Schaller does seem full of snark today, but... if it were a male VP, some snarky comment about keeping him away from the purse-strings would be expected, wouldn't it?

So then why not use that same term for the female VP candidate? Yes, I know that's what Schaller meant. But he would not have said of a male VP candidate, "Sir, step away from the purse" and you know it. Therefore, it was meant in two ways... and was condescending in a way we don't need this week.

This article seems very, very appropriate and relevant. That's good. So, why did you have to add that last sentence? It comes off as sexist, not funny. I'm sorry. Bad timing for that comment. Skewer with the facts and keep the snarky asides out of it. Am I alone in reading it that way?

The NYT has it right. The story here is McCain's error in judgement, his rush to announce a choice that hadn't been vetted, etc. The baby daddy is NOT the story or at least it shouldn't be the story for War Room. Leave that to the tabloids and get serious. Enough.

Rove calling Lieberman. That literally just sent a cold chill up my spine. Eww.

Like people are still voting today. Even if the outcome is already determined (and I think everyone knows that, even Senator Clinton), we've gotten this far. Let the last people vote without telling them there's no point.

Aside from the "where exactly is the cashing in" question, isn't Bob awfully testy? They must not have sent him the talking points. Bob, repeat after us. "This isn't the Scott I know."

for someone to moderate these letter sections. 'Nuff said, you whiners.

Well, at least that's clear now. I was worried that I, as a taxpayer, wasn't being helped by the Bush administration in any way and haven't been in all these years. Now I know it's actually policy.

... are "the party elders" and can I buy them a cookie so that they will force one of the two out of the race? The Page 2 headline in today's newspaper about McCain pulling ahead in the polls makes me want this thing settled. Now.

I think you're missing the scary point here. Yes, it's a big lie. But... the ad is very well done and there are lots of people who will believe the big picture message (vote Republican) without ever thinking two seconds about the details (where the debt came from).

Gosh, I bet Clinton and her evil plotting horde were also behind this weekend's endorsement of Obama by Louis Farrakhan. Seems a lot more likely to upset the applecart than this silly photo...

So, no one is going to argue that Clinton's campaign is having "a few" problems. I may have a short memory, but... it seems to me that, in many past campaigns I've seen over the years, it's usually the campaign manager who departs in order to shake things up or hit RESTART on the campaign. I mean, you pretty much know that's how it's going to fall out when you take the job. If we're all so beyond race as an issue, why the hell does it keep coming up as a "they're picking on me because I'm X or Y" instead of "I didn't get the job done." It's a story, but a sad one.

I know there's a tautological problem in here somewhere, but it's been an awfully long time for me since that 8:00 a.m. freshman class...

OK, so the two of you were able to do some research and find a dozen or so examples of where Obama and Edwards were given a hard time/closer look over the last year by pretty much every media outlet (except Salon, of course). Now, go back and look for all of the Hillary-nitpicking stories from those same outlets over the same time period. We'll wait. It's probably going to take you more than a couple of hours and a lot more space to document.

I think the writers protest too much. As do Edwards and both Clintons, for that matter. The candidates need to quit whining and campaign. And the political correspondents need to get their indignation in check and stop trying to game the primaries.

... I'm not finding War Room without a certain anti-Hillary bias, which manifests itself as a certain amount of tittering when something in her campaign goes wrong. Today, you're piling on. Get over it and report what's happening with the other campaigns.

Agreed. I'm hoping that the "Continued..." link after all of one line of Tim's entry is just a "oops, it's new" mistake in setting up the templates. But squeezing the content for the sake of the right hand column is pretty bad. Hey, I have an idea! Figure out the CSS and allow the middle column (the part we come here to READ) to expand to fit our screen width.

Doesn't it bother anybody that this takes everything way off message in the final days of the campaign? WE are reading Kerry's strong response. But what do you think the casual TV news watcher in Virginia or the person who sees just a newspaper headline in Missouri will make of this? They'll hear that Kerry insulted the troops, NOT that he flubbed a joke. And they'll hear that Kerry said he was insulting Bush, not the troops. That's it. The whole story as it plays out there where we want to win. I'm glad Kerry's coming out, all guns blazing. But... jeez. This is going to eat up a lot of news cycle and not in the way we all wish it would.

Wow. Talk about getting your alternate realities to sync up. I've got to hand it to Garry Trudeau for predicting the obvious and doing this entire week of Doonesbury about Mr. Fear, "an old friend of the President and the GOP." Gosh. Who else saw this coming?