WSJ again quoted McCain aide accusing Obama of raising age issue, ignoring Obama's actual charge about negative campaigning
SUMMARY: In a profile of Mark Salter, Sen. John McCain's chief of staff, The Wall Street Journal reported that Salter responded to Sen. Barack Obama's comment that McCain was "losing his bearings" by "complain[ing] publicly" that it "was a 'not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age.' " But the Journal did not provide the context of the remark, which Obama made in response to a smear by McCain, and in which Obama said, "John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics."
A May 15 Wall Street Journal article profiling Sen. John McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, stated: "Last Thursday, he [Salter] came out swinging against Sen. [Barack] Obama after the Democrat said Sen. McCain was 'losing his bearings.' Mr. Salter complained publicly that the Democratic front-runner's comment was a 'not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age.' The jab, he said, was 'typical of the Obama style of campaigning.' " The article, by Monica Langley, reported the response of Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who said, "Clearly, losing one's bearings has no relation to age, given this bizarre rant that Mark Salter just sent out." However, the Journal did not note that Obama was responding to a smear by McCain or otherwise provide the context of Obama's quote -- in which, commenting on the smear, Obama said that "John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics."
During an interview with Obama on the May 8 edition of CNN's The 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."
A May 9 Wall Street Journal article about McCain's presidential run also uncritically quoted Salter's accusation that Obama "rais[ed] John McCain's age as an issue" without providing the context of Obama's statement, as Media Matters for America documented.
From the May 15 Wall Street Journal article:
Last Thursday, he came out swinging against Sen. Obama after the Democrat said Sen. McCain was "losing his bearings." Mr. Salter complained publicly that the Democratic front-runner's comment was a "not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age." The jab, he said, was "typical of the Obama style of campaigning."
The Obama camp fired back at Mr. Salter. "Clearly, losing one's bearings has no relation to age, given this bizarre rant that Mark Salter just sent out," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Mr. Salter, who when he isn't on the road occupies a windowless office at campaign headquarters here in the Washington suburbs, plans campaign events, writes speeches, and dispenses a steady stream of advice on the campaign trail.
Once again another WITH?
The article's author notes McCain's initial reponse to the "losing his bearings" comment, then clearly states the response from the Obama campaign and the perfectly reasonable explanation to what Mr.Obama meant by the comment. There is nothing misleading or misinformative here.
As usual, Tommy One-Note is the first one on a thread to complain about the thread being here.
Yawwwnnnn......
"I get paid extra for that...."
We've suspected that for a LONG time now. Nice to have confirmation straight from the source.
Burton's quote merely lets the reader know that age was not the context.
The article still contains no context.
The only reason is for obvious reasons? The context of Obama words that are the center of the guy's so-called run in with Obama are relevant and simply warrant mention by the WSJ.
The article still contains no context.- pete592
Which is what the flap was about in the first place.- Tommy
Bingo, Tommy ! You just explained to yourself WTIH.
Sorry Col, I need to be more specific apparently, my "which is what the flap was about in the first place" was in response to Pete's comment about age.
The controversy was about whether or not Obama was speaking about McCain's age, which was directly addressed in the WSJ article, and both sides were given equal treatment. Isn't that what we the people want from our media? Isn't that why this website exists in the first place? Or, is it?
"Once again another WITH?"
Why the question mark at the end?
Are you questioning your own comments?
And if so, what did you answer yourself?
Actually it was a punctuation error, there should be no "?", it should be a definitive "."
Glad you're paying attention, I need to more...
One person said what they think another person meant.
Then another person said that's false.
But the article still doesn't tell us what was really meant in the first place.
Doesn't the whole story matter anymore?
Is apathy toward the media your hidden agenda?
Being "fair to both sides" is the problem. If one of the sides is ridiculously wrong, why should it be treated fairly?
Let's say McCain gives a speech and uses a phrase like "there are dark clouds forming in this country" and an Obama spokesperson immediately starts jumping up and down about this being a subtle racist codephrase. That would be a ridiculous stretch and it would not deserve airtime or a "Fair to both sides" type of treatment.
That is what is happening here. McCain's stooge has invented a controversy and the media are aiding him in spreading it.
THAT is Why This Is Here.
No, it's not ridiculously wrong at all. It's understandable and a case can be made from both sides on what Obama meant or implied, I happen to believe him and that it was not an age reference at all, but that doesn't mean those that disagree with it are "ridiculously wrong". It's a matter of perception, and politics.
Therefore equal treatment should be afforded both to make their case, in which they did, as written in this article.
“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 smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his. 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.”
Well, for me, one thing that context does is make it close to impossible to try and make it out to be a slight of McCain based on his age. I suspect the context is left out, in part, in an attempt to dignify the McCain campaign’s charge. It's not "fair to both sides" in my view.
So you have no problem with a media that will give any outrageous, falsely generated, insignificant and ultimately pointless complaint "equal time" with legitimate viewpoints?
This thing is definitely not a matter that reasonable people can disagree on. It's a matter that people who want a reason to feign offense can pretend they believe in and ignore the easy to follow refutation of that claim.
It sure is funny how some people who will complain about so-called "political correctness" and rush to defend the transparently offensive are quick to use their own form of it as a weapon when it suits them.
I've decided that the answer to your question is that a decider decides.
They're making a mistake... they apparently think there's political mileage, some sort of "geriatric sympathy nerve" to be struck here... they're wrong... all they're doing is reminding voters of something that truly might disqualify Mr. McCain from their consideration: his advanced (and advancing) age.
Now, if they actually had Mr. Obama in some sort of bad position here, where he was actually doing something that might strike the "geriatric sympathy nerve"... like as if they had video of him not helping that old woman stuck under the automatic garage door, or not helping the other woman who cried out "I've fallen, and I can't get up!"... then maybe these people would have something to go on... but as it is, they're just picking at a wound here that is truly not Mr. Obama's, and maybe is Mr. McCain's... maybe a serious wound, in the minds of voters.
They're making a mistake, by attracted more attention to Mr. McCain's age... much more attention than Mr. Obama has attracted to McCain's age, which is none at all I think.
Or if Obama were to attack social security with that nonsensical privatization scheme. Can you imagine, given the volatility on Wall St., the massive crisis our senior citizens would be facing today had Bush won that conflict at the start of his second term?
I guess if they strained themselves to misconstrue Mr. Obama's remark, and completely spun false the description "losing his bearings"... I guess we can take that as a signal, that they're looking for any comment at all, from Mr. Obama (or maybe Sen. Clinton), that they can twist and spin into a "not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age"
So, unless Mr. Obama wishes to have his words twisted and spun against him in this matter, he had better be careful what he says.
Don't say that any of Mr. McCain's National Policy opinions "lack bite", or "don't have any teeth in them", because that will be twisted and spun as a "not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age"... specifically, his teeth (whatever number he may still have).
Don't say that any of Mr. McCain's National Policy opinions "won't hold water", for reasons that your imagination can suggest to you I'm sure, without any further help from me... (I don't know, does Flomax actually do anything about that problem, or is it just another placebo these drug companies are selling on TV?)
Don't say that any of Mr. McCain's National Policy opinions are "short-sighted", because they'll twist that one into a criticism of Mr. McCain's eyesight (although I think "short-sightedness" or "near vision" is nothing they elderly have, but is something they lose, with the years)
Don't say that any of Mr. McCain's National Policy opinions are "ignoring the past mistakes we've made" (like in Vietnam for example), because that can be a dig at the man's memory... although how it is John McCain can be ignorant of the mistake of U.S. Troops occupying a foreign country for no known National Security reason at all, seems strange to me.
Don't call Mr. McCain "grumpy" or "cantankerous", for obvious reasons.
And above all else, do not under any circumstances remind the American People that Sen. John McCain said that U.S. Troops could stay in IRAQ for...
"maybe a hundred years, would be fine with me"
...because that might imply that you were criticizing Mr. McCain as being so old, that a 100 years seems like nothing to him...
...either that, or you were criticizing his memory, for not remembering the mistakes of the past (like in Vietnam for example).
Or that maybe by brining up Mr. McCain's "100 years in IRAQ would be fine with me" comment, that you were implying the Old Man's gears had finally completely slipped, and that old age had rendered him a delusional fool.
"And, we have several studies which indicate that nobody is born old. What's next? Old people demanding the right to adopt children?"
And getting old is a CHOICE, right? They choose to be old, so it's OK to discriminate against them. I mean...now really...letting old people get married is just SO damaging to "real" marriages, isn't it? Marriage should only be for the young.
Love the geezers, hate ....... the........ geeze ?
Whatever, I don't have anything against their chosen lifestyle, I just don't have to accept it.