About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Bash declared as fact McCain view that Obama "stumble[d]" in Landstuhl decision, not noting CNN analysts' position that he was in no-win situation

July 27, 2008 12:42 pm ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Dana Bash pronounced Sen. Barack Obama's decision not to go through with a visit to U.S. troops at a military hospital in Germany a "stumble," asserting that as a result of Obama's decision, "the McCain campaign got something they could use -- an Obama stumble." Simply presenting McCain's reported take on the issue as fact, Bash made no mention of comments made earlier in the day by CNN analysts Bill Schneider and Gloria Borger, who agreed with the view articulated by an Obama spokesman that the Illinois senator "felt like he was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation."

61 Comments

During a July 25 Anderson Cooper 360 report on Sen. Barack Obama's decision not to go through with a visit to U.S. troops at a military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, CNN correspondent Dana Bash pronounced Obama's move a "stumble," asserting that as a result of Obama's decision, "the McCain campaign got something they could use -- an Obama stumble." Simply presenting the McCain campaign's purported take on Obama's decision as fact -- that Obama "stumble[d]" -- Bash didn't note that two of her CNN colleagues earlier that day expressed agreement with the view articulated by an Obama spokesman that the Illinois senator "felt like he was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation."

During the July 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider reported that Obama had visited with troops earlier in his trip, but according to a campaign spokesman, canceled the Landstuhl visit because he did not want to "put our troops in the middle of our campaign back-and-forth." Schneider continued: "Obama's spokesman said, just as the candidate has been criticized for not visiting the troops in Germany, he would have been criticized if he had met with them. Probably true. That's what happens in a campaign."

Later in the Situation Room broadcast, senior political analyst Gloria Borger asserted: "But it's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. Because you never want to make going to visit the troops look like a political photo opportunity, ever."

From the July 25 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

BASH: With those sound bites, McCain is trying to make up for what he lacked all week in imagery, from this golf cart to this grocery store, McCain struggled to find the right backdrop to counter Obama's overseas images. Minutes after his rival's speech in Berlin before a sea of people, McCain was in front of a German fudge house in Ohio. Yet finally, the McCain campaign got something they could use -- an Obama stumble.

Obama abruptly canceled a visit to see U.S. troops stationed in Germany and offered a series of evolving explanations. First, an Obama spokesman said, "The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign." Later, another statement from retired Major General Scott Gratian traveling with Obama. "We learned from the Pentagon Wednesday night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event." But Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell tells CNN the military had already arranged for Obama's campaign plane and staff to land at the air base and for the senator in his official capacity to visit troops. Morrell said canceling the trip was, quote, "based on their own calculation and had nothing to do with any judgment by us about the nature of the trip."

McCain campaign aides eager to make this fight Obama v. Pentagon, not Obama v. McCain, were more short and to the point than usual. A spokesman saying, "Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to meet with troops." And privately, McCain aides, at last, found some joy with one Obama moment captured in this photo in a German newspaper, Obama leaving the gym, not visiting with U.S. troops.

A spokesman for Obama said the Democratic candidate felt like he was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation and decided in the end it was best to avoid the perception of making wounded troops part of a campaign event. Dana Bash, CNN, Washington.

From the July 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

SCHNEIDER: A controversy broke out after Obama canceled plans to visit wounded members of the U.S. military in Germany. His campaign issued a statement saying, "The senator decided, out of respect for those servicemen and women, that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."

The McCain campaign was quick to respond. "Barack Obama is wrong," the McCain spokesman said. "It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military." In fact, Obama did visit the troops elsewhere, with the congressional delegation, which he called the highlight of his trip.

OBAMA: Everywhere we went in Afghanistan and Iraq, they were just really eager to tell their story of what they were doing. And -- and it was moving.

SCHNEIDER: Bloggers immediately picked up on the canceled visit to the military hospital in Germany. An Obama adviser issued a statement that: "We learned from the Pentagon Wednesday night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event."

A Pentagon spokesman says that Obama was welcome to go to the hospital as a sitting senator, not as a candidate. Asked why they canceled the visit, Obama's spokesman said: "He was far more willing to take the criticism from some political people or political opponents in a political atmosphere than to put our troops in the middle of our campaign back-and-forth. That is the decision we made, and we are comfortable with it."

Obama spokesmen said, just as the candidate has been criticized for not visiting the troops in Germany, he would have been criticized if he had met with them. Probably true. That's what happens in a campaign.

[...]

BLITZER: Gloria, I want to just change subjects for a second because we've got a limited amount of time. You heard Bill Schneider's report on this controversy that Senator Obama had time to do a lot of stuff in Germany, including work out, but he didn't have time or he decided that it wasn't a good idea to go to meet some of the wounded troops at Landstuhl at Rammstein in Germany. And this is causing an uproar, especially among the conservative bloggers out there. His explanation is, you know what, it would have been a political event and it was really probably not appropriate.

BORGER: You know, the Obama campaign tells you that they were discouraged from going over there because it was a campaign event. And the Pentagon says, we didn't discourage him, we just discouraged bringing the campaign, that he could have gone by himself. And of course, the McCain campaign is saying, it's never inappropriate to go visit the troops. I think this is one of those situations where we need to kind of know the full story here. But it's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. Because you never want to make going to visit the troops look like a political photo opportunity, ever.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (July 27, 2008 12:53 pm ET)
         

      Let's review the con job the Bush administration and McCain campaign just pulled on Obama:

      Obama plans to visit wounded troops at hospital in Germany.

      Bush administration Defense Department representatives contact Obama's campaign staff and ask that he defer planned visit out of concern that it will appear to use hospitalized service members as props in a partisan campaign.

      Obama complies.

      McCain and the usual Republican elected officials and political operatives attacks Obama for deferring hospital visit, which they claim somehow proves he doesn't respect members of the military.

      Members of the traditional media repeat, elaborate on, over analyze and embellish McCain's attack, giving it plenty of credibility and mileage.

      Mission accomplished.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (July 27, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
           
        It was the view of the "Obama spokesman" that it was a no win situation.  So MMFA is attacking here because a member of the press did not agree with a paid worker for the Obama campaign.  Yea, that is big time conservative mis info.  Give me a break. 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (July 27, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
             

          Here's why visiting wounded troops is a "no win" situation for Obama.

          If he does it on camera, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of using hospitalized service members as a prop for partisan campaigning while secretly being a traitorous, liberal, Muslim homo who wants America to lose its wars.

          If he does it off camera, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of being embarrassed to be seen with wounded service members, thus proving that he is a traitorous, liberal, Muslim homo who hates the military and wants America to lose its wars.  

          If he doesn't do it, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of being a traitorous, liberal, Muslim homo who hates the military and wants America to lose its wars.

          Have you figured out the common theme yet?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fawltylogic (July 27, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
               

            Exactly.

            The military is only allowed to be exploited by Republicants, we all know that.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Cheney2012 (July 27, 2008 10:32 pm ET)
               

            Putting the traitorous, Muslim, homo stuff aside: 

            You are correct it's a no-win situation, but Obama has put himself in this position due to the anti-war stance he has taken and accepting the support of the far-left which hates military action and the military itself.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tman418 (July 27, 2008 11:19 pm ET)
                 
              The "far-left" does not hate the military. In fact, Obama supports doing more in Afghanistan and Pakistan (if need be for the latter). Anti-war does not mean "anti-military", in fact, it really doesn't even mean never doing any military if necessary.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (July 27, 2008 11:52 pm ET)
                   

                I know this will come as a complete shock to you, but it's possible to be against a particular policy that involves the use of military force, yet still be supportive of those in uniform who are duty-bound to carry it out.

                Further, I wonder where this belief that Democrats are anti-military came from?  For instance, I'm a Democrat, and I'm also a 26 year veteran of the military, and I served in Iraq in 2005.

                If you were to look at the current 100 members of the United States Senate, you'd find 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.  Of those 100, my best estimate is that 28 have served in the military in some capacity.  Of those 28, 14 are Democrats and 14 are Republicans.  The 14 Democrats include such liberals as Kerry, Kennedy and Dodd.  And that's just one example to show that the meme of Democrats somehow being anti-military is not valid.

                It should apparent that Obama will be attacked as unpatriotic for anything he does or doesn't do, because that's the GOP standard operating procedure.  He needs to expect those assaults and be prepared to knock them down as soon as they pop up.   

                Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne (July 28, 2008 7:33 am ET)
                     

                  !st republic 4th star, I wanted to first of all say that you always make really good salient points and I enjoy your posts. And thank you for pointing out the Democrats in the senate that have served. But I always wondered this: I have the perception (from where I don't know, MSM or Republicans) that military personnel skew towards the right. Since you've been in the military for 26 years, is that perception true? Or has that been perhaps a propaganda campaign all these years. I would think the military would fall in the same categories as the general public, but what is your considered opinion?

                   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DeminTX (July 28, 2008 12:43 pm ET)
                       
                    JJ:I'll take a shot at your question from my perspective.  I have also served in the military for 26 years and still am on active duty.  I think the military does tend to lean towards supporting the Republican party.  They have this false pretense that they garner more support from the that side of aisle.  However, a closer examination will reveal that the Repos push more of the defense funding to their friendly defense contractors versus going to the actual personnel.  In fact, Rumsfeld is one that advocated for less military and more contractors when occupying Iraq and you see where that got us.  I think the military probably represents the country as a whole in being mis-guided between what the facts actually are versus the information they're being fed to believe.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by juliajayne (July 28, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
                         
                      Hey Dem, if you get back here, tell me where in Texas you are. I'm in a little town in Denton County, just north of the Dallas metroplex. And thanks for your perspective.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (July 28, 2008 1:33 pm ET)
                       

                    Good question.  In my experience the top leadership of both the officer ranks (colonels and generals) and NCO corps (sergeants major) tend to be Republicans -- "conservative" on national defense and foreign policy, but less interested in the issues that motivate "social conservatives" or "economic conservatives".

                    The rank and file -- enlisted soldiers, lower ranking NCOs and officers from lieutenant to lieutenant colonel -- tend to be a political mix in terms of liberal to moderate to conservative on the left-right spectrum.

                    I think this is because the guys currently at the top are the ones who came of age in the post-Vietnam, pro-Reagan era.  They blamed Democrats and liberals for the "loss" in Vietnam, the supposed gutting of the military's equipment, weapons and vehicles, and the reduction in personnel.  Those feelings still carry over.  Those who haven't been around as long don't have the Vietnam and Reagan era points of view, which is why I think they reflect broader viewpoints.

                    One thing that has especially annoyed me in the Bush era is the politicization of the military.  Good leaders have felt compelled to quit or retire, meaning that those who are not as capable or who are willing to do the administration's bidding are the ones who move up.

                    The administration thinks nothing of using the reputation of a military officer like Petraeus to promote its policies, enabling the administration to claim the policies are nonpatisan.  I also object to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff taking sides in the debate between presidential candidates.  In both cases my argument is the same -- the military is supposed to execute policy.  Ideally, we're not supposed to care what it is or who made it -- once the desired end state has been named and the strategy set by the civilian leadership, we're supposed to carry it out, period.

                    I also object to overtly partisan displays like in 2006 when uniformed Marines appeared at a county Republican party fundraising dinner in Colorado.  The Marine Corps chief of public affairs said these Marines were not violating law or policy by merely being present to receive acknowledgement of their service.  That's a damned lie.  What they did is explicitly counter to both law and regulation.  To prove it, let me ask this -- what would happen if a uniformed member of the US military appeared at a Green party event?  I think you'll agree that he or she would not be let off the hook so easily as would be the case if it was a Republican event.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by juliajayne (July 28, 2008 6:24 pm ET)
                         
                      To prove it, let me ask this -- what would happen if a uniformed member of the US military appeared at a Green party event?  I think you'll agree that he or she would not be let off the hook so easily as would be the case if it was a Republican event.

                       

                      • - 1st Republic 14th Star / Monday July 28, 2008

                      Oh, you've got that straight.

                      And I hate the way everything has been politicized by the Bushies too. It's downright disheartening and disgusting. Thanks for your perspective.

                      Report Abuse
            • Author by IRONY 101 (July 27, 2008 11:25 pm ET)
                 

              the far-left which hates military action and the military itself.

              Really...? Ask yourself this...what would Republicans do if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ended tomorrow? Driven by neocon theories of world domination they'd start another war. Halliburton would make billions and thousands more American servicemen would die. And you say the left hates the military? No, the left hates modern Republican war mongering.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by IRONY 101 (July 27, 2008 11:37 pm ET)
                   
                Noleft, just out of curiosity...how are you likng the idea of taking out Iran? Or should we let Israel go in and we back them up?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 27, 2008 11:25 pm ET)
                 
              I wonder why an "anti-war" stance puts Obama in a "no-win" situation when the majority of Americans oppose the Iraq war.  Does your wall calendar say 2003?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 28, 2008 10:17 am ET)
                 

              the support of the far-left which hates military action and the military itself.

              It seems to me that wanting to leave the military in an unrelenting meat grinder shows hate more than wanting to bring them home safely. The left (and the right should as well) hates wars of choice against sovereign nations who have not attacked and did not have the means to attack us. Sadaam Hussein "gassed his won people" with helicopters and gas sold him by Donald Rumsfeld. The US reaction to the heinous act? Rumsfeld sold him more helicopters and more gas.

              The wingnuts are losing the framing battle. Volunteering to be their pallbearers is not "supporting the military."

              Report Abuse
              • Author by wesley (July 28, 2008 11:27 am ET)
                   

                 -- wanting to leave the military in an unrelenting meat grinder --

                Your dogma is in need of an update. From the AP:

                 -- Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13. -- 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by coach777b (July 28, 2008 12:12 pm ET)
                     
                  Deaths are at an "All Time Low" and of course you are happy with that. And you are looking at that as some sort of triumph. Well the families of the troops killed during your "All Time Low" don't feel the same. I am positive that neither you, members of your family or friends were included in the few killed during your "All Time Low". Republicans always advocate for war as long as they don't have to go. If all the backers of wars and their eligible sons and/or daughters would sign up tomorrow, we would have enough troops to continue your wars. By the way, I am a VietNam Era veteran. Tell us when you served.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (July 28, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
                       
                    It's 100% loss when it's your family member.  Thanks for the reminder.  My brother is also a Vietnam vet.  He thinks Bush is terrible.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 28, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
                     
                  How  many deaths are acceptable?!?!
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (July 27, 2008 8:13 pm ET)
             

          It was the view of the "Obama spokesman" that it was a no win situation.  So MMFA is attacking here because a member of the press did not agree with a paid worker for the Obama campaign.  Yea, that is big time conservative mis info.  Give me a break. 

          • - pointofview / Sunday July 27, 2008 3:19:22 PM EDT

           

          This would be an example of conservative misinformation. No break necessary.

          Media conservative misinformation is news or commentary from the media that isn't reliable or accurate and that furthers the conservative agenda.

          This is a prime example of that. Reporting that commentary from a McCain spokesman that said that this was a stumble as fact furthers the conservative agenda. It's not reliable or accurate to say that it was a stumble. He was in a no-win situation. That's different than a stumble.

          You lose again, POV, and demonstrate for all to see how desperate the McCain supporters really are, and how bankrupt the Republicans are in this election cycle.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (July 28, 2008 2:15 am ET)
             

          It was the view of the "Obama spokesman" that it was a no win situation.- pointofview

          Absolutely.And backed up by facts from the reality-based universe. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 28, 2008 12:49 pm ET)
               
            Well... to be fair... reality has a well known liberal bias.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 27, 2008 12:53 pm ET)
         
      quote-

      Later in the Situation Room broadcast, senior political analyst Gloria Borger asserted: "But it's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. Because you never want to make going to visit the troops look like a political photo opportunity, ever."

      like putting on a flight suit and landing on a carrier ?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 27, 2008 1:31 pm ET)
           
        come to think of it after rereading the quote, I think Ms Borger lost track of her talking points and adapted " you never want to make trips to soldiers funerals a photo-op opportunity " to visiting the troops. It is so easy to screw up when the sentence sounds so similar. I do believe the Bush Administration orchestrated the Pentagon to object to Barack's visit ( and that is legit ) and then slamming him for cooperating by the Mccain campaign ( that is dirty politics )
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (July 27, 2008 1:26 pm ET)
         
      How many soldiers' funerals has shrub or his neo-con handlers attended?  How many times has shrub visited wounded soldiers without it being a photo-op?  Gawd, these people define horrible and beg for an even stronger word to be coined to describe them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 27, 2008 1:32 pm ET)
           
        how about " SITHEADS "
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 27, 2008 6:08 pm ET)
           
        Bush was too busy to attend those funerals, but he sent his representative to many of them. Pastor Phelps, perhaps you've heard of him?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (July 28, 2008 2:48 am ET)
           

        To be fair, Mary, Dubya' did give up golf out of solidarity with the troops.

        Except when raising money for the Republicans, of course. That, after all, is his patriotic duty .

        And those days after the torn meniscus in his knee had healed.

        And... well, why nitpick? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (July 28, 2008 4:33 pm ET)
             
          We are just so picky picky...as we watch Bush/mcSame talk a good talk, then shortsheet the troops.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 27, 2008 1:53 pm ET)
         
      Parasites works for me.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (July 27, 2008 1:56 pm ET)
         

      It was a no win situation for Obama because republicans basically have no shame and will exploit any issue they think will help them.  If the situation were reversed, I couldn't imagine Obama going after McCain.  In his quest for power, McCain has not only lost his bearings, he has lost all credibility and respect.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 27, 2008 2:57 pm ET)
           
        Could not agree with with you more, Loonz...but without sounding like they were parroting Obama talking points it appears to me that CNN handled it as best they could. Bottom line is that, appearance-wise, Obama was unfortunately in a damned if he did or damned if he didn't situation. It was a slip up by his campaign...they should have been better aware of the applicable protocol in advance so that the rug could not be yanked from under Obama. At any rate, I think this will soon pass and that people are duly noting how opportunistically the fraud, John McCain, is trying to desperately take advantage of this. It's just one more reason why I have lost respect for John McCain...and I suspect that I am not alone.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by JLyons (July 27, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
             
          Irony you are not alone  I lost respect for McCain along time ago. He is a fraud and he is as bad as Bush.  Straight Talk? i do not think so.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (July 27, 2008 4:26 pm ET)
             
          A perfect "set-up". The sort of slime-ball tactic Republicans are expert at. All that was needed to make it work in the minds (?) of the moronic Obama haters is to have a media shill make it stick by leaving out a few words. Obama, himself, should have seen this coming and made a personal announcement explaining the time-line and history of his decision, NOT have a surrogate do it. He needs to speak for himself more and avoid having his actions and motives described too often by the surrogates. It is more and more obvious that McCain is getting passes for his ridiculous pronouncements and idiotically uninformed statements. If Obama made the kinds of remarks the love-child of George and Karl has made, he would have been toast months ago. (Just as an aside, I was stationed at Landstuhl, Germany, at that hospital compound for almost a year, way back in 1958!)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by annes10 (July 28, 2008 12:10 am ET)
               

            Thanks for your service.

            That base has been there 50 - 60 years! Why are we still there?

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 28, 2008 10:27 am ET)
             

          It was a slip up by his campaign...they should have been better aware of the applicable protocol in advance so that the rug could not be yanked from under Obama.

          I think the "applicable protocol" from the Pentagon was to wait and see what Obama wanted to do, and then make up a rule that he wasn't allowed to do it, and wait to tell him until two days before the scheduled event.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (July 27, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
           

        Yup.

        This is the same thing as when the rightwingers made a mockery of Kerry's service and his Purple Hearts, then cried foul when Wesley Clark, a former General, simply pointed out (after being prompted to do so) that McCain's POW status is not a criteria for being President.

        They really have no shame. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (July 27, 2008 4:36 pm ET)
             

          They really have no shame. 

          Perfect description...that says it all.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (July 27, 2008 4:46 pm ET)
         
      I have watched this CNN travesty several times today. What is it with Wolf Blitzer? He always starts every sound-bite with "We're running out of time and I just want to get a quick thing in here", and then he drops a little hand grenade remark about Obama having time to go to a gym, but not to visit the troops. Did anyone notice that? All it takes is a sentence or phrase to "color" the event. That's NOT reporting, that's an editorial stance. Blitzer made a statement, offhandidly, that provided a "judgement" about Obama's decision to not visit the wounded troops in the hospital. There was NO WAY a visit to the troops could have been seen as a "private visit" since the whole trip was funded by Obama's campaign. The Pentagon, which is an obvious branch of the Oval Office, set this trap by its own wording. "We didn't discourage him, we just discouraged bringing the campaign..." Yeah, right! Obama had better get wise and I mean quick!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 27, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
           
        Funny. During this time of "war" we have Bush who famously takes 2-3 hour lunches almost every day. Why? So he can go and workout in the Presidential gym. Also, he is famous for taking more vacation than any other President before him, and probably after him, and also knocking off work sometimes as late as 6PM. Where are the criticisms of that? He's never been to one funeral for a service member. He never goes to visit soldiers without cameras present and snapping away. He gives big speeches attacking his opponents using military bases and soldiers for props, and yet, we get nothing about that.

        Obama doesn't go to visit one set of wounded troops in Germany, and this is ALL we'll hear for about the next 2 weeks. Wait and watch, and see.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 27, 2008 6:12 pm ET)
             
          Not only that, remember how republicans blamed Clinton for all those security lapses? Look at all the security breaches we've had under bush, from lost laptops to the chinese breaking into the whitehouse intranet, and not one peep. Accountability is something these phony republicans only demand of everyone else.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (July 27, 2008 6:26 pm ET)
               
            SNOOPY,

            I have one correction to make of your previous post: you called them "phony Republicans". They are not "phony", they are REAL Republicans. Please, continue...
            Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne (July 27, 2008 5:18 pm ET)
         

      For anyone wanting to read an uplifting piece about Obama's trip, Frank Rich has one in today's NYT:

      http://www.truthout.org/article/how-obama-became-acting-president

      I know I needed a lift after all the stoopid talk by the media this week.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (July 27, 2008 5:29 pm ET)
           
        But, but, but, I thought the NYT was a partisan right wing rag (looking over the topics posted here the past several weeks).  Why would there be anything positive said about BHO in that leg of the media?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (July 27, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
             

          Oh, Oscar. I just like you so much. Why do you have to be so obstinante sometimes :-0)

          Since you like alliterations, here goes:

          Obstinate Oscar obviously offers opposing opinions to obscure Obama's omnipotence. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (July 27, 2008 6:10 pm ET)
               
            Glad I could help you cover the "O"s in your quest to alliterize though the alphabet this year.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (July 27, 2008 7:51 pm ET)
                 

              And alternatively, always apt assistance in aid of annual alphabetical alliteration.

              P.S. Can't wait to see her get to "X". 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by oscar the grouch (July 27, 2008 8:05 pm ET)
                   
                Q + the end of the alphabet will be a challenge, but  JJ, I feel sure, is up to it.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne (July 27, 2008 8:23 pm ET)
                   

                I can do anything with the help of my bad ass urban dictiontionary. So getta outta here with your xpinion.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (July 27, 2008 8:07 pm ET)
             

          What's actually been said about the NY Times is denial that they're a liberal-leaning newspaper, and discussing the fact that they sometimes push conservative misinformation.

          But you go with that strawman argument that people here have said that, Oscar, if it makes you feel good.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by laughinglefty (July 27, 2008 10:12 pm ET)
         

      Whatever Obama did in this situation, the McCain campaign, aided by the Corporate Media and the Pentagon under the thrall of the Bush regime, was going to make an issue of it.

      If we had a real objective media in this country, the theme would be that it is Sen. McCain who has blundered by attempting to use wounded troops as a political cudgel to beat his opponent with. An act so cynical, undignified and beneath contempt that it is a clear demonstration of McCain's unfitness to be Commander an Chief revealing a personality that is devoid of integrity, a moral center and respect for the lives and welfare of our troops.   

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (July 27, 2008 11:22 pm ET)
         
      Is this a hospital of troops injured from Iraq or Afghanistan?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (July 28, 2008 5:12 am ET)
         
      TMAN,

      I recall very clearly that the Landsthul complex was HUGE. It covered almost the top

      of a mountain with many facilities. It has to be even bigger today. When I was stationed there, in 1957, I was a lowly clerk with a hospital administration outfit. Today, as then, Landstuhl can handle enormous numbers of service members for any and all conditions.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (July 28, 2008 7:23 am ET)
         
      HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN FOR THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA!!!! DID YOU SEE ALL THOSE HAPPY FACES ON THE NEWS WHEN MCCAIN CAME OUT WITH THE NEW AD ATTACKING OBAMA FOR NOT GOING TO SEE THE TROOPS. NOW TELL ME AGAIN HOW MCCAIN IS DIFFRENT THEN BUSH??? LET'S SEE HOW LONG THIS STORY IS GOING TO RUN IN THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA. HEY BET TIME AGAIN!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 28, 2008 12:12 pm ET)
         

      "If he does it off camera, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of being embarrassed to be seen with wounded service members..."

       You know I was wondering why he didn't just go without his campaign staff or whatever it was the Pentagon objected to but this explanation makes sense.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mkenglwd4078 (July 28, 2008 12:33 pm ET)
         
      No matter what Obama does or doesn't do, the McCain bunch is going to find fault, however ignorant it may be.  I believe when looking for faults, people should use a mirror instead of a telescope.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hm1342 (July 28, 2008 1:11 pm ET)
         
      I think Senator Obama should have just visited the troops in the hospital while he had the chance.  If that meant sans media and "strap-hangers", so much the better.  And having a very brief, simple statement afterwards to respect the privacy of the visit would have been the best closing.  Whoever was advising him on this episode did the senator and the troops no favors.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 28, 2008 3:11 pm ET)
         

      Your script would not be pundit proof, trust me. I've heard he did have some conversations with troops via the phone. Is this a get out of pundit hell card?

      How many more overstressed monologs will appear insisting that Obama hates the troops?

      Is this the default neocon position for any progressive/liberal/democrat?

      Not a trick question,but probably a silly one. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hm1342 (July 28, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
         

      To eweston8542983

       

        I think that no matter what Senator Obama did the conservatives were going to criticize his decision.  But the right thing to do was just to visit the troops without the accompanying entourage and keep it low-key.  Let the pundits make him out to be an opportunist - it's what they get paid to do. I think most Americans would see through the smoke screen of self-righteousness.  I don't question Obama's patriotism or concern for the troops.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.