Content that should not be written (brackets mine): "Aides to the [McCain] campaign believe the event will shape voter perceptions of Obama as a self-interested politician who is willing to do anything to get elected. They say they believe Obama wanted to turn the visit into a campaign event and canceled when that became impossible."
There's no reason to let aides inject their spin like this. It even appears outside of quotes, as though it were fact rather than a disputed quote. The New York Times has forced anonymous sources to come up with a reason—however thin— why they can't put their name to the quote, and recently began using the construction "the source, whom the Times granted immunity because". The Post ought to do the same. This really ought to be the default posture; papers should not be in the business of letting campaign or government operatives exploit anonymity in this way.
If Steve Schmidt or Tucker Bounds or whoever is too chickenshit to come out and say that they keep lying about the cancelled Ramstein visit because they're trying to falsely smear Barack Obama, then the Washington Post shouldn't print it.
