"Then, we get to the editor's choices, which was what actually prompted me to write. One was from Mr. Shapiro explaining the "delay" in the story to begin with. A non-issue, but whatever. Two were moralistic chastising (tsk, tsk... shut up you angry liberals!) One was fairly ambivalent. And one... (one!) from the overwhelming majority of numerous dissenters... and this was a mere paragraph."

--michael_carr

I was thinking the same thing when I saw the editor's choices. There are many well-written, accurate, insightful and civil posts setting the record straight on Russerts part in the "selling of the war" during and after the run-up to the war and his shared responsibility for the consequences of that war.

None of those were chosen. Instead we get the, as you say "moralist chastising", posts which seek to silence those they disagree with, give no rational arguments and in general are very hostile... they come across as the usual right wing shout-down-your-opponent strategy that you see on O'Really and others.

It is largely why she lost the primary to Obama.

A key fight of the election will be framed as experience (read age) and judgment. McCain will claim better judgment because of his advanced age. Obama will counter, correctly I might add, that McCain has been wrong every step of the way on the Iraq war and Obama has been correct.... so who has the better judgment.

You add Hillary to the Democratic ticket and you take that away. That's why the repuglicans are desperate to have Hillary on the ticket.

If Hillary had won the election she would pursue a different strategy against McCain and therefore Obama would also have been a bad choice for her VP.

The dream choice has always been Jim Webb, and it will be Jim Webb unless he refuses the offer.

"Let this be said for Hillary Clinton: During the primary's final three months her grit and determination earned her the right to serious consideration, perhaps first consideration. Yes, there were comments by her, her husband or her advisors that created tensions with Obama's campaign and his supporters. (Notably among these was her tendency not to congratulate Obama when he won states, and her thinly-veiled implications that he was unprepared to be commander in chief.)

But overall, Clinton forced Obama to work harder and be more policy-specific than he was during his whirlwind run through the January and February contests. Nonetheless, and despite her strong appeal to the half of the Democratic coalition Obama struggled to impress -- women, seniors, working-class whites and Hispanics -- the risks of picking Clinton outweigh the possible benefits."

--Thomas F. Schaller

I would like to respectfully disagree with this common notion you have repeated in your article.

When it became clear that Hillary Clinton was going to lose and Obama was going to be the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary went negative with her "kitchen sink" strategy, why not, she had nothing to lose. These were not policy issues she was throwing his way but were every kind of smear and innuendo you could think of. Because Obama was going to win he had everything to lose and could not afford to fight back because doing so might alienate many of Hillary's supporters.

The result was Clinton had a free shots to damage Obama when he had his hands tied behind his back. That will not be the case in the general election where Obama has already shown he can and will fight back against smears. All Hillary did was help McCain, not Obama, herself or any other candidate.

to force congress into allowing oil drilling off the California and Florida coastlines and the timing of the McCain comments and flipflops on the subject show the coordination of those political arms of the repuglican party.

Rove's so called "hiring" by faux is so he can better coordinate the political activities of the RNC, Fuax, Bushies, and the McCain campaign.

Every thing he will spew on faux will be with the purpose of setting up the McCain campaign's strategy in some way. So far, its not working so great.

The character didn't strike me as lazy or overly self absorbed (no more than most of us I guess.)

I don't mean to say that you are wrong in any way with your assessment.... It just has me thinking how much of our opinions on the character are formed by our feelings about the "war on drugs" and such and how many people feel like me, you or different all together.

Rove is attempting to portray Obama as the quintessential repuglican.

It just shows how decrepit and hated the repulican party has become that the worse slur turdblossom (the quintessential repuglican) can come up with is calling the Democratic nominee a repuglican.

I freak'n love it.

Let's try it out....

Ok, first you type in the rhetoric:

"R o v e : 'O b a m a c o o l l y a r r o g a n t'"

Hit the return button and presto! here it is in plain english:

"pasty fat guy: 'Obama smart and not easily rattled' "

"Times slams Obama on ethanol"

implies that the criticism of Obama by the Times was accurate, had merit and relevance.

As you pointed out in your article the Times piece had little or no accuracy or relevance:

("Truth be told, Rohter didn't actually show that much in the way of a connection between Obama and the ethanol industry")

Your headline repeats the inaccuracy of the Times article by implying that there was merit in the Times article. A more appropriate and accurate headline would be"

"Times attacks Obama on ethanol"

or even more accurate"

"Times wrongly attempts to paint Obama as 'in the pocket' of ethanol companies"

I'm starting to think Joan is taking pointers from Chris Mathews.

WTF. Salon used to be one of the best. Now, not so much.