Here's a Second Salvo in the Dirty Campaingning War.

That sucks!

Obama's already in the gutter with McCain!  Your "explaination" is nothing more than the Obama camp's "spin" on the events.  It is no more credible than the McCain camp's "spin."  To represent your interpretation as "here are the facts" is just as dishonest as the ad campaign you blast!  What are your sources?  How exactly are you privy to the ends & outs of the thought process of the Obama campaign team?  Or Obama himself, for that matter?  I'll just chalk this up as more political propaganda & move on.  For the record, McCain's newest negative ad using Britney Spears & Paris Hilton is also dispicable!  I hate politics!!

McCain is only hurting himself. Sorry, McCain's spin sucks! 'nough said!

Hello Irish fan, Thanks for the comment.

My sources for the facts I listed in my description of the incident are primarily an article in the Washington Post and then a story on PBS's All Things Considered. In both cases, the reporters checked out the basic facts. I, of course, do not have the research capabilities of those news organizations. Nevertheless, I feel confident that the facts are as I have listed and are accurate.

Of course, if one does not like Obama, one is likely to see the facts as simply spin. But that is not the case here.

Vic and Sippy, thanks for your comments. 

Thanks for the 'thanks'!  An article from the Washington Post & a story on PBS does not a fact make true!  (although MAJOR props on PBS sporting a High Definition channel!! - It's a Big, Big World & Super Why are a sight to see in HD - though Boobah still sucks in ANY definition!!)  I never said I don't like Obama - I just don't think he'll make a very good President.  My point is that your facts would be more accurately described as your (or the Wash. Post or PBS's) opinion.

Hello Irish Fan. 

I wonder what it takes to make a fact, in your view.  The facts I cited are verifiable.  The photo of playing basketball was take from one event and juxtaposed with another event to create a lie.  You can check that yourself, if you use the internet.  That Obama did not intend to take reporters to the hospital visit was verified.  That the army declared his visit a campaign event was verified.  Facts are facts.  You can deny them but they still remain facts.  As Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stubborn things."  Admittedly, I offered my own opinion as to the interpretation of the facts I cited, but the facts are still facts.  If you disagree with my interpretation of those facts, I accept that with good grace.  As someone (I don't recall who) once said, "We are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not entitled to our own facts."

Here's a portion of an article from the Dallas Morning News ():

The decision to cancel was made after the Pentagon raised a number of issues about its policy against campaign activity at a military base — including visits by campaign staff or any media coverage or speeches. As a sitting senator, Mr. Obama was welcome to visit troops, but no one on the campaign trip with him, including a retired general who is advising his campaign, could go along.

Mr. Obama found himself in an awkward spot: visit wounded troops alone and risk being seen as having used them as campaign props, or skip the wounded troops altogether. It was a no-win pickle of Mr. Obama's own making. He hoped to minimize the political controversy by backing out of the hospital visit.

. . .

So where are we? The Obama campaign's explanation seems plausible. There is no hard evidence from the McCain campaign that the loss of a photo op played any role in Mr. Obama's decision. There's ample evidence, though no documentation, that Mr. Obama never intended to bring press to the hospital.

On the other hand, this is a problem of Mr. Obama's own creation. The fact remains he canceled the visit after the Pentagon voiced concern about political overtones. The fact remains, too, that Mr. Obama could have done a private visit even after the Pentagon raised its objections. Mr. Obama had done such visits before.

We can't give Mr. McCain's campaign any points for accuracy here, but neither can we say Mr. Obama is a helpless victim of a baseless attack. To do that we would have to give Mr. Obama and his version of the campaign's plans every benefit of the doubt.

Irish Fan,

I have no problem with anything you wrote in your last post. To me, what you wrote makes complete sense. Obama's poor planning created a situation, which McCain took advantage of, even though he had to stretch the truth a bit to do so.

The point I wanted to make in my original post was that McCain made a special point, several times, of saying he would run a new type of campaign, keeping it honest and positive. His was the first low-life move, followed, now, by the "celeb" ad and recently by Obama raising the specter of race. Now we are on our way back to the usual nasty political campaigning we seem always to get. I really did have high hopes they might keep it clean.

Bob, at your age, I'm surprised you had high hopes they'd keep it clean.  They always start out saying that, but it invariably winds up in the mud.  I wish things could be different.