Another lesson no one seems to have learned is the importance of evidence-based decision-making. Instead, it’s somehow looked upon by many as understandable and forgivable that many of our leaders suspended rational inquiry and gave into fear, manipulation, and beltway conventional wisdom. The fact remains: there was no credible evidence of a real threat from Iraq. In my mind, that is all anyone should have needed to preclude this entire devastating debacle. But then we live in a time when people seem surprised that a product like Airborne—created by a teacher! —doesn’t actually have any demonstrable health benefit outside the placebo effect. The destructive effects of this epidemic of acting based on pseudoscientific propaganda, gut feelings, and lizard-brain emotions of all sorts cannot be overestimated.

I can't believe how badly you destroyed whatever argument Ana Marie Cox thought she had. She stutters. She stammers. She contradicts herself. She gets defensive. All classic signs that she know she's on the losing side of the argument. Way to go, GG.

This whole argument, to me, goes to the central myth of J-school. Namely, that mainstream professional journalists employed by giant media conglomerates can be(or ever have been) truly objective. To me, being objective means looking at the facts and drawing evidence-based conclusions, something the MSM do incredibly poorly, due to too many other competing interests (access to power, money, ratings, readership, cost control, time) that are diametrically opposed to objective reporting. Absent the expectation to report the most probable and carefully researched explanation of a given event based on the available factual record (McCain either lied or is seriously inept), the MSM are free to report the merely plausible (McCain innocently misspoke four or more times in exactly the same way) in whatever way they see fit. Since the plausible is not exactly falsifiable and is often worded to be as unoffensive as possible, it passes for objective. Science is objective; MSM reporting is not and never has been.

"I am X, and X is both superior and treated with deep unfairness."

This reminds me of the protagonists in Ayn Rand's novels, which I was quite taken with as a teenager. I loved the idea of my own superiority, the elegance of self-interest in her utopian dreamworld. And then I grew up. I can just imagine how many of these right-wing nutjobs still fancy themselves Hank Reardons, though. It must be frustrating to be so horribly wronged and misunderstood, like so many impetuous children and modern conservatives believe themselves to be. I would feel sorry for them if they weren't so determined to destroy everything I stand for.

This should finally end the fantasy--and erstwhile media narrative--that John McCain could possible be construed as a maverick, a straight-talker, or a different kind of Republican. He has revealed himself to be exactly the same kind of craven, despicable politician so common is his party, the kind who draws on the very worst aspects of human nature to garner what little appeal he can. The man McCain claims to be would be deeply ashamed of the awful, desperate race-baiting fearmonger that John McCain the campaigner has become, or rather, revealed himself to be.

I am no Obama apologist, but count me among those who just don't get the erratic=old thing. If Obama's campaign had been looking for a word to telegraph "old" while still offering a plausible, more literal meaning they could claim had been misunderstood, there are many, many better alternatives. That, taken with the legitimate case to be made for McCain's campaign being erratic, makes me look upon the erratic/dangerous comparison as a false equivalency. There are plenty legitimate arguments to be made about how the Obama campaign's claim to fairness and high-mindedness, but the use of "erratic" just isn't one of the stronger ones.

@Baldie: Now that I think about it, maybe I was wrong. Maybe they went looking for something that says "old" without saying it and "erratic" was the best they could do. But I think the analog to "dangerous" and "dishonorable" would be something more along the lines of "shaky," "unstable," "unsteady," or "doddering."

I don't know how he does it, but once again I find myself in total agreement with Glenn. Those of you who haven't, read the actual NYTimes article. Then locate your basic sense of fairness and intellectual honesty and admit that this rambling hit piece full of glittering generalities and idle gossip has no place in honest political discourse. You can't on one hand rightfully excoriate Republicans for their repugnant Rovean tactics, and then on the other hand embrace this kind of claptrap when it suits you. Well, you can, but it makes you a Great American Hypocrite.

There are, perhaps, legitimate issues the Times piece raises, but they are handled within the context of a completely illegitimate and inappropriate presentation, a mere laundry list of unflattering characterizations.

If we are going to make progress as a country, we have got to get over our addiction to partisan politics as sport, even if our side is winning for the time being.

For more perspective, I recommend "True Enough," Farhad Manjoo's look at our "post-fact" society.