The Republicans and the corporate media focus in marginalia because they don't want the public thinking about substantive issues. Why? Because conservatives flatly can not win that discussion--the Republican Party in its current incarnation is bankrupt of ideas. Its answer to economic times both threadbare and flush is tax cuts. Its answer to foreign policy questions both nuanced and urgent is force. When someone supplies the same answer to any condition, they have no answer at all.

It's an insult to the public intellect that conservatives focus on trivialities, and both Clinton and Obama should attack that. The implication is that Americans are too stupid to understand complex policy questions, and thus must focus on the trite and meaningless.

I totally agree that there were "Clinton rules" and that Obama is suddenly finding himself subject to them. You might call them the "ohmigod, a Democrat might be elected President/might be an effective President" rules.

But, just like the old adage, "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm not being followed", just because there are Clinton rules doesn't mean Hillary should get a pass on her Bosnia lie. The boast was entirely germane to her campaign theme about experience. It was used in conjunction with her alleged anecdote from the White House about sending the First Lady where it was too dangerous to send the President. And it was just dead wrong.

But it is absolutely the case that McCain deserves exactly as much scrutiny about his mistakes about, for instance, Iranian aid to al-Qaeda, given that he too is running on his alleged experience. The serious question is whether he can keep the facts straight if he was President. No one wants to talk about that, either, though we lived through eight years of Reagan and over seven of Bush (and a couple of years of a post-stroke Woodrow Wilson, but in a far different world) when no one had real confidence they could do so.

I find it strange that this article is guilty of the very thing it purports to be upset about. Yes, republicans and democtrats alike should be held accountable for their lies and mistakes. So why is it that Joe excuses Hillary?

"Sen. Clinton wrote an accurate account of her landing at Tuzla Airport in "Living History," her bestselling memoir, which suggests that the over-dramatized version she recalled more recently was more a mistake than an intentional lie."

Huh? The fact that she has more accurately written about the landing not only proves that her current story is an intentional lie, but a really really dumb lie to boot.

...and other trifling issues are coming our way, these are the burning issues that will command the day.

By the way, you'd better be sure you still have that yellow ribbon magnet stuck on you're SUV, don't wanna be on the wrong side of my country tis of thee....

Coverage of Obama consists of pundits and bloggers talking about Obama.

Can the rules change? The press is pretty thin skinned from what I've seen. They don't react well to criticism. We, the people, have the internet now. The media needs to be shown that we want more than these endlessly repeated controversies. They are amoral. They will follow the ratings and feedback from sponsors and viewers.

The more time goes by, the more I realize that there is a real disconnect between the media and the American public. These "people" act like they are speaking for "us" but that couldn't be farther from the truth. When was the last time that George or Charlie or Chris Matthews couldn't pay their electric bill or had their house foreclosed on? Today's media is completely out of touch with what is really going on in this country. Just watch Meet the Press. Each week I think Tim Russert and his ridiculous panel becomes more and more

irrelevant. Who cares what these people think? They are just talking and just because they say something does not make it true. They cannot predict the future. They are just running their mouths for a buck. That is it! If things continue the way they have been going, I think there is going to be a big revolt against the press. I think the ABC debate is just the beginning. Enough is enough!

Those slanted rules have guided coverage of Sen. Clinton during the past several weeks...

It's been more than a few weeks. More like 16 years.

The American right wing hates popular, successful liberal leaders — no matter how centrist — and so the press does too. Conason is absolutely right — any Democratic campaign is going to be deluged by the same tide of slime that has afflicted the Clintons continuously since their successful run in 1992.

But to be fair to the press (ha ha, I know), one reason why it focuses so obsessively on the picayune failings of liberal politicians is that liberal constituents devote attention and energy to their coverage regardless of whether they're extending anything close to the same scrutiny to conservatives.

The one thing that I wish about the Democratic candidates is that they would get together and agree to present a united front in rejecting stupid questions. I know, the press would be outraged — but if they saw their own reputations (and sales) improving as a result I think they'd find a way to live with it.

Doesn't that seem to be the media? We don't even bother calling them journalists anymore.

Notice almost all the so-called media political pundits worked on campaigns rather than newspapers?

It's like our media is soaked with lobbiests and wannabes or nearly-famous-at-one-times, or almost was's, or once was's.

It's like they are all interviewing for jobs with the next-in-powers.

NO, people don't want the constant gossip. That is how Bill Clinton remained popular IN SPITE of the scandels. It is not the public who impeached Bill Clinton, it was Congress with the media's help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/letter-to-hillary-remembe_b_97004.html

Dear Hillary,

Reasons abound why you should do all you can to defeat John McCain--but for you, it should be personal. Maybe you've forgotten in the heat of the Democratic contest. But remember McCain's cruel joke about your daughter, when Chelsea was 18 and vulnerable. This alone should give you every reason to stand against McCain--and nothing to boost his chances.

McCain made the joke at a 1998 Republican Senate fundraiser. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" he asked. "Because her father is Janet Reno." Chelsea was a lovely young woman then, and is even lovelier now. But when you're 18, an attack like that can be deeply wounding. It's outrageous for McCain to slime an innocent young woman who'd done nothing to offend him--just to throw red meat to a Republican crowd.