks aren't going to buy it..
You are really making a completely stupid, indefensible argument. How exactly is the term "losing one's bearings" a reference to age? Can you provide an textual evidence for this? The rest of your argument about people's not believing Obama's denial is just plain stupid.
Let me present the same type of argument. When Jeter wrote "Obama takes a swipe back," he was subtly making an attack on Obama's race. Jeter can deny it till the cows come home, but most folks on these boards aren't going to buy it.
Wow! That was easy. Let's just attribute "subtle" sinister motives to completely innocuous words, and then make it sound like most people are not going to believe the denial of the ridiculous interpretation attributed to those words, and we can prove anything.
Why can't the conservatives just play fair for a change.
It's obvious: They would LOSE in a LANDSLIDE of HISTORIC PROPORTIONS! They can barely cling to what they have even WITH the press on their side!
I suspect you're right. Obama will easily best McCain in a debate just as Kerry and Gore did repeatedly with Bush. Unfortunately that doesn't guarantee a victory at the polls.
Just say you have some optimism. Think your hope is shared by a growing population. I'd give it another two months before I'd be confident about the strength of this population.
How well can the media hide the deconstruction of The United States with distractions, missinformation and outright lies remains to be seen.
"Losing one's bearings" doesn't have to connote age. Our idiot president is a relatively young man, and he lost his bearings years ago.
Sounds like someone in the McCain camp is a bit too sensitive, ehh???
Sounds like someone in the McCain camp is a bit too sensitive, ehh???
You could come to that conclusion if you believe that someone there really believed it was a referrence to age. I think it's more likely someone goes over Obama's statements looking for something that could be spun in a negative way, regardless of its apparent meaning.
Sounds like someone in the McCain camp is a bit too sensitive, ehh???
That's funny SportsGuy cause I find myself thinking that MMFA & the Lib posters are being a bit too sensitive at least several times a day when I read some of these threads.
Just goes to show ya that it's all in the eyes/ears/minds of the beholder.
Jeter wrote:
>>That's funny SportsGuy cause I find myself thinking that MMFA & the Lib posters are being a bit too sensitive at least several times a day when I read some of these threads.
Oh, let's just play snark then. I always got the impression that the conservative posters who posted here weren't very bright. Bt I guess "it's all in the eyes/ears/minds of the beholder." And if you find my comment offensive (it was meant to be to prove a point, not because I really believe it), then I can just say that it is a matter of perception.
Whatever Funny guy.
It's my opinion a lot of Liberals here whine a lot & have no sense of humor.
That's my perception.
As far as Lib posters go, you cons seem pretty defensive on a regular basis probably because your philosophy has been beaten into submission by a multitude of both con pols and con media obliterating the concept into irrelevancy. It must hurt, I realize.
Really? I don't think of us as defensive. Actually we spend far more time here pointing out Liberal hypocrisy & then watching you all go off your nut ;-)
But thank you for your concern. That's one reason you're my sweet Julia :-)
The Reps are just good at manufacturing a sense of outrage.
Salter continued: “We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.”
Why is the MSM and Media Matters letting Obama and his surrogates get away with his manipulative negativity?
All day today we've heard the ridiculous claims from MSM that Hillary was making racist comments because she repeated the demographics, the white demographics, that were published in the newspaper showing a large portion of democrats supporting her. The Clinton's are NOT racists and it is time the media stop running this character assassination against them.
Obama is not new politics and the media owes it to the country to be honest in their reporting. Honest, and unbiased.
All day today we've heard the ridiculous claims from MSM that Hillary was making racist comments because she repeated the demographics, the white demographics, that were published in the newspaper showing a large portion of democrats supporting her. The Clinton's are NOT racists and it is time the media stop running this character assassination against them.
Rojo, do you understand "subtly"?
Hillary repeats the AP article and: #1 She can claim she's not playing the race card, she's just reading from the article. #2 She can spread her message to those white voters who feel like you do that she is being treated unfairly and again paint Obama as a "Black " candidate getting favorable coverage from the media. If Clinton believes Obama will do poorly with white voters in November, based on how he has done in the primaries, does that mean she believes she will only get 8% of the black vote in November, based on how she’s doing now?
I truly don't believe that the Clinton's are racist, BUT they don't mind playing the race card when it will benefit them. Unfortunately it's backfired badly.
This is all right out of the Rovian playbook. The Repug overtly smears the Democrat by saying that terrorists all want Dems in the WH, mongering the fear card, and then when the Dem quietly and cautiously responds, the Rovian Repug calls "FOUL!" The righteous indignation is so fake. Obama clearly did not mention age, subtly or overtly. However, if McCain thinks that his age is not fair game, then he is freaking delusional.
The way I see this playing out, no criticism of McCain will be "fair game". Since he was a POW, criticizing him means you hate America.