I can't think of any other reason these outrageous fictions are  tolerated. McCain's image is made for teevee as is Obama's. But the all time master, imo was JFK with Reagan coming in a close second.

the issue isn't "does military service alone qualify you to be president?", it's "does screeching that your military service is being dishonored, when it's actually the polar opposite." qualify you to be president?

i'd say that, so far, mccain wins this round, foaming at the mouth at windmills. it is a thing of beauty, that all the media, in their cosmic ineptitude and complicity, have been swept up in.

The black candidate has issues that cannot be brought up because everyone screams "Racism!"  

The white candidate has Military Service that cannot be brought up because everyone screams "Patriotism!"

And they were, indeed, basic, relating to our expectations for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Then one of us mentioned Hamas, and the exchange that ensued went something like this:

"Vait, vait. Vat's zee connection between a political movement and food. Vy hummus?"

We exchanged astonished glances. "Hamas," we explained, "is a Palestinian Islamist political movement. Hummus is a food."

"Ya, but vy hummus? Yesterday I had to throw away my pita bread because it vas dripping hummus. Unt it's too high in carbohydrates."

The Hamas-hummus confusion went on for several minutes. Then, the interviewer declared: "Your conflict is not so bad. Jennifer-Angelina is worse."

I think it would be very tedious if every single thread devolved into a "who ya gonna vote for or not vote for" war.

At the same time, when you get a group of people together who all agree on an issue, it's perfectly natural for discussion to move away from the issue itself, and gravitate towards what should be done (or not done) to pursue the goal.

Now I delve deeper.  It seems to me that because sites like No Quarter now exist (which I visit by the way!!!!), there also exists some pressure on a Dem Supporting blog to not let themselves, by virtue of fighting for specific issues, be associated with the dirty and divisive PUMAs.

Here's something controversial:  Also, I think PUMAs themselves would like to exploit some issue activism for their own ends.   (I come to this conclusion because I don't think anyone's ever gone too far out of their way to argue that Clinton would be vastly different than Obama on FISA).

Anyway, because all of these other tensions exist, one does feel compelled to caveat fighting for an issue with the disclaimer: "I will vote for the Democrat."

In any other environment, that disclaimer would go without saying.

BUT....

I still believe this environment was not created by a Clinton supporting contingent who finds Obama unacceptable.

I still believe this environment was created by a group of bloggers who said things (and still believe it's acceptable to say such things) while fighting for issues that make the things said on this blog look like, well, polite nudgings by mildly dissappointed people.

So some irony is not lost on me at least.  That disclaimers now have to be made to placate some people who have, historically, been known to be much much worse in terms of their divisiveness.

But, as a society, we haven't really decided exactly how everything has been changed.

I'm left with just one question: in light of this information, how am I going to vote?

Here's an example.

(emphasis mine)