...this article was not pulled in embarrassment.

"Victor Kohring, another key Palin supporter during her political rise in Mat-Su Valley, found this out after he became a victim of the FBI's oil corruption sting operation."

In Talbots world, apparently politicians convicted on federal corruption charges are just poor victims to be swaddled and loved like little tots.

How low can Salon go? Talbot certainly has no limit.

...is that in this presidential election cycle, including the primaries, the candidates will spend over $1.5 BILLION and no one considers that bizarre.

No one thinks it's bizarre that we elect leaders so they can spend time raising money, they then spend campaigning to get elected so they can raise money, they then spend campaigning to get elected so they can raise money...................

...there is only a handful of people controlling the debates. You night have thought debates were the place we get a comparative look at candidates outside their billion dollar advertising machines - I don't think so.

from the url below "$4.1 million, more than 93 percent of which [debate funding] came from just six contributors."

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/stories/two_party_debates/P0/

It's bad enough we got one of the candidates going to Washington to screw the economic crisis up even worse. But what I don't get is what is so entralling about the other candidate who goes to Washington to just say "present".

You take away the conservative/liberal props away, and both candidates are really the same as GWB - all imbeciles.

Watching two imbeciles debating maybe amusing - it's his fault, no it's his fault, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, ad nauseum). They were BOTH in Washington while this economic failure was brewing, and both were clueless and both did not do one damn thing to prevent it or at least give warning. Based on the record of the last 8 years, there should be no one from Washington running in the presidential election. And personally I'd prefer if they all resigned in shame so we could start over.

It's bad enough we got one of the candidates going to Washington to further screw with the economic crisis. But what I don't get is what is so entralling about the other candidate going to Washington to just say "present".

You take away the conservative/liberal props, and both candidates are really the same as GWB - all imbeciles.

Watching two imbeciles debating maybe amusing - it's his fault, no it's his fault, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, ad nauseum). They were BOTH in Washington while this economic failure was brewing, and both were clueless and both did not do one damn thing to prevent it or at least give warning. Based on the record of the last 8 years, there should be no one from Washington running in the presidential election. And personally I'd prefer if they all (Executive and Congress) resigned in shame so we could start over.

A rational look at media coverage on Obama and the infantile emotionalism around him. From Camille Paglia. In Salon no less. That is weird.

The media was a diagrace with Al Gore, the media was a disgrace with Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans, they let Bush skate only until his popularity was tanking and now I am supposed to think the media is OK because they are giving an irrational dumb-ass screw-over to Republican Sarah Palin. I don't think so. They remain petulent, incompetent and untrustworthy. Kind of like Bush whom they got along so well with for awhile.

I don't know what to expect with the Obama/media relationship during his presidency. All I do know is that when messiahs fall, they fall hard and the only goal in Obamas agenda is getting re-elected in 2012 - any policy objectives pursued are subservient.

Both hamas and Israel are murderers of innocents, the difference being Hamas murderer one at a time and Israel is a mass murderer.

Both Hamas and Israel are racists, the difference being that Israel is the racist in control with the most weapons.

For America to take sides is deplorable. If would be radical change if the Obama admin addressed the situation as neutral mediators. Early indications are that he is loathe to upset the status quo.

The fawning over the speech is puzzling - idealolgy or cult of personality driven? Based on past performances this speech to me was surprisingly shaky and out of flow with the crowd. I almost felt he was overwhelmed by the scale of his responsibilities becoming real today. This is not necessarily a bad thing, I don't think Bush ever understood the full depth of his responsibilities. Anways I found the preacher from saddleback gave a much more convincing and committed speech.

Imagine if Obama talked about responsibillity and determination, hard work etc, throughout the election, not just today. Imagine if his message was, not "Hope and change", but instead something to the effect: "Work your ass off, change yourself, make sacrifices, and we can start on the path to hope. Does a farmer get to hope for plentiful crops if he has not tended his field? I will help tend the fields with you and then with you hope for a brighter future."

Unfortunately that message would have probabaly gotten him about the same number of votes that Biden got.

That slight maiming of the wording is inconsequential. For me the issue was that Obama seemed nervous and tentative.

Even when he started his speech he seemed tentative, not picking up some steam and confidence until well into it. He was never as convincing as he has been in other venues and speeches.

My impression was that he appeared overwhelmed by the event for reasons his own.