Having seen the speech, almost in its entirety, this story resonates with my overall impression of McCain's position.

This story reads like a play with a beginning or end. The middle is kind of there but I wonder why bother with rehashing the obvious. Where are the facts and what is the real issue. This really goes no where

McCain should know better after what happened to him during the 2000 election.

Mainly a news report of McCain's statements after Obama clinched Democratic nomination.

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.

I listened to most of the speech and I say the article is a fair account of what I heard.

This story defines what passes for journalism today. It is "accurate", I suppose, in the narrow sense that it accurately quotes McCain's statements. What is missing from this piece is any context. For example, the article uncritically reports that McCain is distancing himself from President Bush. How? Is McCain SAYING that he's different from Bush, or do his actions match his statements? In fact, and what is missing from this article is McCain's consistent pattern of voting to support the Administration after vocally criticizing it.

This is merely a summary of McCain's comments from Tuesday night, listed with a sympathetic ear. It mentions that he is a leader of change, as evidenced by his history in politics. While McCain was once the leader he purports himself to be, Reston makes no mention of his recent courtship of the far right, where he reversed his position on various important decisions. Also, his courtship of Clinton supporters seems to imply he is the next best thing in lieu of her as a candidate, although his positions are often in stark contrast to hers.

This filler piece just regurgitates his talking points that he needed/wanted to make on that date for that crowd. It is neither challenging nor informative. The simple reciting of excerpts from this speech allows McCain’s statements to stand without challenge. For example, because he praised Clinton and has daughters, the impression is that he is by default a strong advocate for women – he is not. His statement that he answers to no one gives the impression that he is a different type of politician. He is not.

I watched John MCCain give this speech, and the crowd was less than enthusiastic. They didn't cheer when he stopped at places where he expected them to. It was almost as if they had to be prompted to cheer. The audience was luke warm. The part he gave lauding Hillary was good, esp. when he related it to his daughters. Clearly, this reaches the malcontented women from Hillary's campaign. Reston doesn't mention the fact that the speech was poorly presented and McCain's facial expressions were odd.

This story is little more then a recital of McCains talking points ... pathetic as they may be.

Talk about "fair and balanced." This was a very one-sided article, a virtual echo chamber without any exploration or discussion - talk about "phoning it in." For example, McCain spoke in front of 600 people at a convention center without mentioning that on the same day, Obama spoke in front of 35,000 at a packed convention center. It felt as if the reporter was purposefully avoiding putting McCain next to Obama.