This is good journalism in so much as it attempts to give both sides of a very protracted debate but as with most stories on the subject of who is stronger on foreign affairs, McCain is represented as very decisive (e.g. the use of the word "hammered") and all the resposes listed where from "the Obama campaign" not from Obama himself. This portrays Sen. Obama as on the defensive. Also, when giving the reason Obama voted against the bill listing the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the arthur simply states what the Obama campaign says was a provision in the bill and doesn't confirm or deny that this was the case. This always leaves the reader to wonder or doubt if this actually was in the bill.

This piece is basically a narrative review of the speech John McCain gave to AIPAC with little actual reporting on his actual actions. Additionally, it tends to shade coverage of Obama's position as a mere response to John McCain's tough rheortic. The style of writing that presents the story as a "back and forth" speech and proxy debate tends to provide an air of legitmization to McCain's position, while characterizing Obama's position on foreign affairs as inconsistent because he is merely trying to respond to McCain.