Mike Allen at the Politico has an article that says all of McCain's gaffes are raising questions about his age.
The McCain campaign says Obama has had plenty of flubs of his own, including a reference to "57 states" and a string of misstated place names during the primaries that Republicans gleefully sent around as YouTubes. But the mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office?
Hello? Mike? Are you going to write another article focusing on Obama asking "are the gaffes the result of his inexperience?"
There is the 57 states one.
Then there is the Iran is no serious threat one.
Then there is the 10 years in the White House one -- that one is recent.
Then there is . . . well . . . a hell of a lot more than McCain has uttered.
But you know, the left has been pushing the "McCain is confused" meme in the past two weeks as a way to imply he is old. Way to help them out, Mike.
Here's the real trouble, Mike: You yourself write, "But the mistakes raise a serious, if uncomfortable question: Are the gaffes the result of his age? And what could that mean in the Oval Office? "
But who is raising the question? You begin your article treating it as if it is a serious question being raised by you. Only after asking the question do you really point out that the question is being driven by the left. Yet, instead of starting off your post by saying "his liberal critics have been pouncing on every misstatement as a sign that he’s an old man", something it takes you half the article to get to, you actually try to write a legitimate story as if you yourself raised the question. You only hint that there is a political motivation to the question in the first paragraph writing that McCain mixing up Iraq and Afghanistan are "adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition."
So Mike, do you yourself think McCain's gaffes raise serious questions or are you writing an article about the left claiming it raises serious questions?
If the former, do you think Obama's gaffes raise serious questions about his experience and will you write the same about him?
If the latter, why did you wait until the bottom of the article to really get in to the issue of the left making McCain's gaffes an issue of age?
I mean, we all know the Politico makes its living by driving hit jobs pushed by one side against the other, but you guys probably should start doing a better job starting your articles by noting that fact. Otherwise, your original reporting is going to increasingly take on the taint of lazily picking up campaign talking points exposing a bias for one side or the other.