[milky]

Sorry about this, but having read read BOTH articles, I can now see the NYT’s point. Obama’s op-ed, while obviously flawed and overfull of rationalisation for his changing viewpoints just never stoops to the level of “cheap hit piece,” as McCain’s so often does.

McCain is mentioned only twice in Obama’s piece, and only in the context that Obama disagrees with him. I couldn’t count the number of times Obama, his plans, views and past history were attacked in McCain’s “op-ed,” but it is certainly over ten. Consequently, McCain’s piece does not fare well in comparison to Obama’s.

Not printing McCain’s op-ed in favour of Obama’s would be a no-brainer for any competent editor.

[Neverforget01]

Op ed's are meant to be for opposing editors' opinions. Since the editors are all in the tank for Obama, McCain's response fit the bill perfectly. McCain is a candidate for President of the United States and to censor his opinion is terrible journalism, no matter how you slice it. I don't think the value of McCain's opinion should be measured by how many times he mentions his opponent.

The good news is, this has backfired on the NY Times anyway.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, I think you're wrong. McCain is specifically answering Obama’s editorial, so naturally he addresses Obama about it. If we're allowed to have a debate over Iraq in this election, then yes, McCain has every right to point out where Obama is wrong. This is not an attack on Obama as the Left is ridiculously charging, but is certainly a critique of Obama’s ideas. Simply counting how many times McCain says “Obama” is not relevant to his reply as he's countering Obama’s points.

We need to hear both sides in an election as important as the Presidency of the US. Answering your opponent's ideas and stating that they're wrong and harmful to our country is as American as apple pie.

[txrangerette]

Yer too funny.

[Neverforget01]

By the way, welcome to FR.

[verity]

[KansasGirl]

LOL.

Seems to me everyone else who has read both op-eds, other than the NY Times and other idiot Obama supporters, disagrees with you.

[P-Marlowe]

Not printing McCain’s op-ed in favour of Obama’s would be a no-brainer for any competent editor.

Here is the problem kimosabe. By printing Obama's editorial that was critical of John McCaim's position, the NY Times gave free advertising to the Obama Campaign. By refusing to print the rebuttal by McCain, their gift of editorial page space to Obama becomes a de facto Campaign contribution.

The NY Times had no business printing an unedited editorial by one candidate in a presidential race specifically critical of another candidate and then refusing to give the same consideration to a candidate criticized in that editorial.

But then if the NY Times is not going to be investigated for treason, they are not going to be investigated for illegal campaign contributions, are they?

[alloysteel]

You forgot the “< /sarcasm >” tag at the end of your post.

[Petronski]

You couldn’t count to ten?

[nikos1121]

Hey, get a load of this obvious plant “newbie” here. Excuse me, but I think McCAin countered Obama’s unadulterated Irish BS quite well.

Here’s the bottom line. Who do you want in office leading our troops? A proven warhorse or someone wet behind the ears.

We need Obama in the Senate doing great things for his country. We don’t need a quick change artist, or another Jimmy Carter. Please not in my life time.

McCAin is not perfect, but it doesn’t have to be perfect. He has my vote.

HOw about you, does he have your vote, Newbie?