But I remeber back when Bush was swiftboating McCain a story came out that while being tortured by the Vietcong McCain divuldged classified information.

This was repeated, never formally debunked, and then forgotten about.

Is this a place to turn 527's in the future?

Cue somber music.

"Senator Obama does not support the harsh interogation techniques of known Al Queda Terrorists."

"Senator Obama says torture doesn't work."

"Why does John McCain Support Torture, because he knows it works! And the protection of American Lives, at any cost, is important to John McCain."

Just a thought.

This article is so on the money, you can smell the green backs. Yes , even though everybody wants change , we are to often reminded that somethings never seem to change. Like American Politics, feed um and lead um', even if it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, they're (all of us)consumers and will consume even the worst B.S.

If we're going to hold all candidates to the accuracy of their statements, why has no one given more attention to the inaccuracy (certainly, this could not have been a mistatement) of Obama's story about how John Kennedy paid his daddy's way to America to attend college. As it turned out, his father was already enrolled in college when the program that brought him here approached Kennedy about a contribution. He spun this lovely fairy tale about it all coming full circle and got the endorsement of Teddy and Caroline. It was Caroline's sincere speach about why she was endorsing Obama, that in retrospect after finding out she was spun by Obama, that makes me wonder how she must feel. A little used, perhaps? Is she still actively campaigning for Mr. Obama?

Democratic Party activists for her losses. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Our networks, (with the exception of PBS which it must be said takes money from some of the most loathsome multinational corporations)are in business to make money. They make money by selling stuff. To do this they need to keep the viewers watching. If their viewers dwindle so does their money. They need to air whatever crap is most likely to garner viewers. The Democrats cannibalizing themselves captures viewer attention. It is unlikely this will ever change..here. The Republicans are likely to allow the networks to continue as they are. It is possible that the Democrats might threaten them by, say, trying to get some anti-trust legislation to curb the networks' moneymaking. So the MSM prefers Republicans.

Joe, You more than many in the media know that the Clintons have never had a free pass when it comes to the political reporters etc. Hillary was my choice during the primary where I live. I didn't want her to run but I knew she could handle the one sided meanness of the media. I agree with people that say that Obama has not been tested until recently. I think that Republicans will be very happy to attack him when he gets the nomination. I only wish that Obama would stop using republican talking points to explain his views on healthcare and Social Security. War hero McCain has a lot of skeletons in his closet but he has been virtually unscathed by his scandals like the Keating5, his horrible treatment of his first wife, and his sexual encounters outside of his second marriage. I hope the Democrats will be successful with opening the eyes of the people voting in November.

Here's the thing: Hillary has been the subject of a great many unfair and inaccurate attacks, and apparently has come away from them with a certain respect for those tactics and pride in her ability to withstand and deliver them.

Obama, who is reluctant to embrace the politics of "personal destruction," and would rather talk about old-fashioned principles and realities, is clearly is pantywaist.

Hillary Clinton, who (I guess?) has a mean pool shot and attends a barbeque a week, stands with the economic elites but has scorn for those of us who don't agree with her "ends justify the means" strategy of oligarchy and trickle-down help for working class people.

Some fancy-pants elitists would argue that support for working class Americans should be largely symbolic rather than practical.

[Similiar to flag-burning debate: better to venerate the flag as abstraction than do the hard f'ing work of trying to embody the principles it represents.]

I was raised in the enlisted soldier class, which doesn't make much money but does have a certain attachment to ideas like "duty" and "honor."

There were time when I erroneously believed that supporting the troops meant 1) using force only when necessary, 2) having a plan, 3) delivering the troops the best equipment, 4) providing adequate health care to the troops we ask so much of, and 5) doing our best to strenghten the democratic republic they're sworn to uphold by engaging in susbstative adn relevant policy debates.

Thanks, Salon, for helping to set me straight. I see now that distorting the truth to play into people's biases is far more important than not sending their jobs overseas.

Go Hillary!

Loser? Check the delegate count, dickless. Check the polls, thimblewit. Check the endorsements. Check the fundraising totals. Then, play with your little keyboard and see if it matters. It doesn't. Fascist plant. Neocon diddler. Roman fiddler. Bedtime piddler. Sod off.

"Clinton gets hammered for every lie because she's a habitual liar. And unlikable, too. Duh."

Oh, of course! And Obama is getting hammered for every elitist remark he makes because he's a big elitist. And John Kerry was hammered for every un-American thing he did because he's un-American. And Al Gore was hammered for evey big fat lie he told because he's a big fat liar. Its so obvious! Thanks for straightening that out.

And McCain, of course, has been praised far and wide as a straight-shooter because he ALWAYS tells it like it is. And Bush was portrayed as a down to earth, plain spoken man of the people because - obviously - thats what he is. Its all so clear now.

Should be post of the year. Not that the vulgar obamateur's can understand the irony they so well portray mind you.