Most are more aware of the dictates of AR 600-20.

The DoD directive says nothing about this incident unless you want to count this:
"4.1.5. Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided."
The issue then becomes whether anything that was done can 'reasonably be viewed as contrary...' Thus it becomes an opinion matter. I'd say it does not violate the intent of the Directive.

Which doesn't change the fact that it wasn't done well or there wouldn't be 52 comments on this thread.

What are we arguing about, anyway???