Not particularly in-depth commentary, but interesting compare/contrast piece to how the backgrounds of Obama and McCain contribute to their world views and how they will approach foreign policy. Posits a more militaristic hawkish view from McCain vs. a more collaborative, inclusive view from Obama while refraining from analyzing the merits of either.

both canditates backgrounds were explored,giving some insight to possible reasons for thier current positions. I felt the article drew no conclusions,simply gave the reader an insight into two very different canditates.

This is appallingly bad journalism. It reads like a polished CV for a sainted John McCain, speaking in tender, glowing terms of his military background and service. It ignores the parts of his military service that are problematic, such as McCain's numerous air mishaps and his unsavory personal behavior as an airman. It ignores problematic events in his personal life and doesn't mention his lobbying problems going back to the 1980's with the Keating scandal. A blatant McCain puff piece,

The article favored the talking points of the McCain campaign. It was not clear why McCain thought Obama's position was naive and dangerous and the statement does not add to the story. McCain is making allegations and there is no support or challenge to this statement. There are no unsubstantiated comments from Obama. McCain's lack of willingness to negotiate with other countries when there is a difference of opinion is apalling especially when there is the potential to go to war and glossing over this point that it could be because he was raised in a military family does not do this issues justice.

Great article for McCain's explanation for how he is but a complete lack of explanation for Obama. The author describes Obama's high school experience with he went to an "elite high school," but says nothing about McCain's high school experience (terrible; he was a trouble maker) nor his college experience (Naval Academy) where McCain was last in his academic class. While we learn about McCain's family up-bringing where John heard about war, military, strateging (splg) at dinner parties, the author fails to mention what Obama learned from his parents, primarily from his mother, while he was growing up. It certainly wasn't about war, power, and killing.

While Obama is juxtaposed against McCain, it is in McCain's strong suit; his military background. Where are the economic and trade issues? Worldview through a prism of military interaction with the world.

Although the article seems to be somewhat fair, it leans towards favoring McCain. I do not find it to be a well-sourced article.

The coverage of McCain's background was extensive and informative. Impressive, actually. I was disappointed in the coverage of Obama's background. This is a very McCain focused article although it purports to be about the background of both men.

The language used for each candidate is strikingly different. It is very elegant and uplifting when discussing McCain and a little derogatory in parts for Obama.

Informative comparison between McCain and Obama. This short article seems generally fair and factual, and quotes a variety of credible sources, providing helpful context on the candidate's vastly different worldviews. My personal view on this general topic is that if more Americans were encouraged to travel abroad regularly, as Obama did, they might gain a better appreciation for the subtle nuances between world cultures, thereby making them more effective communicators in solving foreign policy issues. One could even speculate that George Bush and John McCain's black-and-white views of the world might have been different, had they come in closer contact with other cultures during their youth.

Well balanced analysis of the thesis that the foreign policies of Obama and McCain are reflecting of their early lives and histories.

I say it's tendentious. This piece reads as an advertisement for John McCain, filled with all kinds of "nice" but tiresome information on the guy. Readers are supposed to ingest it all and conclude, "Oh, besides a military hero, John McCain is quite an American statesman." Even though it purports to explain both candidates' policy positions, Obama is mentioned only in passing and only in contrast to McCain. It is stereotypical of the reportage by the core national media on McCain: incessant over-promotion.

The story was a typical banal gloss of McCain's years as a POW, not to mention a gloss of his years in Washington as a notable chameleon who will say and do anything to get elected.

A "contrast" story that is somehow informative, most of the facts are already known. The suggestion that John McCain was raised on daily "military strategies" talks is a bit too much, similar true for Obama's father "idealism" that influenced the young Obama. "Military defined" McCain and "idealistic" Obama is what the article drives to, in both cases there is not enough analysis to make the case. The privileged McCain flew 10-11 hours of combat missions and spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner. These years are IMHO the defining years for McCain and we do not know too much about it.

the basics...anyways...reminds me of that skit .. "Who's on first....no Who's on third"!

This topic is clearly very important, as McCain and Obama do have radically different viewpoints stemming from completely different backgrounds. That said, the assertions in this (rather unoriginal) article that aren't a matter of public record are a little too lightly sourced for my comfort. Fang makes a strong statement about McCain's belief in America's purpose, but for evidence only cites a quote from Sen. Lieberman that alludes to the years McCain spent as a POW. If Fang is going to presume to know a candidate's innermost thoughts, I'd like a little more substance to the research. The same criticism can be made of the statements about Obama's perspective. The article seems at first blush relatively balanced, but on a ... More »

This is a look at two very different men through the eyes of an impartial onlooker. Informative and a great narrative.

Yes, the story tells facts objectively.

This story def. has a McCain bias, although they have done a good job of burying it within the information provided. They have gone to extremes to use the best of McCain's bio, without any recent study of his gaffes, etc. And does very little to support his "Maverick" reputation which is his main theme for this election. What little of value said of Obama is not worth analyzing.

As a relative newcomer to both these politicians I found the article to be biographically interesting especially when it comes to McCain since i know more about Obama's upbringing. But I am slightly wary of the author glossing over some McCains more unsavoury aspects like his "temperament" when it comes to his adversaries.

The story is good and per my ratings seemed somewhat balanced and well presented. The writer, however, failed to point out that in the past John McClain had expressed the need to engage the leaders of countries hostile to the U.S. with diplomacy. He has since changed his stance and is now engaging in very dangerous saber-rattling a la the Bush Crime Family.

How does McCain's being "deeply informed" by "his experiences during and after the Vietnam War" and "steeped in the history and purpose of American military power" and his POW years explaining his "deep-seated suspicion of authoritarian regimes" when he was instrumental shutting down the senate POW/MIA hearings so that diplomatic and commercial ties to Vietnam could be resumed? Our leaders here in the USA had a "Red Phone Hot Line" to talk to the "hostile foreign leaders" of the USSR during the Cold War. McCain calling "Obama's position naive and dangerous" as the possible next leader of the World's only superpower is ludicrous. Joking about bombing Iran, as McCain has, is "naive and dangerous".

This article seems biased in favor of McCain.

The story infers that McCain has had more events shaping his worldview than Obama. McCain gets more ink in this article. Also, the fourth paragraph makes no sense as a bridge into the rest of the story. McCain was a POW for 5 years (read patriotic), while Obama's father was not an American citizen (appealing to the xenophobic). Why not say Obama was influenced by the open worldview provided by his foreign born father?

I am sorry, but most [including this] stories come over all schmaltzy. I do not care about his war experience because it does not effect his worthiness to be president - good, bad or indifferent.

The story is balanced in its contrasting of the two candidates' views toward military force, while clearly concentrating more on McCain than Obama. However, by trying to fit McCain into its template of the experienced military man, it fails to call attention to his errors in military judgment, and the increasing hawkishness of his views (instead calling him cautious while referring to 25-year-old stances).

This story is a very basic analysis of broad differences between McCain and Obama on foreign policy based on the two candidates' personal backgrounds. Much of it is information most people will find familiar already.

Colin Powell would have been a better example than Tony Lake, if one is going to name someone advising Obama on foreign affairs, unless the writer wasn't aware of this fact. And this sentence is not entirely accurate: "Obama has emphasized negotiation over military action and has said he would meet without preconditions with leaders of such countries as Iran, Syria and North Korea, although more recently he has clarified that it would occur only after careful preparation." This is not accurate, because I've never heard Barack Obama say anything other than that there would be careful preparation, starting with low-level diplomats between countries. The statement above, intentionally or not, makes Obama appear to hedge and waffle. ... More »

This article is a love letter to John McCain. The writer is clearly enarmored with Mr. McCain's because of his miliatry service. McCain comes from a family of strong military men. On the other hand, Mr. Obama saw his father once during a brief visit. I believe the writer communicates that Mr. Obama's claims that his father influenced him are questionable, given that he saw him once. On the surface the article appears fair and well sourced.But it is neither.

This article attempted and succeeded at giving a balanced view of the background of both McCain and Obama.

THis article is clearly biased toward John McCain and the image that he is a "Maverick," John Wayne inspired "Millitary Man."

The article fails to draw a conclusion, get off the fence. McCain's experience may have made him a good military leader, that does not necessarily translate into a good president. Bringing a citizen of the world point of view to the job is what is called for now so tat America can mend bridges, restore fences. We don't need more bullets and missiles, we need to be humble to quote President Bush, a quote that was clearly thrown overboard the day after election in 2000.