I'm not sailing under any "flag of convenience" but if there are "liberals" on this site we must have a different understanding of the word. The views expressed on McCain's "adultery" are very illiberal as also is the

Being from where you're from (just based on your use of "apologising" and other spellings) it really shouldn't be such a surprise to you that we do indeed have different meanings for certain words.

"Liberal" is most certainly one of them, and no, in the US it certainly does not mean an attitude that accomodates hypocrisy or adultery or any number of other things, in fact it's simply a political term, and not the one (even politically I mean) that you're accustomed to on that side of the water.

Its roots lie in exactly what you cite but those are very outdated, a "liberal" might want to restrict certain things less than conservatives (less wiretapping for example) but others more (some semblance of real gun control for example).

If you're going to post on a US site all the time, that might help. Yes, is my point here, we do have very different definitions.

To the real overarching issue here, McCain's hypocrisy is what's being attacked, as is usually the case with Republicans.

I doubt you'll find many of what you call liberals simply launching into a condemnation of someone having sex out of wedlock, which is what you're implying. What infuriates people for the most part is when it's someone who's been piously raging and even legislating against the same in others.

The current crop in the Republican party contain a lonnnnng list of people fitting that description.

Pious blowhards, telling everyone what to do and avoiding any scruitiny of the same themselves. How could you countenance that?

everyone Obama needs to convince are going to be reassured by a Pennsylvania-raised, Delaware-based known face who's a symbol of the working class, it's an excellent choice for that. The fact that's he's already and instantly known is great becuase it makes it harder for people to have doubts from all the stupid rumors about him being vaguely un-American and not Christian and all the rest of it.

And anyone who actually wanted the Democrats to win would likely be celebrating the choice, as most are. Here, who knows whether all the bitter angry comments are real or a pose affected by McCain campaign trolls, but either way they're not signs of anyone who actually cares that Democrats take the White House.

And for the dozen-th time, what a weird, sad, slightly creepy place Salon letters has become.

"the country would be better off" --with him as VP, was what it amounted to, that's what it sounds like he's saying basically. True enough. And this hurts Obama how exactly?

So, Biden would be "honored" to serve as VP for either-- and that means what exactly? Is the message supposed to be "See? Obama's VP choice doesn't find McCain so despicable that he wouldn't want to be seen with him!"

Quite a messasge there guys.

What I can't wait for is the debate between Biden and Romney/Ridge/Lieberman/or please God, Mr. Noun-Verb-9/11.

-- Sam!

Rudy Giuliani is going to give the keynote address at the GOP convention, that's what I can't wait to see. Since "his phrase" has become such a joke I'll be dying to see how he tries to string an entire paragraph together without it. I wonder if there will just be all these little blanks, like an engine missing.

I would have said that they'd just replace "Nine-Eleven!" with "POW!" but now McCain's oversued that in exactly the same way to the point where it's becoming a joke also.

I love the choice of Biden just for that alone.

The McCain campaign was ready to put up a commercial saying anything. The point isn't the content of the ad. The point is to get the conversation off of Mr. McCains too-rich-to-know-how-many-houses-he-has conversation.

Well putting up an ad that actually changed the conversation would have worked better then. My point being that yes it does matter what the content of the ad is, if the content is so patheteically weak that it changes nothing.

Given that the point is to change the subject, can they still pick Mitt as the Veep? Because the rich party vs party of the people thing is just begging to smack them in the face.

I get the impression that this campaign is living the same sort of little bubble that's marked the Bush years, separated from reality at birth. It actually helped them dance through on nothing but illusion for years, but this shows that it has a limit. Romney is by all accounts the choice, and yes, you couldn't possibly pick anyone worse at this point.

Good.

@Elephantman

Joe Biden could fuck up a train wreck.

Yes. That's why he's the ideal guy to run against McCain.

I just wanted to see that in print again. Brilliant.

Sorry to interrupt, breaking into the week-long series of articles and especially comments about why McCain is now winning to bring you this WAPO - ABC poll showing Obama holding steady with a six-point lead over the past three months.

Presidential choice
RV 8/19-22 (July) (June)

Obama 49 (50) (49)

McCain 43 (42) (45)

Of course this is just a major newspaper and news organization poll, not a highly regarded one like Zogby (cough).

Okay, you can go back to all the articles and comments about why McCain "caught" Obama and about his "plunging in the polls" all the attendant hand-wringing and blame-slinging and braying of right wingers and trolls and what a terrible campaign Obama is running and why, in excruciating detail. Hey, everyone on TV agrees, so I'm sure it's true.

Meanwhile for anyone interested in a glimpse of a place far far away that we call "reality", just a little public service. Not many here I realize but there might be a few.

Now, release the hounds again!