McCain will run on experience, and all that comes with that, while Obama will run on judgment and his opposition to the war from day 1.

There's a clear jab in there at Obama's 2002 speech, and that that speech is the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign, but in the end, there's nothing untruthful about what Clinton said.

It's just that she said it.

I would point out most former generals were average Presidents (Washington and Jackson being exceptions).

Go to HuffPo if you want to be disgusted by things people say - mostly against Hillary, but there are some anti-Obama posters too.  

As I read in a comment yesterday about the NAFTA situation, when the AP's Nedra Pickler reported on the Canadian memo, instead of leading with the news of the release and its content, she lead with the Obama defense and rebuttal.

Then, it became not CVA said/he denied/CVA supported with named Obama staffer/they denied and spun/memo said/he denied/and so forth with the Clinton campaign weighing in--it became she, Clinton camp said/he said, Obama camp said.

On NPR the memo story was introduced as the Clinton campaign today accused Obama of waffling (can't recall exact word, and Obama said or his camp said something in defense and counterattack. Actual situation now secondary or tertiary. Or ignored.  

That's how it's done if the MCM is protecting someone.  It's not that the press reported, or a third party released info--it's Camp A accused or attacked with some independently reported info and Camp B was allowed to reply/rebut.  Then the issue never gets scrutiny!

If the vaunted free press plays lapdog games with a candidate, attacking the other strong ones in a primary, Edwards as too angry, yet a girly man, and Hillary hit with everything imaginable, the only way to get information to the public is to feed it to an MCM outlet which will research and publish it, talk about the situation, or put it into ads.  Now, trying to inform the public about anything in brief ads is not only nearly impossible unless there's groundwork, it's incredibly expensive.

Once again, we are so ill served by our MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media). During the 2000 campaign, I was not on the web or even knew about blogs--Krugman was my one published source of sanity and accurate information, along with a few good reports never "talked up" on the talk shows and often not covered ont he broacast news.

NPR was better back then. For example, when I heard that Al Gore had claimed to discover Love Canal, I was surprised--and worried. I knew he had not and couldn't believe he was saying he had. But, I trusted the NYTimes and WaPo much more back then, despite their refusal to ever apologize for their Whitewater coverage. So I was worried about Al Gore, and my enthusiasm was dampened.

Until, of all places, This American Life covered the Love Canal thing: The class where he spoke, and the NYTimes reporter and the WaPo reporter both "misheard" what he said, has taped the entire visit with Gore. They had on tape what he actually said, they complained to the WaPo, there was some quiet correction, and the tale has lived on to this day.

But, I knew exactly what had happened--bcz of This American Life! There still is good, solid reporting on NPR--and in many newspapers--it's just often buried in the usual MCM-type coverage.

What I DO have a problem with is Hillary building up McCain in an attempt to attack Obama.