Shooter you parrot GOP/Fox Noise Channel propaganda talking points day in and day out, and you got the nerve to lecture us on propganda? That's rich my friend, just plain rich. So do us a favor now Shooter and buzz off. You're probably done anyway. You usually do your little hit and run, never to return to the conversation. You add nothing here ever by repeating your talking points. Everyone refutes them and you just spout a different one, never responding to people's posts. So now that you've had your fun, let the grown ups talk. We'll take care of the country for you buddy. Don't worry about, we got it covered.

Shooter said what would our rebuttal ad look like, just one sided-propaganda? Well in case you missed it shooter, the GOP ad was entirely one-sided. Our ad woulnd't have to lie or mislead people. That's because we have the facts and logic at our side. The ad would just say that the dems offered to pass an extention to the PAA but the republicans blocked it. Then say if this bill is so necessary to our security, why'd the republicans block it? Who's playing games with our national security? That's all the ad would have to say, short and factual. We don't need propaganda. If you have to resort to lies to win an argument, what does that say about the merits of your position?

Anyone notice that our embassy was attacked in Kosovo? I saw the video and wondered where were the marines? Why did the marines allow the embassy to be attacked? Just wondering.

Don't forget that the Washington Post also independently reported the same story. They didn't focus so much on the relationship between McCain and Iseman, but of how he acts on behalf of lobbyists clients. I would say that the mistake the NY Times made was by highlighting the alleged affair. I have no doubt that the Times got the story right though, they aren't going to make an allegation of this magnitude without being on solid ground. People need to remember that. This is the NY Times we are talking about, not the National Enquirer. But unfortunatley the affair allegation is all people are going to focus on, instead of McCain's lack of ethics. The man is a hypocrit. BTW why is the thought that McCain possibly had an affair so beyond the pale? He cheated on his first wife. Psychologist say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So why is it so unfathomable that he might of cheated again?

I just happened to catch a bit of MSNBC coverage of the McCain story. Norah O'Donnell was talking to asshat Tucker Carlson about it. The conversation was very anti-NY Times and pro-McCain. What struck me was when Norah referred to the associates as being "disgruntled". Right on cue, Tucker picked up the ball and ran with it. Saying "Of course they are disgruntled, anyone that would allege something like this against a former boss has to be disgruntled". That's not an exact quote BTW but an approximation of his statement. Considering that the sources were anonymous, we have no way of knowing what their motivations were. They could be disgruntled, or maybe they have higher motivations. Norah, the so-called journalist, was just putting her bias unto them because she's pro-McCain and doesn't want the story to be true. That's the liberal media for ya. LOL

Well if Cokie said it, then it must be true. Let me guess what she said without even having to check out that link. She said Obama and Hillary are moving to far to the left. That's going to hurt them, because Americans don't like extremes. We want people clearly in the middle. So every step the republicans take to the right, the dems better match it just to stay in the middle. So how has that worked out for the dems? Well prior to the 2006 election, we got our asses handed to us. What was different in 2006 was the dems stopped listening to that bullshit advice. Instead of trying to act like phony republicans, the dems started to behave like dems. Guess what? It worked, we won. So take your Cokie Roberts, and the rest of the media pundits that think they know what's best for democrats, and shove it!!!!!

Another talking point for Clinton

Supporters of Hillary are now holding up the Kurtz column as an example of a media member who is willing to "expose" Obama. That's how far the Clinton campaign has sunk, although last night's fatuous answer by HRC on 60 minutes about how Obama "says" he isn't Muslim so she will take his for word for it, may have been worse.

-- Steve1us

You bring up what I think will be more damaging then all these right-wing attacks on Obama, Hillary Clinton. She will do and say anything to win the nomination. If she can't win, she'll take down Obama just for spite. She'd rather hand the White House to John McCain, then to let Obama have it. She will destroy the party, if that is what it takes, to get the nomination. I think we have more to fear from Hillary then all the pathetic republican attacks combined.

Bill Maher gave a great new rules segment on his show. He discussed these right-wing attacks on Obama. It's pretty funny but don't watch if you are at work. Foul language. Click on my signature to see it.