The idea that Hillary and Obama are indistinguishable on ties to the insurance lobby is laughable. Hillary takes the cake when it comes to campaign contributions from the insurance companies. This from Michael Moore.com:

Sicko: Hillary Clinton became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions.

* "As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership." Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear, "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton," New York Times, July 12, 2006.

Or this from the candidate many of these obfuscaters claim to support:

In his second appearance of the day at the town civic center in Waverly (pop. 8,968; flag count: one giant and two large American flags), Edwards offered this, "The presidential candidate who has raised the most money from Washington lobbyists is not a Republican. It's a Democrat. The candidate who has raised the most money from the health industry—insurance companies and drug companies—is not a Republican. It is a Democrat…. And the candidate who has raised the most money from the defense industry, is not a Republican. It is a Democrat. And all those descriptions fit the same candidate. They're all Senator Clinton."

Always pays to ignore the man telling you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I would warn you not to pay to much heed to LWM. He's either insincere or as dense as swollen hickory, and I suspect a little of both. On the one count he has it that Obama would be the biggest hawk, as inferred by his lack of support for military action against Iran and strenuous objection to the Iraq invasion notwithstanding the opposite positions of his candidate, (which, despite what he would have you believe, is not Edwards). On another, he has it that the runaway winner for special interest donations across the board and inclusive of the insurance and drug lobby, who is currently attacking Obama for his liberal positions, (no mandatory sentences and prior support for single payer health care), is the liberal alternative to Obama the neoconservative Manchurian Candidate. He isn't even aware, or at least professes to be ignorant by way of inane snark, that hypotheticals are formulated specifically to point up, typically fallacious, Pathos (appeals to emotion) that plays so well in the political realm. One wonders how that is possible given his own very consistent and deliberate special pleading. In any case, one doesn't have to possess the judgment to divine rhetorical traps to realize that equivocating about taking out Osama Bin Laden as he's planning to take out Americans won't play very well in the general. To top it all off, he begrudgingly proffers that he would vote for Obama in front of a Republican candidate. So, truly, the guy is a write off. At best.

I can't say, have had too many children to chase around to follow the thread closely enough, but that is LWM's stated position. I was responding to the cavalier dismissal of a serious argument about standing armies as unserious, and how that was of a piece with the preponderance of evidence indicating it doesn't make sense to take LWM seriously.

Joan-

With all due respect, disclaiming that you can't be dispassionate about this incident is humorously perfunctory, given that you aren't remotely with regards to Senator Clinton's Presidential ambitions full stop. I don't begrudge you your viewpoint, how that affects your coverage in spite of yourself, or how, given your position, that slants Salon's coverage, but please don't go fooling yourself or worse, insulting the intelligence of your readership.

Speaking of which, my heart doesn't go out to Hillary because she is also fooling herself, or trying to fool us. If her passion and tears are truly prompted by her love of our country, rather than the demise of her own private ambitions, why is it that the only remotely compelling attacks of the litany she has thrown against Obama- regarding his liberal/reformist credentials, in particular vis a vis Iraq and special interests- are greater arguments against her than any candidate. On the special interests, not only does Senator Clinton take money from the special interest villains of the left, (e.g. Defense, Health Care lobby), she has taken more money from them than any candidate including Republicans. On the war and war mongering, not only did Senator Clinton vote for it before voting to authorize one on Iran, (or at least a military strike), she accompanied that stance with remarkable cheerleading and zeal in her accompanying speeches- all the better to keep her from jeopardizing her imminent presidential run. So, she's really of a mind that she's the best one to extricate us from that quagmire on day 1?

And as far as misrepresenting the record, how about Clinton's claim to "35 years of experience bringing about change"? Or about her claim to 35 years of experience? Is this the 35 years of experience that had her so excommunicated from the Clinton administration that she didn't even attend the 96 convention???? She has at least 35 years of experience drawing breath. Anything else is beyond a stretch.

Let's face it, if we are stuck choosing between Clinton and Obama, which we are, there is no good argument against the latter that doesn't make the former look abysmal.