but that just means that the Democrats have to stand up and have some fucking balls for once- with or without Obama campaign approval.

go Democratic 527s!! start with the smearing of Mccain.

And then again, put the ball back in their court by asking, "What does this have to do with the job I intend to perform if elected?" Or "I think that if Republicans aren't expected to answer, or even to be asked in the first place, then these types of questions have no place in our public discourse."

It isn't until someone confronts their subtle mendacity head on, that anything will likely happen to make it change.

That's a fine idea with one problem: The media wouldn't report the candidate's actual response, they'd merely report -- loudly -- that s/he "... refused to respond to questions about [x]."

I'm sure you can write the rest of that script.

Right now the media hacks are focused on destroying Clinton. If and when they dispose of her they will go after Obama. I predict that the focus of their attack will be Micelle Obama, who is for the moment getting a free ride. It will be nasty.

Wednesday's farcical proceedings in Philadelphia have prompted me to send this entreaty to all the Democratic voters in Pittsburgh, my hometown.

I'm the son of a sheet-metal worker and a remarkable woman who raised seven kids in a tiny two-story, three-bedroom home in Carrick. My dad died last year at 82; we honored my mom with a surprise party on her 80th birthday just last month.

Although work and wanderlust have taken me to California, I love my birthplace, its history, and, most important, its people. Specifically, I love Pittsburghers' reputation for neighborliness and plain speaking (albeit with the filigree of that distinctive accent).

It is our innate desire to dispense with humbug that I appeal to here. With this reputation in mind, I feel certain that you are as appalled as I am about the wasted opportunity that was Wednesday's "debate."

Those of us living outside my home state have some recourse; me, I'm sitting here in my Pirates jersey writing to you. However, unlike those of us in California who have already voted, you have a more direct course of action. You can send a strong message at the ballot box next Tuesday.

By voting for Obama you will accomplish two important goals. One, you will be voting for the next President of the United States. Two, you will be emphatically stating to ABC News, the rest of the media, and cynics in both parties that you reject having your intelligence insulted and more important concerns about gas prices, Social Security, the Iraq war, and education tossed aside in the superficial pursuit of pins and preachers.

Make me proud. Make yourselves proud.

Conason, Walsh, and the rest of you all: Change your own way of doing business, or get out of the way.

We ain't playing those old games - not.this.time.

Get ready for the "Obama way". You know it's happening.

Don't be scared, Barack will make minced meat out of McCain, just like he reduced your once-inevitable candidate to the current display of acute and ugly desperation.

This is what I have been waiting to hear from Democrats like you who support Obama. Clearly, it is McCain and his press lackeys who need to be the focus of attack, not our own prospective candidates.

http://alternet.org/election08/82703/

While nearly all politicians shade the truth now and then, some utterly disdain the truth, a category that includes George W. Bush and increasingly Hillary Clinton, as she made clear again in Wednesday night's debate on the strange topic of Vietnam-era Weather Underground leader William Ayers.

Since last year, the Clinton campaign has been pushing the supposed Ayers connection to Barack Obama as an attack "theme" to take down his candidacy. But Clinton went even further in the debate suggesting that Ayers had reveled in the 9/11 attacks -- a false claim clearly meant to inflame Americans against Obama.

Ayers, now a graying college English professor living in Chicago, did support Obama's state senate campaign and served with Obama on a board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropy that gives out grants aimed at alleviating poverty.

With all the discussion lately on Salon (and elsewhere in the internet) about sexism in the Democratic compaign, I wish that more people would remember the "Clinton rules."

Yes, there are many examples of Clinton being treated differently by the media. But most of it is because of the "Clinton rules", and not because of sexism.

I'm not trying to ignore or diminish the real examples of sexism and sexist media coverage that Clinton has experienced in this campaign. These things should be discussed, those guilty should be called on it and criticized, and we as a nation should try to learn and improve.

But it is so obvious to me that most of what is called "sexism" by some feminists and Clinton supporters are just further examples of these Clinton rules in action. Calling everything sexist, and labeling Obama supporters (most of whom are fellow Democrats) as sexist, only serves to distract from the real issues and undermines a real understanding and discussion of sexism. And the Republicans will be laughing all the way to November.

There is plenty of blame to spread to both camps. In addition to exaggerated claims of sexism by some Clinton supporters, there are also some Obama supporters who make sexist attacks on Clinton. But it's amazing that both of these groups have completely ignored the recent red-blue dynamic and the long history of Republican/MSM attacks on both Clintons and all Democrats.

My compliments

The suggestion by Amity in response to Joe's column about the double standard deserves a star from the editor.

The candidates could agree prior to each debate on a list of stupid questions that will be answered: "Democrats aren't playing your game; ask a question about policy."

Historically (in the last 30 years or so, at least) Republicans have "gotten away" with attacking Dems, while it has been very difficult for Dems to attack Republicans. Most folks seem to blame "the media" for this double standard, but I think something different is happening.

Specifically, GOP attacks on Dems are attacks on "the Other" while Dem attacks on the GOP are attacks on decent, God-fearing Americans, all the worse because they're being made by the Other. That's why, for example, Jeremiah Wright is a bigger problem for Obama than the more despicable character John Hagee is for McCain. When "regular folks" hear Wright's rantings jerked out of context, they can easily believe that these views (themselves a caricature of what Wright actually believes) are held by a large number of blacks and liberals. When they hear Hagee's more outre pronouncements they think "I don't much like that, but neither I nor any other Christian I know harbors such views, and I really doubt that a decent guy like McCain, who's basically just like me, does either. Thus, this seems like a manufactured issue designed to attack McCain for being a decent Christian man."

We can moan about the media all we want, but the media can't slay the Other, only Dems can. Bill Clinton did it, partly by running as a "New Dem" uninfected by the sins of the old ones, and partly by being more "bubba" than any person the GOP is likely to nominate in our lifetime (unless Huck's the nominee in 2012). Gore and Kerry failed, spectacularly so in Kerry's case. Hillary thinks she can succeed because she's been attacked as the Other ever since she emerged as a national figure, yet still remains standing. (She may also want us to believe that she can succeed because her husband succeeded.) Although she doesn't put it quite this way, her point seems to be that if she can't beat these attacks, no one can.

Obama's approach is different - he doesn't want to repel the attacks so much as make the ground inhospitable to them. Beginning with his 2004 convention speech, he's been attacking the idea that liberals are inherently bad people. He's also attempted to present himself as a whole, authentic person, in contrast to Gore and Kerry (and Hillary, before she "found her voice" in NH, and far too many times thereafter), who seemed to be adopting different personae to make themselves palatable to this or that group of voters, while being afraid to show their true selves. Their inability to define themselves left a big space for the GOP attack machine to define them.

Obama's also been very forthright about the moral and ethical principles that underly our policies and worldview, actually putting the principles ahead of the policies (to the disdain of some). In the past, Dems have emphasized policies because the electorate likes Dem policies more than it likes Dem politicians (another symptom of Otherness). In contrast, Obama's best speeches make the hair on the back of your neck stand up and bring tears to your eyes, not because he's got the best 10 point plan to solve this or that problem, but because he reminds us of the values that conquered the Great Depression, won WWII and rebuilt Europe, and gave equal citizenship and voting rights to blacks (among many other things). These values are held (or at least given lip service) by a substantial majority of the American people - Obama will not get all their votes, but he may be able to pick off enough to win by a comfortable margin.

The most diehard Hillaryista and most deluded Obamaniac would agree that a national campaign without character assassination, ad hominem attacks and the general slime perfected by the GOP would be a cakewalk for either Hillary or Obama. They will also agree that this won't happen - the attacks are sure to come. If these attacks are made against the Other, they could well be successful. If, however, they are made against a candidate who has defined him- or herself in the great tradition of American liberalism, and is perceived as an authentic, trustworthy person, the attackers may become the Other. This was the situation in liberalism's heyday when Goldwater, not to mention Faubus, Wallace, Connor and other hateful troglodytes, were the dangerous radicals, and liberals were mainstream Americans.