Chicago Tribune repeated baseless suggestion that Obama attacked McCain's age, linked comment to 2000 smears of McCain
SUMMARY: The Chicago Tribune juxtaposed smears on Sen. John McCain in 2000 with Sen. Barack Obama's May 8 comment that McCain was "losing his bearings" without noting the context of Obama's remarks that would have made clear that the Tribune was advancing a false comparison. Obama made the remark in response to an attack by McCain and was accusing McCain of violating his pledge to avoid negative campaigning.
In a June 13 article, Chicago Tribune Washington correspondent Christi Parsons juxtaposed smears on Sen. John McCain in 2000 with Sen. Barack Obama's comment on May 8 that McCain was "losing his bearings" without noting the context of Obama's remarks that would have made clear that Parsons was advancing a false comparison. Parsons also did not note that, contrary to the allegation by the McCain campaign included in her article, Obama categorically denies that the "losing his bearings" comment was a dig at McCain's age. Unlike the gratuitous smears Parsons mentioned that were directed at McCain during his 2000 presidential bid, Obama was himself responding to an attack by McCain. And in saying that McCain seemed to be "losing his bearings," Obama was remarking on McCain's apparent departure from his pledge not to engage in negative campaigning. Parsons wrote: "Sen. John McCain fell victim to a whisper campaign in 2000 in South Carolina, where he lost to George W. Bush amid gossip that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock and that he was mentally unstable from his years as a POW during Vietnam. Now McCain quickly responds to attacks he thinks are personal. When Obama recently accused McCain of 'losing his bearings,' for instance, a senior aide dashed off a scathing memo accusing him of suggesting McCain, 71, was too old to be president."
As Media Matters for America has documented, during Obama's interview 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."
Parsons did not note that Obama spokesman Bill Burton denied that Obama was referring to McCain's age.
From Parsons' article, which discussed the Obama campaign's newly launched website, Fight the Smears:
Sen. John McCain fell victim to a whisper campaign in 2000 in South Carolina, where he lost to George W. Bush amid gossip that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock and that he was mentally unstable from his years as a POW during Vietnam.
Now McCain quickly responds to attacks he thinks are personal. When Obama recently accused McCain of "losing his bearings," for instance, a senior aide dashed off a scathing memo accusing him of suggesting McCain, 71, was too old to be president.
Campaigns used to trust that fact-checking editors would limit the circulation of false rumors, but those editors aren't running the show in the Internet age.
Revised
The only one who "smeared" McCain was Bush and that was in 2000. The media better knock off the lies and favortism that they are showing McCain.
Parsons wrote: "Sen. John McCain fell victim to a whisper campaign in 2000 in South Carolina, where he lost to George W. Bush amid gossip that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock and that he was mentally unstable from his years as a POW during Vietnam. Now McCain quickly responds to attacks he thinks are personal. When Obama recently accused McCain of 'losing his bearings,' for instance, a senior aide dashed off a scathing memo accusing him of suggesting McCain, 71, was too old to be president
So in reading this even further it appears that some media type want to claim that Obama is resorting to the same tactics as Karl Rove did in 2000?
So in reading this even further it appears that some media type want to claim that Obama is resorting to the same tactics as Karl Rove did in 2000?
Yes , sadly.
Even more sadly that the media can be so dumb - Karl Rove is advising the McCain campaign!
Here is just another example of Republicans projecting one of their biggest weaknesses onto the Democrats.
I agree with MMFA here, this was not a smear against McCain's age by Obama, in full context it was quite clear what he was referring too. The media outlets not reporting Obama's response most definitely should.
But I would imagine many here, by their own admissions on previous threads, feel that going after McCain's age is fair game and not an "attack" at all, as MMFA agrees that it is.
But I would imagine many here, by their own admissions on previous threads, feel that going after McCain's age is fair game and not an "attack" at all, as MMFA agrees that it is.
It is not fair game, unless its calling him Gramps? that seems to be ok. Its harmless. he is a grandfatherly figure.
McCain's age is fair game and not an "attack" at all...
That's because it's TRUE!
"Then take it up with MMFA, they obviously disagree"
They do? What leads you to that conclusion? Just because they don't think Obama should be falsely accused of doing that doesn't mean they object to someone ACTUALLY doing that.
Because if you think something is A-OK, then you don't complain.
If I thought you were falsely accused of helping little old ladies across the street, and I liked you, I certainly wouldn't complain if someone said it about you.
They're not complaining about the "something."
They're complaining about wrongly accusing someone of doing the "something."
It's the reporting that's at fault. Not the action.
"So if it was reported that you helped little old ladies across the street and it wasn't true, I should be mad at the reporting of it? Makes no sense." - Tommy
Tommy, if in fact it was an action that wasn't performed, the reporting is false and is worth chastising. It matters not in the slightest whether you thought the action which was erroneously said to occur struck you as a kindly one. It was bad reporting.
Though that in itself should be sufficient, actions themselves may not be what they seem. Do the LOLs *want* to cross the street?
To push the hypothetical a bit, what if on the far side of the street LOLs were being mugged in the park? What if it was being reported, "Even though they were sobbing the entire time, Deeznuts was helping little old ladies cross the street where his accomplice, Tommy, was waiting to mug them"? (And in reality, the two of you were sharing a brew at Rabbitluvr's Hutch.)
Bad reporting is bad reporting.
"So if it was reported that you helped little old ladies across the street and it wasn't true, I should be mad at the reporting of it? Makes no sense"
So...you'd be OK with the reporting of lies, I take it? A report that lies is a report that lies. It doesn't matter if the lie is "favorable" or not. TRUTH is what matters. If a lie is reported instead, then the TRUTH has been hidden.
This conversation is a little odd. First, using "helping little old ladies cross the street" as a comparison seems off, since you're just talking about something considered to be acceptable, not positive in a going-out-of-your-way manner.
"Attack" is a characterization from Parsons, not MMfA. They're not judging whether such comments about McCain's age would constitute an "attack" or not, so I see no basis for declaring their position one way or the other there. Besides, doesn't it make a difference how this issue is raised? Reagan was confused, so age can be considered to have an effect on performance. That's a valid concern. But if Obama was just going around cracking jokes about McCain's age when there's no basis for any related concerns, that would be a personal attack.
It's sort of besides the point of the article, since either way Parsons' work is faulty for reasons you've explicitly agreed with.
I know you didn't mention performance. It's relevant to whether it's a personal attack or not, though, so it's not as "either/or" as you are claiming.
I don't see how MMfA's lack of commentary on this matter constitutes "agreement" with anything Parsons wrote, even implicitly.
I already used Reagan as an example. Reagan was confused about details of his own life. It very clearly turned out to be age-related.
In any event, acknowledging that a situation exists where such commentary would be justified proves the point. That situation demonstrates that commentary about age is not either always acceptable or always unacceptable. It's conditional.
To me, it's acceptable only when it's directly attributable to age, which is pretty hard to prove I would suppose, as in dementia symptoms. Outside of that, I cannot see that it is fair to blame it on age where gaffes or stumbles or even confusions are concerned, considering there is a myriad of reasons for those errors.
All in all, I think going after McCain on those issues is fair game, just not in the context of age, treat him and his goofs like he were 41 instead of 71, where there would be no mention of age.
Now you're introducing health issues into it, I never mentioned that either. I am speaking about age on it's own, the mere fact that he is 71 should have no bearing on any criticism if there is no age-attributable reasons to do so.
Ill health is ill health, and that may or may not be age related. I am talking about attacking him because of his age with no sufficient evidence to back it up, except for it's own sake.
Maybe we are on different wavelengths here, I just think age is not a valid criticism when his age is not directly linked to what the criticism is about......as in "Well, he is confused, it's his age", that is unfair unless there is evidence otherwise suggesting his confusion is specifically age-related. We don't know.
Maybe we are on different wavelengths here, I just think age is not a valid criticism...
Then what it a valid criticism? His policies? You can't say he lost his bearings on policy matters without the corporate media spinning that into a criticism of his age. Gramps is getting a free pass on the age issue. Heck, he doesn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni.
I have already said this is an error on the part of those in the media regarding Obama's intent here, I don't believe it was age related either.
"Gramps is getting a free pass on the age issue". Meaning what?, that statement in and of itself is ridiculous.
that statement in and of itself is ridiculous.
In what way?
The media never brings up his age. Our last senior citizen president had dementia. His medical records fiasco was a 1-2 day story. I really shouldn't care because in a reality-based world, McMaverick would have no chance. But after 2000 and 2004, anything is sadly possible.
Yes, I know you didn't talk about health either, that's exactly why your either/or scenario is invalid. The whole point is that you can't conclude that MMfA agrees that any comment about age is an attack when you've admitted that both physical and mental health issues might be age-related. If Obama really was talking about McCain's facilities when he was talking about him losing his bearings, that's a valid concern. That wouldn't be talking about his age just by itself.
So there's no reasonable way to conclude that MMfA agrees such a comment would be an attack, even if they were viewing it through your particular mindset.
Tommy apparently doesn't get overtime, so it's unlikely you'll get a reply, but I gotta say that you regularly do a great job rebutting his attempts to make points.
No, but you've stated that MMfA is against attacking McGramps about his age. There is no basis in fact for that assertion. This thread is not about Presidential candidate Depends being attacked about his age, this thread is about Senator Obama being criticized for an attack he hasn't done.
But that's typical for you, building straw men.
"McGramps". "Presidential candidate Depends"
And typical of you. You offer nothing but silly attacks.
They are 2 different issues. Distorting Obama's words verses the fact that McCain would be well over 80 after 2 terms.
You may be right Pete, making an issue of McGramp's age may not be needed. But, just to be on the safe side, I will be mocking his age, robo 2nd wife, 8 houses etc. Please feel free to take the high road, we need warriors up there also. But, the other side will be making every aspersion they can dream up, so someone has to fight back in a similar fashion.
And you are entitled to feel that way, the rightwing is undoubtedly vicious in its attacks, that is undeniable.
But then I would hope to see you here standing up for slime and swear campaigning, all's fair in love and politics type thing, when MMFA, or anyone calls an attack on Obama unfair. You should say bring it on.
I've wrestled with this issue before, but I don't feel anyone "has to fight back in a similar fashion". I understand the impulse, but all it does is lead people to believe that both parties are the same. It undermines legitimate complaints from the left because then opponents can legitimately point to poor behavior. Then it's "well both sides do it" and even if one side is nastier than the other that moral equivalence becomes a matter of strongly-rooted conventional wisdom. In the future there might be an older candidate running for the Dem side, and Dems complaining about age jokes would be quickly reminded of what was said about McCain. It doesn't matter if said candidate is as sharp as a tack and completely consistent in his positions, the two situations become equivalent.
If Bush was caught lying about an affair, would it be fair to impeach him for it? Sure. Would it be amusing to watch conservatives set new records of hypocrisy criticizing said impeachment? Hell yes. But I would be disgusted at the act since it is the same political BS as what happened with Clinton. I don't want petty games in our governmental processes. I don't want dishonest blowhards on left-wing radio. I want an elevated discourse. We can talk about religion in the public square, preemptive war, human rights, social balance and justice, and we can win those debates. Leave the BS tactics for people who have no arguments to back up their positions. An impartial observer can interpret low-road tactics as a sign that those people don't have anywhere else to go, and that applies even if you can behave better than you actually do.
Terrific sentiment.
You are here too infrequently.
This is a copy-and-paste of a post I did this morning on one of yesterday's threads.
I don't believe he had McCain's age in mind at all. This is the full context of the statement:
It is perfectly obvious to me that Obama is referring to McCain losing his moral, ethical, principle bearings. Obama set it up in the first part where he refers to McCain's words and then points out how his actions contrast with those words. I think it's a logical stretch to believe that he was referring to age.
I certainly believe that age could be a legitimate factor in assessing a candidate. I was just pointing out that the evidence doesn't support the charge that Obama was referring to age.
As a matter of fact, age is my biggest problem with Obama. I'm not emotionally ready for a President who's younger than me!!!
When your opponent is being petty and childish, and over-reacting hysterically: and if it's a political campaign we're talking about... then it's just a fine thing to needle and goad your opponent. It might seem malicious, but it's not: it's not even mischievious... it just highlights the petty and childish quality in your opponent: that's a good and necessary thing in a political campaign.
Not so much Mr. Obama, but folks in his campaign, they should say again that "John McCain is losing or has lost, his bearings"... say it again and again: make it into a bumper sticker even: have it printed on posters, and exhibit those posters in public, in windows and atop sticks held by people at rallies and at the convention...
John McCain Is Losing Or Has Lost His Bearings!
I love it! I love it because it's true!
And if the idiots in the McCain campaign want to over-react, and make the childish and petty claim that it refers to Mr. McCain's advanced and great age, then great... because all the dopes will be (and are) doing, is drawing attention to something they shouldn't draw attention to, and that's a good and successful tactic in political campaigns, not a malicious or even mischievious thing: make your opponent expose his own weaknesses, often.
Personally, I think he's off his rocker. But for the sake of argument, let's say that McCain isn't losing his bearings. That could only possibly mean one thing:
Oh, there's certainly no doubt about that.
Nearly every issue. Torture to immigration. Wiretapping to lobbyists. Based on the (*ahem*) logic that was applied to Kerry in 2004, McCain is KING Flopper.
Yes, about five minutes ago.
Condolences to family and friends. Didn't watch him much, nobody mentioned that he looked less than healthy. Something sudden?
He was in Italy last week celebrating his son's graduation. He supposedly passed a stress test not too long ago.
I expect a long airplane trip caused a clot to develop and moved to his heart. CPR did no good whatsoever. KO said it was a coronary thrombosis. That's a clot, and those deep vein clots often come after sitting on a plane for too long without moving around. Those clots loosen after a few hours or a few days and are silent killers.
I disagree with the notion that the media doesn't address McCain's age. They talk about it very frequently, in fact.
And as for believing that Obama and his camp let loose those "code words" that were meant to indicate that McCain is an old guy who can't remember what he ate for breakfast seems pretty realistic. These guys are politicians, Dems and Reps alike and they make these subtle, insidious remarks in order to undermine eachother.
Obama has run a campaign like Bush. He's got talking points, his team is very disciplined and they move very quickly. If anyone has received a pass from the "liberal media", it's Obama....is he expecting to get a pass fromt he right wing media as well (FOX and some shows on CNN)?