Could we PLEASE for just a moment get away from the superficiality in analyzing these candidates. Talking about blowing kisses and glancing blows is not the kind of information I would hope ANYBODY is taking away from these debates, with the exception of the doofus who writes the RNC talking points.

While this forum is usually rife with smart-ass wit...which is what I like about it...it is also smart-ass and witty enough to zero in on the meat and potatoes of the issues and incidents at hand.

If I want glib cracks and stretching for negativity, while passing over the urgently important positions and opinions of the candidates who are vying to clean up the mess that is US, I could be watching Fox News.

Critical, ok. Clever, ok. Silly and trivial, not ok.

I was talking about the article. My comments had absolutely nothing to do with you. Usually that's what I do...respond to the content of the article or the posted item, not to the "responses" unless I am personally provoked. And usually not even then. To all those who want a thread where they can bash each other incessantly with the typewritten word...I have no problem with that. Go ahead. But I do reserve the right to voice my opinion about the ARTICLE without you thinking you're necessarily the center of my attention. Thank you for that courtesy.

I dislike Fox, not because it is "anti-Democrat", but because, as a federally licensed broadcaster, it is indebted to the American public and has been endowed with a public trust. And I don't believe that their indebtedness is served by blatantly partisan positions and doctored, filtered, twisted or otherwise edited misrepresentations of the "news". Opinions are ok, but they need to be identified as editorial opinions. And it isn't too much to expect that they be based on the facts.

I got my journalism degree from the University of Washington. Old school. Where news was news, and propaganda was something news people didn't do. Unfortunately, old school is pretty much obsolete. How's that for reality?

I'll just bet all those kids in Iraq are really upset that Congress is trying to wrestle their fate out of the clutching claws of a draft-dodging dimwit who has fired all the generals who ever had a reasonable idea based on the reality of war in Iraq. Who cut funding and twisted bureaucratic arms to see that their benefits would be undermined and their treatment for the aftermath of war would be compromised. Who hasn't lost one night's sleep over their suffering. Who uses them for photo ops but doesn't go to their funerals. Who sent them into battle without proper equipment, but made sure Halliburton could pay six figures to the guy who slaps the hash onto their trays.

Yeah...I'm sure they are quaking in their desert boots at the prospect that maybe finally someone will try to do something intelligent for a change.

Bush and the military? Most of them now think he's as much of a fraud and an incompetent as we do. Mission accomplished, shrub.

Anyone who really doubts how bad it is....check out the article on Lt. Col Yingling in the Washington Post. He has published a blistering criticism of Bush's lock-step generals, (the ones who survived the purges before the surges) and the damage they have done, not just to the war in Iraq, but to the foundations of the military, itself. Nothing like a loyal Bushie in uniform to muck things up.

Just asking.