If this were a newsprint story, it would be above par, since it presents three points of view. But this is for the Tribune's web edition. The reporter could have made it longer and also included internet links that would have given more info about the accuracy and insight of the different positions. Have a series of administrations really tried to talk to Iran? What was Obama's divestment bill, and what was McCain's response to it? Who is the National Iranian American Council, and which "Iranian community" do they advocate for? You can't fit all that in one article, but you can provide the links.

I was impressed by this article because it balanced McCain's comments with those of Obama. It also pointed out that Obama had sponsored disinvestment legislation, rebutting the implication of McCain's speech that Obama simply wanted to make nice with the Iranian government. What the article didn't point out (and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this) is that at least one of McCain's advisers has worked for a lobbying firm that has ties with companies that presently invest in Iran through subsidiaries.

article was mostly quoations which I assume are accurate. seemed balanced between McCain and Obama,s stances. writer didnt seem to favor either viewpoint.

Every major point had a cited, credible reference.

More than 2 sources. Not "he said, she said".

I personally don't agree with McCain's position but this is about the article, not McCain. I thought it did what it was supposed to do which was to report what McCain said, then put it in context of the campaign and the contrary position of Obama. Nice touch to quote the National iranian American Council, from which I would judge this article to be somewhat biased against McCain..

Slapped together from campaign statements and handouts, this leans over backward to appear fair by quoting both campaigns. Pretty typical for average MSM journalism today it makes little effort to delve into the issue for the reader, instead letting the campaigns duel. This appears even handed, but actually relieves the reporter of doing serious work.

This article spells out McCain's willingness to carry on the Bush foreign policy. It uses point of fact, and then presents Mr Obama's response and goes further posting the response of the National Iranian American Council. I only wish Mr Obama's response was highlighted in the title or more at the beginning of the piece. Well done.

This article is a good introduction to the complexities of politics. It is extremly hard for any candidate to be unscathed by their words vs. their actions. It seems it should be simple! When you start to get involved with people making millions of dollars or even people who invest money you are bound to find faults with the management of the money. If you really want to know who a person does business with and how a person does business follow the money.

Long on reportage of words spoken, light on analysis.

I think John McCain is a war hero, saying that I think his foreign policies are truly outdated. I hope all Americans voting this year , really pay attention to the details and really listen to the debates between Obama and McCain. America can not afford to elect McCain, we will be heading into another war so I hope everyone really pays attention to his Bush -like-politics

Uses direct quotes in an adequate context

More sources than usual - BUT - didn't McCain vote against or come out against the divestment bill that Obama introduced? I didn't see that mentioned.

Presents three voices: McCain's, Obama's, and the Iran-American Council's.

While it may not be the immediate focus of this article, the writer could have done a little more digging into McCain's advisers. While McCain talks about divesting from Iran, his campaign manager Rick Davis has ties to corporations and businesses doing business with Iran. This conflict of interest has not been picked up anywhere by the MSM, although HuffPo picked it up from TPM.

This story certainly gives equal time to both candidates after a major speech by one of them. It fully airs the two candidates' views on the subject. The story, however, depends entirely on long swaths of prepared comments from both sides, which while illuminating, gives the reader no advantage from a reporter's work.

This author did not explain that McCain has several lobbyists on his campaign staff with clients or ties to firms with large financial investments in Iran. They also did not explain that Iran has been helping the US with both its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq as well.

No independent analysis

I hate articles that present the views of the candidate as if they are gospel fact. The less than average reader will certainly get the wrong idea from reading this article.