Even before getting to the end of the post, I could guess that Obama had the wrong concentration camp or the wrong relative, or that his refusal to come out of the house for six months would prove a serious exaggeration. Except for the last point, the story should be verifiable for the candidate too. Maybe he spoke off the cuff and hadn't run the story past anyone who could verify the specifics. If that was the case, it was one of those moments of sloppiness all candidates are prone to, but he should have known to be more careful. If he's used that story in other speeches, he just balanced Clinton's assassination remark.

Why can't all politicians figure out that these stories will be examined every which way?

And true, why don't conservatives ever learn to check things out before spouting off? Like everyone knows which concentration camp was located where? I knew Auschwitz is in Poland, but I couldn't put it or Buchenwald on a map.

Just so it isn't completely missed, he was trying to make a valid point. It was assumed WWII vets were happy and healthy because they got the parades, the war was popular and clearly a win, and Vietnam vets had issues because the war was unpopular, etc. Well, no. It was the experience, not the politics, and he's right that WWII vets were kept in the attic, so to speak. Besides, politicians who don't try to connect in a personal way get pilloried for that too. He was right to try, wrong not to make sure his facts were exactly right.

Yes I know, Republicans serve big banks, dog bites man, big deal, except I think many people assume both parties do it about equally. What's different this time is the specificity of the connection. Homeowners need help, Democrats in Congress try to let bankruptcy judges alter mortgages, Republicans listen to lobbyists seeking to remove this from the bill, Phil Gramm is one such lobbyist, Gramm works for McCain. That's a few dots, but they're connectible. I'm just wondering if "economic advisor" is correct. I heard he was a campaign co-chair. Sorry, don't recall where. I'm just thinking that sounds like a more direct link.

I thought they already had mobilized their grassroots. All of K Street is already working for McCain.

The parenthetical statement in this sentence was grossly inaccurate: "I'm showing all along that all of these outlets (except when Al Franken was the figurehead of Air America) have been steadfastly opposed to the Iraq war."

I've been listening to Air America from the beginning, and it was staunchly anti-war. In fact, Franken's first guest I believe was Michael Moore, who was at least on the first broadcast. There was no more thorough debunker of the lies that sold the invasion of Iraq than Franken. He said several times he supported the war because of Powell's Security Council speech, which means he became a supporter only right before the invasion, and he was a critic again right after. Yes, it was a lapse in judgment many of us didn't have, but it was brief and readily admitted to. Certainly he was on the anti-war side by the time he was helping start Air America.

Like another commenter said, Franken took unnecessary career risks in order to push back. It's as if Hamm has something against him and Air America, and is willing to stretch the truth to make his point.

If I can speak up in defense of McClellan against attacks from other liberals, ask yourselves what's worse, carrying Bush's water for years and a couple years later admitting the truth, or carrying Bush's water for years and a couple years later NOT admitting the truth. So OK, McClellan was late to the party, naive, missed the obvious, self-deluded as well as lied to, but better late than never. Otherwise, at what point can McClellan come clean and not be denounced for failing to come clean sooner? John Dean is a justifiably respected pundit now, and the only difference I see between him and McClellan is 35 years.

If McClellan is willing to see reality and tell what he knows, then we should welcome that. Ari Fleischer, McClellan's predecessor who still seems untroubled by lying, said we would abandon McClellan in 24 hours. Let's prove him wrong.

I was one of the 17,000 who got in to see Obama in person, and it's different than 2004. In 2004, the passion ran as high, but it wasn't for our candidate. It was against Bush. There was a powerful desire to stop the catastrophe then in progress, and with a hope it could be done, but with a sense that probably something would go wrong and somehow the bad guys would win. This time, there's a sense not of trying to stop the disaster but of rebuilding, and we're for our candidate rather than trying to stop the opponent. There's a sense that it's about us rather than about what one man go do for (or to) us, and there's a sense of imminent victory. We had hope and fear and anger in 2004, but this time it feels very different, like we've found the way to win.

Come on, not being able to use a computer is getting to be like not being able to use a telephone. McCain isn't expected to become a repair technician, but many people older than McCain, and with fewer economic resources, can handle web browsing and e-mail. I expect that if "many" isn't actually "most", it will be in a few years. Besides, Congress uses e-mail, constituents contact congressmen by e-mail, research is done on the web, documents are in electronic format. It's not like McCain worked in a pre-computer time and now has no personal need.

And if age is an excuse, then what's Bush's excuse?