NY Times, AP repeat McCain falsehood that Obama said Ayers was "just" a guy in his neighborhood
SUMMARY: The New York Times and the AP uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama said that William Ayers was "just" a guy in his neighborhood. In fact, when questioned about Ayers in an April Democratic primary debate, Obama did not use the word "just" when describing Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
In October 10 articles, The New York Times and The Associated Press uncritically reported Sen. John McCain saying of Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers: "Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood." The Times reported that McCain added, "We need to know that's not true," while the AP reported McCain added, "We know that's not true, we need to know the full extent of the relationship." In fact, contrary to McCain's claim, Obama did not use the word "just" when describing Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." Indeed, during the April 16 Democratic primary debate, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos said to Obama: "An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his [Ayers'] house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem." Obama said of Ayers: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from." Obama added, "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis," and went on to say that Ayers' Weather Underground actions were "detestable."
From the April 16 Democratic primary debate:
STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that.
And, in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly."
Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.
Additionally, neither the Times nor the AP noted their previous reporting that Obama and Ayers were not close. The Times reported on October 4 that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8' "; the AP reported on October 5 that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts."
By contrast, McClatchy reported McCain's quote but added that "Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign."
From the October 10 New York Times article:
Although Mr. McCain did not mention Mr. Ayers, a founder of the radical group the Weather Underground, by name, his intent was clear in his response to a question about Mr. Obama. A man told Mr. McCain that ''we're all wondering why Obama is where he's at'' in the polls and then asked, ''Is there not a way to get around this media and line up the people he has hung with?''
Mr. McCain responded, ''Well, sir, with your help and the people in this room, we will find out.'' He added: ''Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. You know, but that's not the point here. The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.''
Although Mr. McCain raised questions about Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers in a televised interview last spring, he has refrained from attacking Mr. Obama on the trail for his association with Mr. Ayers in the general election campaign. He had left those attacks to his campaign operatives and Ms. Palin.
Mr. McCain's reference to Mr. Ayers's desire to carry out more bombings was from an article in The New York Times, published by chance on Sept. 11, 2001, about Mr. Ayers and his memoir, ''Fugitive Days.'' The article opened with a quotation: ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'' Three days later, Mr. Ayers wrote on his Web site that the meaning of his remarks had been distorted.
Most of the bombings attributed to the Weathermen were meant to damage only property, but a 1970 pipe bombing in San Francisco attributed to the group killed a police officer and severely hurt another.
Mr. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lives in Mr. Obama's neighborhood. He was named citizen of the year in Chicago in 1997, has worked with Mr. Obama on a schools project and a charitable board, and gave a house party when Mr. Obama was running for the State Senate.
From the October 10 Associated Press article:
McCain also referenced Obama's connection with 1960s radical William Ayers without mentioning him by name.
"Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true. We need to know the full extent of the relationship," McCain said.
From the October 10 McClatchy article:
Outspent by Obama on TV ads, McCain launched a new Web ad about his opponent's connections to Bill Ayers, the Chicago professor, in which the announcer describes Ayers as a "domestic terrorist" and concludes, "Barack Obama: Too risky for America."
McCain told the Wisconsin crowd, "Look, we don't care about a washed-up terrorist and his wife who still, after Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. But that's not the point here. The point is Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true, we need to know the full extent of the relationship, because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not."
Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign.
Good grief MMFA, this is "just" a little silly.
Tommy I am "just " inclined to agree with you.
"Just", another four letter word. Though its importance seems to run very deep in Wingnuttia. Spose it's better than Traitor, Terrorist, Liar or several other noncomplimentary words heard at recent repulican rallies.
Not silly. The word is crucial to the meaning of the statement. McCain uses a wholly reasonable quote by Obama, but adds the word "just" to make Obama look like a liar. The NYT allows it without comment. I remembered the quote and after watching McCain's ad, I thought, "Good point. Obama should be more forthcoming." Had the mainstream media pointed out the addition of the word "just," or shown Obama's actual quote, I would have realized Obama wasn't trying to misrepresent his relationship with Ayers. Instead I had to read MMFA to figure that out.
"Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood."
"Senator Obama said he was a guy in the neighborhood"
You are free to think the word is "crucial", but to me it's a silly negligible difference.
-- But assessments like these have absolutely no merit, no value. They serve no purpose; they do not educate viewers and readers about anything that matters. -- Jamison Foser's earlier column on the silliness of the media
Yep...no value what so ever. Foser must be on vacation today since mmfa...after some nice analytical columns...has slipped back into the world of inanity.
Tommy, while I understand your point that this little word can be seen as insignificant, pay attention to how many commentators add it to the quote. They're very consistent. Remember "really proud of my country"?.
These aren't accidents, and even if Wesley still pretends not to understand that MM is only pointing out how these things are used, they are used very deliberately.
When you say "MM is only pointing out how these things are used", do you mean "MM is just pointing out how these things are used"?
Are you saying that MMfA has no purpose other than to point out how these things are used, or are you throwing in "only" because you have some surplus vowels to get rid of?
But MMFA isn't complaining about how many commentators are adding it to the quote. They are complaining because the NY Times didn't correct McCain's insertion of it. And I still maintain it's a silly and meaningless complaint, so they didn't say "look, Obama never said "just", but he did say he was a guy in his neighborhood". That is nitpicking word parsing to the max, and as Wes says, inane.
It's interesting to me that you comment on this site just to nitpick MMfA's articles.
Sorry, I just can't rubberstamp each and every one like most of you do. If you'd just rather read those that do, then I suggest you just not read mine.
Oh Tommy, you are just and fair, and I will bring you a shrubbery.
They misquted him. That constitutes a lie by commission.
Right, if you take either phrase by itself it sounds like that's Obama's complete statement on the matter. The "just" emphasizes that impression, though, that's hard to deny.
Would you agree that either quote should be addressed with Obama's full response, so that readers can understand it in context?
"Would you agree that either quote should be addressed with Obama's full response, so that readers can understand it in context?"
That is not MMFA's beef with the NY Times, which is not slapping McCain's hand for using the word "just". As I have repeated enough, it's a silly complaint, to me.
Was my question unreasonable? Would you agree that they should provide the context or not?
I didn't say it was unreasonable, it's just not the point of this thread or MMFA's focus. If you'd like it to discussed on another thread, then here's your chance to be an MMFA tipster and let them know.
The point of the thread is the suggestion that Obama described Ayers solely in this manner. That's why your post which I responded to is misleading, because "just" doesn't make a big difference if that single line is quoted
by itself. Either way it's misleading, but "just" makes the impression much more explicit and dishonest.
So what I'm saying is that it's not nitpicking over the word "just". That's obviously not the thrust of the article, as if they had left the word out it would be completely acceptable. This is clear by the notation of his Obama's full quote. McCain is pretending that Obama hasn't said more about the association, and that should be corrected in the media.
If you agree with that last sentence, then your criticism is that the "just" aspect should be an additional factor, and the complaint should be phrased to be primarily about "cropping" his quote. Is that fair to say?
You; "That's [the word "just] obviously not the thrust of the article, as if they had left the word out it would be completely acceptable"
MMFA headine; "NY Times, AP repeat McCain falsehood that Obama said Ayers was "just" a guy in his neighborhood"
Your thinly veiled attempt to jumpstart an off topic argument, as you so often do, is pretty evident, but I suggest you take up the "thrust" with MMFA, not me.
If you agree with that last sentence, then your criticism is that the "just" aspect should be an additional factor, and the complaint should be phrased to be primarily about "cropping" his quote. Is that fair to say?
How do you argue that this is off-topic? I don't see how I'm being tangential, unreasonable, or disrespectful at all, and I have no idea what you're hostile about.
I am not hostile, but once again you obviously have to sniff out an argument on either a point I am not making, or in this case even MMFA is not making.
The point of this thread is the word "just", I have made my opinion on why I think it's a silly complaint by MMFA......to expand the discussion beyond that is what you do all the time, so you can beg for an argument all day long on what you feel like arguing about, or you can simply give your opinion and we will agree to disagree.
"Your thinly veiled attempt to jumpstart an off topic argument, as you so often do, is pretty evident, but I suggest you take up the "thrust" with MMFA, not me."
That's not hostile? Really?
I'm asking you for some middle ground here. Obviously the "just" makes it sound like that's all Obama said about Ayers. That is plainly not true. Would you agree that this "cropping" is something the media should correct? If so, then that's in the same vein as this, and then you don't have to focus on the word "just".
Why is it not possible to engage you in a reasonable conversation on this?
"Obviously the "just" makes it sound like that's all Obama said about Ayers"
Now there is where we disagree. The word "just" does not imply that at all, to me. But rather it does imply that their relationship is minimized, like an off the cuff "he's just a guy in our neighborhood", speaking to the casualness of their relationship.
And I still maintain that as Obama did say "he's a guy in our neighborhood", the difference in MMFA complaining about the media not correcting the word "just" is so negligible and silly, as I have said fifty times, that it hardly warrants mention here.
So I do not agree with your premise that "just" means that was all Obama said. However if you see it that way, and I don't, then we are still at agreeing to disagree.
I don't know how you accomodate the fact that Obama served on boards with Ayers with Ayers being "just a guy in the neighborhood". That seems like an obvious contradiction.
"The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.''
We need to know that's not true. What, he lived in a different neighborhood?
Now you're veering off into "We need to know that's not true".
Did I condone that? No.
Is that in MMFA's summary? No.
Was I right about your thinly veiled attempts to argue just about anything with me, even if it means inventing an argument? Yes.
Veering off into? It's what McCain said. It's part of the article, and I'm sure you read that as well as the summary.
What argument am I "inventing"? I'm partly agreeing with you that the point should be about more than the "just" part, but I'm also saying that the full article shows that it is about more than that. That's why it should be reframed, which would naturally be reflected in the summary. I'm asking if that's reasonable for you, and all I get from you is spittle.
And as I said, take it up with MMFA then. The thread is about "just", my comments are about "just", and they still are, despite your efforts to expand the discussion.
And I repeat, go to MMFA and tell them to put a thread up here with just what you are irritated over, if that happens, I may comment, and so it goes.........
You took it up with MMfA. I'm just trying to reach some middle ground in your criticism, since you seem to be dismissive of the entire thing, when there clearly seems to be a valid concern behind it.
Again, the hostility is unexplained. If you're having some personal issues, maybe you should refrain from posting until you're capable of having an adult conversation.
The AP is guilty of 2 sins:
1) First, they allowed McBush to misquote Obama. And then didn't give their readers Obama's real words. That's a serious sin. The sin of incompetence.
2) Second, they did not provide readers with Obama's full response--in context. That is the only way you can present to readers a truly balanced account of a cheap political attack. Another serious sin. You could almost call it journalistic malpractice.
Great work here by Media Matters. I just sent the AP an e-mail
Tommy just said the other day that "context is everything". Today it's obviously a different story.
Context is everything. But so is discussing the point of the thread, which does not always consider the entire context. So rather than act like a petulant child who can't engage in lawyer/attorney games like you incessantly crave doing on this website, specifically with me, I prefer to stick to the subject of MMFA's topic, even if that means I can't play TV courtroom drama.
If you can't do that, perhaps you should refrain from posting until you're capable of having an adult conversation.
So why not answer a question about whether the subject should be modified?
Objection your Honor, irrelevant.
And this is "adult conversation" on your part?
How on earth is a discussion about what the subject should be not relevant to "the subject of MMfA's topic"? Probably the same way that an effort to reach compromise is akin to the behavior of a "petulant child".
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you're coming off here? You can't point to anything I've said to you that's unfair or unreasonable, yet you're sniping at me. Why?
Did I say you were unreasonable or unfair? No, just stubbornly off the thread's point, and you scold me for not sitting on the witness stand and answering your questions?
That is what really has you angry, admit it.
Where have I displayed anger? This would be projection on your part.
So you're acting this way simply because I'm disagreeing with your opinion of what "the thread's point" is. I think it clearly goes beyond the headline and summary, based on the article itself, but discussing that is impossible because you seem to think the article is beyond the scope of the topic.
Incidentally, I thought this was a discussion board, so it's sort of surprising that an effort to engage in a discussion is met with such hostility.
You are free to think the word is "crucial", but to me it's a silly negligible difference.
Words mean something, Tommy; even a simple word like "just".
Gramps McCain seemed to think it was important enough to inject that word into Barack's quote. And since it changes the meaning of the sentence and Gramps is a conservative, that makes this "conservative misinformation".
I didn't say it changed anything, or not. What I said was it is a silly neglible difference, in my opinion. If the rest of you think it is valid enough for placement here, then that is perfectly fine by me. We all have opinions.
Adding the word "just" is the same as adding "that's all" to the end of the sentence. It qualifies the sentence in a way that expands upon (or limits) its meaning. It makes Obama look dishonest as if the only relationship with Ayers is that he is just some guy who lives in the neighborhood, when it is known that Obama had other brief contacts with Ayers over his career.
It is such a subtle change that I can understand someone overlooking it in the McCain quote. But, as someone with an English degree, I know that adding or subtracting a word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I'd expect journalists (especially editors) who work at NYT to understand that better than I do.
See? I did the same thing myself. I used the word "contacts" when a better word would have been "encounters". Yes; "contacts" and "encounters" are synonyms, but they have different conotations that could change the meaning of any sentence. The fact is that the word "encounters" is more accurate than the word "contacts" when describing the very loose relationship between Ayers and Obama(in the same way "just" can change the meaning of a sentence).
I am in trouble here if i ever decide to run for office. I know there are republicans living in my neighborhood actively trying to make me a republican. watching the YouTube community postings last night where regular people at palin's rallies saying those terribly racist things...............I am worried now.
Every time Bill Ayres is mentioned in connection with Barack Obama, we need to being up McCain's equivalent - G. Gordon Liddy. Here are a few choice nuggets from Liddy's Wikipedia page:
Controversies
Watergate burglaries
For his role in Watergate, which he coordinated with Hunt, Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping, and received a 20-year sentence. He served a total of five and half years in prison, including over 100 days in solitary confinement, before his sentence was commuted by President Jimmy Carter and he was released on September 7, 1977.
Advice to listeners
Liddy is noted for controversial advice to his radio audience, including on one occasion in 1994, after the federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, Liddy advised his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
Relationship with Senator John McCain
Over the years, Liddy has made four contributions totaling $5,000 to Senator John McCain's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2007. In November 2007 Senator John McCain, 2008 Presidential candidate, went on Liddy's radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain replied. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family... It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
The Middle East
"Increase the size of the United States armed forces, bring it up to about 2 million, all-volunteer, highly trained forces, the way they currently are. Emulate the Israelis, the way they handle guerrilla warfare, the Israelis are very good at it. Then, one by one, effect the regime change you told the American people and the world that you would do after September 11, 2001. Nobody expects you to do it simultaneously. If there's a question as to whether Iran will revolt on its own, you may want to leave it for last. Just keep picking them off, one by one." On dealing with the Middle East.
Comments on Vietnam
"I wanted to bomb the Red River dykes [sic]. It would have drowned half the country and starved the other half. There would have been no way the Viet Cong could have operated if we had the will-power to do that."..."The Seventh Infantry Division in 1945 used to drive their tanks around with the heads of defeated Japanese solders displayed proudly on the front. That's what we need to train our present-day soldiers to be."
Environmentalism
"Environmentalism is a form of pagan fundamentalism. These green wackos are fanatics like al-Quaida. Just like them," ... "Osama believes there are 72 virgins waiting for him. The environmentalist believes human beings cause global warming. They both want to wreak havoc because of their mad beliefs. What's the difference?"..."Why should we listen to these fulminating feminists, proselytizing poofters, the environmentally ill, these multilateralist UN one-world government worshipers and other politically correct castrati?"
Don't stop there...
The McCain campaign has attempted to make an issue out of Barack Obama's limited connections with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. However, according to a new investigative report, vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin herself has had a far close and more extensive association with Alaska's own political extremists than she has ever acknowledged.
The story at Salon.com by Max Blumenthal and David Neiwart offers an in-depth examination of the crucial role played in Palin's political career by two members of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party (AIP).
When Blumenthal appeared on Thursday's Rachel Maddow Show, he began by explaining that AIP -- which has links to both neo-Confederate parties in the South and the theocratic Constitutional Party -- serves as "a haven for anti-government extremists, anti-government militia members, and conspiratorial figures who believe that the United States government plans to implement a New World Order."
AIP advocates secession from the United States, and its founder, Joe Vogler, is known for having proclaiming "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
They were friends. Obama lauched his political career out of his home. Obama blurbed Ayer's book. They worked together for years. They spoke together on the same stage.
They were friends.
They were friends.
Are you saying that they're no longer friends? If you said they were "just friends", would you be denying any sort of a more intimate relationship? I want to get deeper into your 6 month old talking points, Copious, don't tease us with a little taste of wingnut honey.
"You get it backwards," replied Scarborough. "You see, what we do is we talk about it for a very long time, and then we reveal -- after the ratings come in and it helps us out -- that we shouldn't be talking about it."
Not. An. Issue.
Actually, THAT is also not true. Obama din't "launch his career" from Ayers home. The function people mention was a fund raiser for Alice Palmer. Obama later replaced her in her seat. Obama was just attending a fund raiser for someone else, that happened to be at Ayers house. so all this "launched his career" stuff is bogus too.
They were friends. Obama lauched his political career out of his home. Obama blurbed Ayer's book. They worked together for years. They spoke together on the same stage. - CD
Every single contact that's ever been mentioned has been dealing with one form of business or other. Politics, charity, educational initiatives. There's been nothing social or even personal, it's been all business and a very small amount of that.
They were not friends. As much as you nutjobs want it to be true, it simply isn't.
How sad it is that Senator McCain is gone from someone who was somewhat genuine in 2000 to this bitter man who is trying to build up the walls the Obama has taken down
Y'all might want to mosey on over to this PBS poll about whether or not Palin is qualified...
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
Right now it's 49-49. How is that possible? The Troglodytes must be storming the site en masse.
Apparently the Grampy/Twit campaign thinks they've found their silver bullet. They've got Hanniturd and PigBoy Limbaugh hammering this non-story hot and heavy, and even Grampy is bleating about it in his speeches.
PigBoy was practically licking his lips today, claiming that Obama was lying about his relationship to Ayers.
Grampy should be embarrassed. If this is all he's got, he should be a man and walk off the field before he makes a complete ass of himself.
What strikes me as especially odd is that there's no strategy behind it. Do the angry shouts from crowds (planted campaign staffers, I am sure) appeal to independents? I would think that an undecided voter would run screaming from the mob mentality.
I have to agree with Tommy on this one; this is really ridiculous. Obama said Ayers was "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." There is absolutely nothing dishonest about then saying that Obama called Ayers "just a guy in the neighborhood," because what else is implied by Obama's statement?
This "story" is a waste of space. Talk about parsing.
It's taken out of context. It implies that it's all he said about Ayers, and the media should correct McCain's misrepresentation.
Ayers is just a smoking gun the real story is Berg vs Obama. It is being brought to the attention of many, without help from the media who doe not speak of it, that Senator Obama has a lawsuit filed against him in PA. It is a lawsuit questioning his eligibility to be President. Whether true or not, this needs to be settled before election.
The lawyer who filed the suit said he would dismiss it, if Obama will just present the required records, one which is the vault copy of his birth certificate, which is not the same as the one floating on the internet.. An FBI agent, on an interview, said that candidates do not have background checks as it is an election by the people. Which I disagree with, as the people should be aware for whom they are voting.
Below is a petition someone started to get Congress to settle the Berg lawsuit by having Senator Obama present the records requested. The real story is why Obama is fighting the case and not just producing the documents.
Here is the link to the petition;
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis
So far Mr. Obama has refused to produce the documents and is trying to fight the court order to produce the documents.
Any American should be able to prove citizenship in less than a day. Why can’t Mr. Obama?
Here is a link to the actual court documents - http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/Pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/
A constitutional crisis will rip our country apart. If this is not cleared up now we will have a crisis. If you care at all about America you must call for Mr. Obama to produce the documents and prove that he is eligible to be President.
This is such b.s. you should be ashamed to be promoting it. If you don't think that the state of Hawaii is a real state, then there is no hope for you. The state of Hawaii has declared that his birth certificate is authentic.
Liars continue to flog this non-story.
A constitutional crisis will rip our country apart. If this is not cleared up now we will have a crisis. If you care at all about America you must call for Mr. Obama to produce the documents and prove that he is eligible to be President.
Really? Sounds like Berg is the nutty cousin of Jerome Corsi.
Naturalized citizens can't be President. "documents of naturalization", which Berg is demanding, would be an automatic disqualification. And native-born citizens don't have or need said documents.
He should have said "Ayres is a terrorist guy who lives in my neighborhood."
Now if he had been honest and said that, we wouldn't be talking about this now. The cover up of information always leads to far more problems than just being open and honest. He could have said, "Yes, I knew that he had a shaddy past but I felt that we could do some good education stuff. I severed our relationship when he made those unfortunate hurtful comments on 9/11, and I haven't been in contact with him since." But that's not what he said, and now we have a problem because Obama has been far less than honest and open. His relationship with Ayres and his wife, two despicable unrepentent monsters disqualifies him due to his poor judgement. When combined with his other poor judgement calls, he gets a no vote.
He made a perfectly clear comment about Ayers which should satisfy your needs. How about all the conservatives who worked with Ayers on the same boards and in the same circles?
In this context "just" has little relevance to the overall point being made or attempting to be made by McCain. And whether or not Obama used "just" doesn't change the content of the message for either candidate.