Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the environment and other policies this week, on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush's veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to "terrorists and radicals'' was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis. Full Story »
Posted by Elaine Meyer
This is not good journalism, because the author quoted extensively from McCain without providing context for his appeasement charges and an explanation of what appeasement means. Furthermore, the writer did not quote at all from Obama's response and placed her reference to it at the very end of the article.
Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: I dont know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.‘ Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. Thats what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.’
The writer could quote from the Obama campaign more extensively and closer to the top of the article. She could also give a more thorough perspective on what it means to accuse someone of being an appeaser and offer insight into how often neogiaiting with leaders of hostile nations has resulted in a real threat for the United States.
I do not think it is fair to ask McCain whether he thinks Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama are appeasers, because it suggests the writer is complicit in the frame that Bush and McCain have chosen for their political opponents.