Core excerpt of Hillary Clinton's endorsement speech today. CNN could have added some of her repetitive rhetorical cadence, invoking the reasons people should support and vote for Barack Obama

Nice and short, and all true, really.

Goodness! "The similarities between... Gov. Jindal and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are tantalizing to many in the Grand Old Party." Like what, how, says who? There's a nagging whiff implied in this article that the Republicans, in a deficient, racially tinged imitation of the Democrats, may have found their version of a "dark skinned" person to add to their ticket in an attempt to stay competitive with the Democrats. A word of advise to the writers: I would be more careful next time addressing this type point. The line is at best idiotic and irresponsible, because it just sits there, without explanation, a proper analogy, or factual corroboration. With respect to McCain: the writers, being US press, all institutionally and ... More »

Cummings needs more sources and a bit more organization in her presentation of money numbers. It is hard for the reader to make heads or tails of who has what and why. What about McCain's private vs. public finance conflict? Is his campaign going to figure out a way to do both and get away with it? Also, this election is serious stuff. The journalist should not be throwing around numbers in the billions that will never exist, only to dramatize her point. This subtracts credibility.

Good start, but it needs more substance, context, sources, and a dash of intelligent cohesion for the reader to get a sense, or better, make some educated judgment, based on this article, on where both candidates are with respect to the national economy.

Good, short, and sweet. Reston could have added more comments on how the Obama speech later last night did address and counter some of McCain's verbal attacks.

On the whole, an excellent article. Still and as one reads, the issue of whether this is a NEWS and information piece or an opinion piece does creep in. Some carelessly chosen descriptive words, such as "aloof," or "slow to recognize," or even "he is a liberal" can turn a piece with merit into an irresponsible and controversial article, particularly when the writer does not present facts that substantiate his or her statements and claims. More care and discipline must be applied to embody a sense of journalistic impartiality, in this article and in general. It is critically important on anything and all published by the New York Times.

Good idea but incomplete. The page appears fair at first glance, but the coverage of the number of statements and claims, particularly by McCain, is extremely slim. They rate 53 statements by John McCain. He makes that number statements every 2 or 3 days. This diminishes trustworthiness.

Informative, with some insightful observations. But, Rosner does not elaborate; he does not make the logical connections and explanations required for an average reader to understand the subject's statements and what Rosner says about them. One instance: 'Here, a clear line can be drawn between McCain's answer and Roth's successful novel "The Plot Against America" ...' How, please?

Is this a press release by the McCain campaign or instead something that needed to resemble a news report as written by some journalist? If the former, this is a very enthusiastic heads-up of what the favorite candidate is doing and how his presence in Wisconsin counts for...something. (?). If the latter, it is an embarrassment. Borowski repeats what overtly are Republican political campaign talking points and slogans, without asking one substantial, adult, relevant question in return. He just throws in one-liner claims by McCain, and then leaves them there, utterly unsubstantiated. How many voters has McCain wooed with success in Wisconsin? Where are the poll numbers to back up the headline? For instance, Borowski writes, ... More »

An Op-Ed; the guy can write whatever he wants.

Partial, incomplete, and tendentious; it picks up from where McCain's criticisms of Obama's economic proposals start and then runs with it. In other words, it piles on on top of McCain's criticisms of Obama. It does not present what the Obama side says on McCain's shallow and insufficient positions on the myriad of complex issues with US trade.

I say it's tendentious. This piece reads as an advertisement for John McCain, filled with all kinds of "nice" but tiresome information on the guy. Readers are supposed to ingest it all and conclude, "Oh, besides a military hero, John McCain is quite an American statesman." Even though it purports to explain both candidates' policy positions, Obama is mentioned only in passing and only in contrast to McCain. It is stereotypical of the reportage by the core national media on McCain: incessant over-promotion.