He's running on an integrity/"change" platform. Stories that highlight either his lack of integrity or his unwillingness to effectuate needed change when doing so might harm his own interests will inevitably tarnish his image. And let's face it, with Obama image is everything.

This is not an original point, but the Clintons, say, never ran on integrity. Thus a certain amount of sleaziness on their part could be, and indeed was, shrugged off. I don't think Obama will get the same pass, particularly as it seems that primary voters chose him because they are tired of the end-justifies-the-means approach of the Clintons and their ilk.

His actions here call into question both his integrity and his promise of a different kind of governance. It is especially unfortunate that it involves huge sums of money - so now we have Obama basically saying, my principles are firm unless I can get hundreds of millions of dollars by abandoning them. If this is the only such major flip-flop, it will probably have no real effect on the electorate. If further episodes of hypocrisy arise, expect him to be cast as a corrupt phony who will say and do anything to be elected. And it will stick, too.

What factcheck.org is doing is admirable, but it's up to media outlets like Salon to take the story and give it greater exposure.

Why would Obama think he can get away with this? Probably because he knows that since Clinton's hands are a little bit dirtier than his, she won't be calling attention to the inconsistencies in his statements. Also, he carefully stops short of actually lying, preferring to convey an untrue impression through skillful omissions.

This very thing is what's going to tank Obama in November should he be the nominee - his too-cute-by-half way of finessing the facts. When people say they want change, they mean a break from the perceived dishonesty and self-interestedness of our current politicians. Obama will be (accurately) portrayed as the candidate who will say anything to win.

Keep it up, against all the candidates.

My husband and I actually enjoyed it, although all around us people were sighing and groaning whenever the clock ticked back to noon to show the events from another angle. I don't think the frustration was, Hey, Kurosawa did this better. I think it was merely not wanting to have to deal with the demands placed on the viewer of a non-linear narrative.

The movie really wasn't that taxing. It's just a Saturday night entertainment. The gimmick here did serve the story line; it allowed for a couple of interesting (if totally implausible) plot twists. Reminded me of Run Lola Run more than anything else.

I was really impressed by Mr. Rieff’s thoughtful replies. He is obviously a guarded man, with a great deal of respect for his mother’s privacy, but a sense of responsibility to be an accurate witness as well. This made the interview a tricky balancing act of revelation and discretion, which could have devolved into trite pieties but instead consists of refreshingly honest (if not overly revealing), well-expressed observations, delivered free of hyperbole.

Perhaps Ms. Sontag’s greatest achievement, though it may have been unwitting, was producing this intelligent, accomplished, and it seems thoroughly decent man.

Shuster has nothing to apologize to Hillary or Chelsea for. He expressed a valid opinion in a humorous if off-color way that is more or less within the bounds of today’s cable networks. If sufficient numbers of viewers are offended by this locution, then MSNBC should warn their talking heads not to use the word “pimp” and we can all move on. But it should trouble all of us that a would-be defender of the Constitution (including the first amendment, one hopes) would seem to be saying that Shuster's comment merits an even more severe punishment than he has already received.

Would anyone even know about this if it weren’t for Hillary going on the warpath with her poll-tested Mama Bear persona set at full roar? I doubt it. Her “outrage” has insured that people will parse Shuster’s statement far more than it deserves to be, putting her daughter’s name in the same sentence as words like “prostitution” and “whore.” This very behavior is why people accuse the Clintons of, how shall I put this, the deployment of their daughter in meretricious ways.

The annoying thing is that the Clintons can dish it out but they can’t take it. When Bill ran against the first Bush, the Clintons aggressively pushed the story of Bush’s supposed mistress. But when others subsequently wanted to discuss Bill’s extensive infidelities, it was the “politics of personal destruction.” The hypocrisy is all too familiar to those of us who never liked this clownish pair, and gradually dawning on a lot of others who may once have had some affection for them.

It's like apologizing for a rude remark by saying "I'm sorry you got offended."