I have to say that living in DC and being in this category constantly, I have to disagree with your "If you're seated in category 1, chances are your ears are ringing and your knees are getting bruised. That's because you're wedged into a turboprop or a regional jet."

I'm 6'5" and know a thing or two about knees hurting and well, have had far worse flights than an Embraer 170. In fact, a coach seat on a 737-300 has 1-2" less pitch and lacks the extending headrest and leather of a US Airways all-coach Embraer. Reminds me of people making fun of Toyota in the early 80s and we all know how that turned out.

maybe before you comment about fairness you should take the time to actually read what was said, in context. Since you are too lazy to do it yourself, here is what Hillary said in 2004. Its VERY obvious that Tim took it out of context AND that Clinton has been consistent in her comments:

I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in both NAFTA and GATT. This administration has been very slow in filing any kind of trade claims in regard to any of our trading deals....I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada.

I don't think Obama is anti-semitic, but i am curious why people haven't talked about his general shift towards pro-israel policies within the last 4-6 years? I know its not political hay for the Clintons to point out his shift since they are right there with him- but in all fairness, there will be a story someday about this.

I know we liberals get squeamish around this conversation, but it seems like a far more productive one to me...

I agree. Much like the myth that Obama ran "unopposed" in his first state senate campaign. The man who faults Hillary's super delegate strategy is the same man who had his lawyers file and successfully pull his opponents off the ballot including the incumbent... And yet its a story that never was brought up when he was urging us all to trust voter's choices. I mean he won his first seat by not trusting the voters to choose him in an all out election, what more needs to be said?

What you are missing is so simple. the stories happened when Obama wasn't in the lead. no one payed attention to them. now they are considered "old" stories that are not brought up. thats why none of my obama supporting friends know how he got his seat in the state senate in the first place. there is a great article in the chronicle about it, but from January 2007.

you should read it and wonder why its not common knowledge that he had his lawyers successfully challenge his four democratic opponents off the primary ticket by exploiting an update in the voter rolls that expunged 15,000 voters and made it easy to challenge their petitions. the man who wants to change the face of politics was afraid if he ran against the very popular, progressive, female incumbent he would lose, so he sicked the best election lawyer in Illinois against her and got her kicked off the ballot. its true, and every good democrat in his old district knows it happened. its actually all public record and cannot be disputed.

so yeah, Clinton supporters are negative, but for the same reason Hillary looked bad in the debate: she has to be the one to challenge him because the MSM doesn't. Had the above been about Hillary we would have heard it 25,000 times by now.

i agree exactly. i don't know what holds her back. it was all through the debate where she could have aggressively challenged him. I mean there is no way she should lose a NAFTA discussion- i'm from upstate ny, we all know she fights for our factories and thats why she is a democrat with a base in the red bastion that is upstate.

so why did she not say "i've fought and saved factories, how many have you fought for in illinois?" and really compare herself to him?

thank you- i was about to say the same thing.

I'd add a question: Its one thing to say an "operative" wasn't authorized but this is his chief economic adviser- shouldn't his actions be reflective of the role he has been appointed to within the campaign? If you trust him to be your chief economic adviser you trust his judgment and his actions are a reflection on you. Its called leadership and accountability.

I'm not even an Obama supporter but i feel like it would be negative of me not to point out he's falling for a stupid trick by attacking her tax returns.

They have had 6 years to make sure there is nothing bad in them with her presidential run in mind. Obviously what is going to happen is this: after Obama has said all this crap about them, Bill and Hill will release them with a flourish and a few weeks earlier than the promised deadline. They will be 100% legit and then the Clintons get to go on the attack about how Obama made up right-wing stories and he's no better than the GOP and his "hope" and "change" is all BS.

Obama = amateur hour if he falls for this

so you didn't want to get involved but then you went with what Factcheck said... except then you made the title an explosive one that suggests its a big open question. Wouldn't "Factcheck weighs in on Obama Ad" have been a more accurate title that didn't insinuate wrong doing by the Clinton Camp?