Associated Press

Latest news on associated press

NY Times, AP repeat McCain falsehood that Obama said Ayers was "just" a guy in his neighborhood

In October 10 articles, The New York Times and The Associated Press uncritically reported Sen. John McCain saying of Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers: "Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood." The Times reported that McCain added, "We need to know that's not true," while the AP reported McCain added, "We know that's not true, we need to know the full extent of the relationship." In fact, contrary to McCain's claim, Obama did not use the word "just" when describing Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." Indeed, during the April 16 Democratic primary debate, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos said to Obama: "An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his [Ayers'] house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem." Obama said of Ayers: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from." Obama added, "He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis," and went on to say that Ayers' Weather Underground actions were "detestable." From the April 16 Democratic primary debate: STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And, in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your State Senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you are "friendly." Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem? OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George. Additionally, neither the Times nor the AP noted their previous reporting that Obama and Ayers were not close. The Times reported on October 4 that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8' "; the AP reported on October 5 that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts." By contrast, McClatchy reported McCain's quote but added that "Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign." From the October 10 New York Times article: Although Mr. McCain did not mention Mr. Ayers, a founder of the radical group the Weather Underground, by name, his intent was clear in his response to a question about Mr. Obama. A man told Mr. McCain that ''we're all wondering why Obama is where he's at'' in the polls and then asked, ''Is there not a way to get around this media and line up the people he has hung with?'' Mr. McCain responded, ''Well, sir, with your help and the people in this room, we will find out.'' He added: ''Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. You know, but that's not the point here. The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.'' Although Mr. McCain raised questions about Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers in a televised interview last spring, he has refrained from attacking Mr. Obama on the trail for his association with Mr. Ayers in the general election campaign. He had left those attacks to his campaign operatives and Ms. Palin. Mr. McCain's reference to Mr. Ayers's desire to carry out more bombings was from an article in The New York Times, published by chance on Sept. 11, 2001, about Mr. Ayers and his memoir, ''Fugitive Days.'' The article opened with a quotation: ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'' Three days later, Mr. Ayers wrote on his Web site that the meaning of his remarks had been distorted. Most of the bombings attributed to the Weathermen were meant to damage only property, but a 1970 pipe bombing in San Francisco attributed to the group killed a police officer and severely hurt another. Mr. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lives in Mr. Obama's neighborhood. He was named citizen of the year in Chicago in 1997, has worked with Mr. Obama on a schools project and a charitable board, and gave a house party when Mr. Obama was running for the State Senate. From the October 10 Associated Press article: McCain also referenced Obama's connection with 1960s radical William Ayers without mentioning him by name. "Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true. We need to know the full extent of the relationship," McCain said. From the October 10 McClatchy article: Outspent by Obama on TV ads, McCain launched a new Web ad about his opponent's connections to Bill Ayers, the Chicago professor, in which the announcer describes Ayers as a "domestic terrorist" and concludes, "Barack Obama: Too risky for America." McCain told the Wisconsin crowd, "Look, we don't care about a washed-up terrorist and his wife who still, after Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. But that's not the point here. The point is Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true, we need to know the full extent of the relationship, because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not." Obama has condemned the violent 1960s activities of the Weather Underground. There is no evidence that Ayers is a close friend or an adviser to his campaign.

Scientists Go for the Glow in Fluorescent Proteins

: Image: fangleman/Flickr The Nobel Prize for chemistry has gone to a trio of scientists for their work on green fluorescent protein, which allows scientists to see how cellular machinery works. All kinds of cells and whole animals have been genetically engineered to make fluorescent proteins. Mark Zimmer, a chemist at Connecticut College and author of Glowing Genes, calls GFP the "microscope of the 21st century." By attaching the GFP to a gene of interest ? say, those involved in tumor metastasis or brain function ? scientists can see when and why the genes switch on just by looking for the glow. "Since GFP fluoresces one can shine light at the cell and wait for the distinctive green fluorescence associated with GFP to appear," Zimmer writes on his web page. In this gallery, we look at startling and beautiful examples of fluorescent proteins used in research and art. The Nobel Prize winners ? Martin Chalfie, Roger Y. Tsien and Osamu Shimomura ? first isolated the fluorescence-producing gene in the crystal jellyfish, pictured here. : Photo: EyePress/Associated Press The first glow-in-the-dark mammals, the mice pictured here, were born at Osaka University in July 1997. The researchers were using the fluorescent mice to study the development of fetuses. : Credit: Jean Livet Since the discovery of the first green fluorescent gene, a variety of other colors have been discovered, allowing scientists to track more than one protein at a time. Jeff Lichtman's... Wired.com

Wash. Times misrepresented Obama debate comment, repeated false claim about his Pakistan comment

In an October 8 Washington Times article, senior White House correspondent Joseph Curl falsely suggested that, during the October 7 presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama said he doesn't think the United States can "face the challenge" in Afghanistan "after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq." Curl also uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim during the debate that Obama "threaten[ed] to invade Pakistan," and quoted Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" without noting Palin's distortion of a New York Times article about former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers that she used to make that claim. Curl also claimed that Palin's "palling around with terrorists" remark "refers" to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in addition to Ayers, but provided no evidence that Wright is a "terrorist." Curl noted that, during the debate, McCain said that Obama "does not understand our national security challenges." Curl then asserted: "Mr. Obama countered with sarcasm, saying he didn't understand some things -- like how the United States could face the challenge it does in Afghanistan after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq." But, as Media Matters for America noted when the Associated Press also misrepresented Obama's comment, Obama did not say that. Rather, Obama said: "There are some things I don't understand. There are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us." Curl also asserted that "Mr. McCain targeted his rival's lack of experience, saying Mr. Obama foolishly threatening [sic] to invade Pakistan and said, 'I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did.' " But as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama has not "threaten[ed] to invade Pakistan." Rather, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, he stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Indeed, in comments from the debate that Curl did not mention, Obama said: OBAMA: Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Senator McCain continues to repeat this. What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should. Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans. Curl went on to assert: "Mr. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Mr. Obama of 'palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.' The charge refers [to] Mr. Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers and to the Democrat's former pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr." Curl provided no evidence to support the claim that Wright is a "terrorist." Moreover, Media Matters has repeatedly documented that the October 4 New York Times article Palin cited in making that claim reported that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' " Indeed, as Washington Post White House reporter Michael Abramowitz noted in an October 5 article, Palin's comments are a "distortion of what the Times story concluded." From the October 8 Washington Times article: Mr. McCain targeted his rival's lack of experience, saying Mr. Obama foolishly threatening to invade Pakistan and said, "I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did." He also said Mr. Obama has declared he would speak directly with leaders of rogue nations, like Iran, dismissing that stance as naive. The Democrat struck back, but Mr. McCain got the last word. "Now, Senator McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible," Mr. Obama said, pausing. "Thank you very much," Mr. McCain said, drawing a laugh from the crowd. He explained that when he sang the words "bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann," "I was joking with a veteran -- I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran." Mr. McCain also said his rival "was wrong about Iraq and the surge. He was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges. We don't have time for on-the-job training." Mr. Obama countered with sarcasm, saying he didn't understand some things -- like how the United States could face the challenge it does in Afghanistan after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. [...] With just four weeks left in the campaign, both sides have gone heavily negative. Mr. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Mr. Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." The charge refers Mr. Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers and to the Democrat's former pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Wash. Post repeated McCain criticism of Obama for energy bill vote without noting Obama's stated reasons for voting for bill

In an October 8 article, The Washington Post uncritically repeated Sen. John McCain's comment, during the October 7 presidential debate, that Sen. Barack Obama voted for an "energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies." However, staff writers Dan Balz, Anne E. Kornblut, and Michael Abramowitz did not note that Obama has said he voted for the bill because it included extensive investments in renewable energy. Nor did they note that the bill actually resulted in a net tax increase for the oil and gas industry. On June 29, 2005, Obama's Senate office issued a press release in which he said: "This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil." The release went on to cite the legislation's investments in biofuels, plug-in hybrids, flexible-fuel vehicles "that could travel up to 500 miles per gallon of gasoline," and clean-coal technology as reasons he voted for the bill. The release also quoted Obama saying: So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey toward energy independence. Moreover, as Media Matters for America has noted, on August 4, the Associated Press reported that "Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Democrat voted for the bill because it included huge investments in renewable energy," and CNN.com reported in an August 5 article that "[d]uring the primary season, Obama defended his vote," saying "it was the best that we could do right now, given the makeup of Congress." Balz, Kornblut, and Abramowitz also did not note that, while McCain claimed that the bill was "loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies," a February 27, 2007, Congressional Research Service report found that although the bill "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry," it also "provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years": The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857 million minus $1,501 million). From the October 8 Washington Post article: At another point in the debate, McCain was asked whether the United States should sponsor research and development programs to find new sources of energy. He said it should, then changed the subject to return to a core issue of his career: pork-barrel spending. Referring to his rival across the stage as "that one," McCain cited an energy bill, sponsored by Bush, that Obama had supported. "There was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies. And it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one," McCain said, gesturing toward his rival. "You know who voted against it? Me."

Media again quote debate attack that Obama "voted against funding the troops" while omitting Dem response

In their October 3 editions, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times both reported Gov. Sarah Palin's attack during the vice-presidential debate that Sen. "Barack Obama voted against funding troops" without noting, as Sen. Joe Biden pointed out in response, that "[Sen.] John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line." As Media Matters for America has noted, the Los Angeles Times -- as well as Reuters, the Associated Press, and the Politico -- also quoted a similar attack by Sen. John McCain in the first presidential debate without noting that Obama -- like Biden in the vice-presidential debate -- pointed out that "Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn't believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open-ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable." In the New York Times article, reporter Patrick Healy noted that Palin "attacked Mr. Obama's Senate vote against federal financing for troops in Iraq, which Mr. Biden also once criticized." In the Los Angeles Times "news analysis," staff writer Peter Wallsten reported that "on Iraq, [Palin] hewed to years-old attack lines of painting war critics as quitters and accusing Obama of trying to deprive the troops of funding." Neither article noted Biden's response nor did they note that McCain voted against the Senate version of a March 2007 bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs -- along with all but two of his fellow Republican senators. From the October 3 New York Times article: In response to a question about her views on an exit strategy in Iraq, Ms. Palin championed Mr. McCain's support for the "surge" of American troops there; hailed "a great American hero," Gen. David H. Petraeus; and attacked Mr. Obama's Senate vote against federal financing for troops in Iraq, which Mr. Biden also once criticized. After that, Mr. Biden turned to the moderator and said, "Gwen [Ifill], with all due respect, I didn't hear a plan." From the October 3 Los Angeles Times article: Potentially erasing memories of her widely mocked efforts to claim foreign policy expertise based on Alaska's proximity to Russia, Palin talked about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. She repeatedly mentioned the president of Iran by name, and even talked about having a conversation with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. But she spoke of foreign policy in the broadest of strokes, adopting rhetoric about spreading freedom around the world that is the core of the so-called Bush Doctrine that, in one of her network interviews, she did not seem to understand. And on Iraq, she hewed to years-old attack lines of painting war critics as quitters and accusing Obama of trying to deprive the troops of funding. "We're getting closer and closer to victory," she said, "and it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq." Biden, in one of his strongest points in the debate, shot back that the Republicans were offering no plan to end the Iraq war. "This is a fundamental difference between us. We will end this war," Biden said. "For John McCain, there is no end in sight to end this war."

Ignoring polling data on Obama's debate performance, Chuck Todd said Obama was "judged as not winning"

On the October 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, NBC News political director Chuck Todd said that Sen. Barack Obama "was judged as not winning" the first presidential debate, asserting that "it was somewhat of a draw." But national post-debate polls contradict Todd's assertion, with Obama receiving higher marks from respondents than Sen. John McCain. When Hardball host Chris Matthews asked Todd whether Obama's gains in recent polls are due to the current financial crisis, Todd responded, "I think it's a combination of the economic backdrop and the debate. He didn't have a bad debate performance. I think, while he was judged as not winning that debate, I think, nobody thought he lost it, but nobody thought he won it going away either -- that it was somewhat of a draw." In fact, according to CBS News and Gallup polls, Obama is widely considered to have won the September 26 debate. A CBS News poll found that, by a 20-point margin, respondents thought Obama won the debate: "Forty-one percent of registered voters, including more than half of those who watched it, said Obama came out on top; just 21 percent said McCain was the winner." Additionally, a USA Today/Gallup poll found that a "majority of debate watchers ... picked Obama over Republican John McCain when asked which candidate offered the best proposals to solve the country's problems, 52%-35%. They said Obama did better overall in the debate than McCain, 46%-34%." Todd did not provide any evidence to support his assertion that Obama "was judged as not winning that debate." From the October 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. And the latest pollster.com -- that's the nationwide average of polling -- shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by five points nationally and, more importantly, it seems like it's opening up there. A new Time magazine poll now shows Barack also leading McCain by 50 to 43 among likely voters, a seven-point edge. That would be -- before the convention, that was five. Right now, a poll by the Associated Press also has Obama up by seven points, 48-41. And a new Pew Research Center poll finds Obama leading McCain 49-43. It's all interesting, guys. We have, joining us, Charlie Cook, right now, and our own Chuck Todd. Chuck's out in St. Louis already getting ready for the big debate tomorrow night. Chuck, you first -- what do you make of these polls? Is this just the -- is this the economic backdrop that's helping Barack? TODD: Well, I think it's a combination of the economic backdrop and the debate. He didn't have a bad debate performance. I think, while he was judged as not winning that debate, I think, nobody thought he lost it, but nobody thought he won it going away either -- that it was somewhat of a draw. I think when you combine it with the economic stuff, he presented himself to a lot of voters, it looks like, as a plausible president, 'cause you're seeing a -- this is a shift. It was adrift before the debate. MATTHEWS: Yeah. TODD: This seems to be a steady movement now. He's ahead in pretty much every swing state where there has been a reasonably good poll. There's not a lot of good state polling that goes on these days, but even in the reasonably good ones, you're seeing Obama -- and in some of these states with a substantial lead. MATTHEWS: Charlie.

Lost: condom mobile

The "Condomovil," an HIV/AIDS awareness vehicle, has been stolen in Mexico City. The truck's cargo included 5,000 condoms, 800 HIV tests, and a 22-foot inflatable rubber. From the Associated Press: The co-ordinator of an HIV/Aids awareness tour, Polo Gomez, said on Wednesday that the "Condomovil" was parked in front of a friend's house in Mexico City when it disappeared on Sunday evening... The truck should be easy to spot. It features painted images of a peeled banana, the exposed part shaped like a condom, and a shirtless man saying: "I protect myself. Do you?" Stolen: condom mobile (via Fortean Times) UPDATE: Commenter DIEGOV notes that the Condomovil has just been located, sans condoms and other gear....

NY Post baselessly claimed that Obama "broke his promise" to military family "when he mentioned" soldier's name during debate

In a September 29 article, the New York Post reported that "Barack Obama apparently broke his promise to the family of a fallen Wisconsin soldier when he mentioned the slain sergeant's name in his Friday debate with Sen. John McCain." The article added that "Brian Jopek, the father of the late Ryan David Jopek, told National Public Radio in March that the family asked Obama to stop wearing his son's bracelet, but the Illinois senator continued to do so." However, the Post provided no evidence that Obama ever "promise[d]" the Jopek family that he would "stop wearing" Ryan Jopek's bracelet. In fact, during the March 20 interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, Brian Jopek made no such claim. Further, according to the Associated Press, "After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq," she "e-mailed the Obama campaign through its Web site asking that he not mention it during debates or speeches" but "never got a reply." Moreover, the Post did not mention until the eighth paragraph that Tracy Jopek and her daughter -- Ryan's sister -- were reportedly not upset over Obama's mention of Ryan Jopek's bracelet: "Tracy, who has been divorced from [Brian] Jopek for six years, said Obama's mention of her son in the debate was OK because he was responding to McCain, who first brought up that he was wearing a soldier's 'hero bracelet.' Tracy, who backs Obama, said she was 'ecstatic' that the Illinois senator had used her son's name and did not believe he was doing so for political purposes." During the September 26 debate, McCain asserted that in August 2007 at "a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, ... a woman stood up and she said, 'Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son's name on it.' ... And then she said, 'But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain.' " McCain added: "That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don't want defeat." In response, Obama stated: I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant -- from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay. She asked me, can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through. No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided. Our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step. The AP reported on September 28 that Tracy Jopek "gave Obama the bracelet at a Green Bay rally in February." But a "few days" later, she "had a change of heart" and "realized it could be interpreted as a protest against the war, a statement that made her uncomfortable because other military families who suffered losses still supported the conflict." The article added: "So she e-mailed the Obama campaign through its Web site asking that he not mention it during debates or speeches. She never got a reply but said she didn't hear of him mentioning it after that -- until Friday, when Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain appeared in their first debate." The AP reported further: "Obama's comment sparked a number of angry comments from bloggers who suggested Obama was exploiting her son's death to score political points. Jopek said those bloggers might have heard comments that her son's father made on Wisconsin Public Radio on March 20." During the interview, Brian Jopek, who is a staff sergeant in the National Guard, reportedly claimed that "his ex-wife asked Obama not to wear the bracelet at any further public appearances. But Obama was still apparently wearing it, he said." However, according to the AP, "Tracy Jopek said she didn't hear the interview but that her ex-husband, who is currently stationed in Cuba, mischaracterized her viewpoint.' ... I think he knew my intention, he understands it was a gesture between me and Sen. Obama,' she said. 'It was just little piece of peace for us. I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet.' " Also, the subhead of the Post article read "GI's Kin Irked Over Bracelet." But other than citing Brian Jopek's March 20 remarks, the article provided no evidence that Jopek family members had been "irked" by Obama's mention of Ryan Jopek. Indeed, the Post reported that Brian "Jopek could not be reached for comment. His stepdaughter, Morgan, said he is with the military in Cuba," and cited Tracey and Jessica Jopek's support of Obama's actions. From the September 29 New York Post article, headlined "Bam's Bangle Bungle: GI's Kin Irked Over Bracelet": Barack Obama apparently broke his promise to the family of a fallen Wisconsin soldier when he mentioned the slain sergeant's name in his Friday debate with John McCain. Brian Jopek, the father of the late Ryan David Jopek, told National Public Radio in March that the family asked Obama to stop wearing his son's bracelet, but the Illinois senator continued to do so. Jopek said his ex-wife, Tracy, was upset that Obama had made her son's death a campaign issue. In the March 20 NPR interview, Jopek, who lives in Madison, said his ex-wife had e-mailed Obama, asking him not to wear the bracelet. "She has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didn't want it to get turned into something that it wasn't. She had told me in an e-mail that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances," he said. "But, the other night, I was watching the news, and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere, and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So . . . that's a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to." Jopek could not be reached for comment. His stepdaughter, Morgan, said he is with the military in Cuba. But Tracy, who has been divorced from Jopek for six years, said Obama's mention of her son in the debate was OK because he was responding to McCain, who first brought up that he was wearing a soldier's "hero bracelet." Tracy, who backs Obama, said she was "ecstatic" that the Illinois senator had used her son's name and did not believe he was doing so for political purposes. Her daughter, Jessica, who is Ryan's sister, told The Post: "When Obama used it after McCain mentioned it, that was fine. We're very happy with his response. It was the perfect response."