I know you cannot judge a book by its cover, but can't say that picture of King shows someone who diligently and relentlessly digs up the facts, asks tough questions and does the hard analysis to put the pieces together. Actually that picture screams "Access Hollywood", or one of those celebrity news shows.

"They tell you it's appalling to comment on what they publish to their readers or viewers without first talking to them about it, even though you linked to or even printed in full everything they said and wrote." --GG

Pretty damn straight...and funny too. Kings words and actions in that interview hang him and his email response supports the view that the media is made up of a bunch of self-preening pricks. Where King might be confused is that Glenns article is not there to skewer the "I work for the CNN almighty" King, but uses Kings work in this instance to give another excellent example of the medias generally vapid coverage.

"The Bible was not written to be amended ..." -- Huckabee

Many others have already described the many ammendments/changes to biblical text, with the new testment being in my view the mother of all ammendments. I don't believe mentioned yet though, is the ammendments the Mormons made. Maybe Romney should ask Huck about this in their next GOP debate.

On the other hand, just to be stupid, I could see how some people, well actually men, could be attracted to ammending the constitution because of the Biblical references to concubines, multiple wives, and slaves. Come on guys, wouldn't you love to follow Gods will by having a few concubines? Ok, enough being stupid.

Listen Huck, time to drop it or be sent to the corner wearing a dunce cap.

Way back when, I was talking with an aquaintence who was a lesbian, about the Clarence Thomas hearings. She thought Clarence was being unfairly maligned. Since there were no legal actions against Thomas, the accusations felt more like smears. I explained there was enough evidence to question Thomas's character and since it was a life time appointment, any question about a persons character was a significant factor.

Just as being a lesbian and supporting Clarences right to a fair hearing does not make you a gender betrayor, Clarence being against affirmative action does not make him a race betrayor.

The issue with Thomas is not affirmative action, it is that as soon as he was not one of the "have nots", he was no longer concerned with the "have nots". Using affirmative action got him to the "have mores" table and now attempting to shut it down, maintains his place at that table (God knows his talent alone will not do that). Clarence is just too transparent in his desire to be one of the "have mores" and once again, like his confirmation hearings, his character is put into question.

Reality one.

You cannot win an election in S.C. unless you proclaim yourself more Christian than the next candidate. I do not know how close S.C. is to a Theocracy, but many of the voters in S.C. sure want one.

Reality two.

Obama is pandering to Christian voters in exactly the same way that Huckabee performs his religious pandering. For Christs sake, Obama is telling people to vote for him because he is a Christian. God, how much more obvious does it need to get - Obama brand a cross on his forhead?

Reality three

If Obama did not come out with his blatantly religious pandering, he would have ZERO chance of getting a single delegate in S.C. (Look at Romney on the Republican side), instead he is winning the state.

Reality four

He could have come out and campaigned on how a persons religion in this great country should not be a litmus test for electing leaders. Obama did the politically expedient thing instead and won.

Reality five

The next time I hear Obama supporters come out with their "candidate of change" mantra, all I'll think of is "Change, my ass."

Shapiro falls into the same trap all journalists do, that is the script once it gets started is more appealing than the facts. This is entertainment right? A little artistic license is warranted, no?

Well, no. Obama's K-Mart shot was not retaliation to the Clintons Rezco shot, in this debate it was Obama who flung mud first. But the script demands that the shrewd tough, Hillary politicial hack has run up against the young and pure Obama politician who does not get dirty but gets tough when backed into a corner. Sheesh, get me a producer, we'll have Art Chudabala play the innocent and pure and any actress from any day time soap who plays the part of the bitch play the shrewd politician. Skip the fukkin election and we'll just make a fukkin movie and be done with it.

Look, when someone becomes a politician, they leave certain things at the door that most decent people would not. Obama like Hillary, like McCain is a politician. Obama acting the part of the more humble, honest, or ethical politician is no more than a political strategy. Look at his religious pandering to Christians to see his true colors. Look at his "present" votes, not making a vote which allows him to criticize the ones who did vote. I am not saying he is more of a political hack than Hillary, I am saying he is no better and its annoying when people go starry eyed, fall in love with the script and avoid the obvious.

And comments like "Would anyone want to have coffee with the woman we saw in that debate?" do not help.

The dumb-ass sentiment that question comes from is related to the "He's the type of guy you'd like to have a beer with", method of evaluating a candidate. And that worked out real well.