Well-documented story that clearly demonstrates the Iraqi desire for a pull-out of American troops. Why can't all stories provide such clear information?

The article has a lot of interesting, and some might say alarming, statistics, but it misses the point. It clearly shows that most Americans are ignorant about political theory, but it does not explore political reality. 49% of Americans don't know that only Congress can declare war? Perhaps this is because only 49% of those in Congress are aware of this--or we would never have gotten into wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, or Iraq. Herbert Hoover is no longer considered the worst US President? The article doesn't say how many voted for George W Bush. Perhaps Americans are ignorant, even stupid--but perhaps they're much smarter than they appear.

I thought I was alone in criticizing McCain for his poor judgement in getting involved in Vietnam. Clinton and even Bush Jr. showed better sense. The story picks up McCain's very questionable service in Vietnam, but it clearly points out that Obama doesn't go along with said criticism. Well-written and balanced.

The article sites unnamed Republican sources in explaining why no big right-wing 527s have started to attack Obama yet, but it misses the real point. Every indication is that Obama will win by a landslide, and donors don't want to waste their money on a losing effort. The article even suggests that Obama's decision not to accept federal financing for his election was not necessary, but it does not back up said statement.

Ho-hum--another Justice Department scandal about political influence getting in the way of justice. Since Bush isn't going to be impeached, what difference does it make?

The point seems to be that the Right is trying to justify an attack on Iran. Exactly what the connection between the recent Israeli air exercises and the White House is not at all clear. The author includes some information about an alleged kidnap plot. It's really hard to figure out what he's actually trying to prove.

This is a one-sided opinion piece.

Loyal Democrats will probably stay home in November after reading this. What is the point of electing the right people to Congress if they can't do the right thing when it comes time to vote?

The article (and video link) do a persuasive job in showing McCain has violated the law on federal financing of elections, although it isn't well-documented. It also ignores the simple fact that neither the FCC nor anyone else is likely to do anything about this alleged violation of the law. Finally, most of the information is several months old.

The article assumes the reader will agree that the right controls the radio waves. It doesn't do much to explore either "localism" or the Fairness Doctrine.

The article raises some questions but doesn't answer them. It addresses the question of drilling and tourism, but doesn't say anything about the effect on gas prices.

Very well-written account about how a mid-level Administration official has used so-called ignorance in order to cover-up the reality of torture.

The article points out that a Republican ad attacking Obama for advocating elimination of the capital gains tax break is based upon faulty assumptions and poor reporting. It relies on somewhat dated (2005) figures and makes some rather sweeping generalizations, but overall the story is fair and informative.

Surprisingly, the speaker suggests that the media got what was coming to them, and he blames neither Obama nor McCain, nor any other candidate, for the job the press has done in reporting on the presidential campaigns. He offers some suggestions as to how debates can be fairly organized for all involved.

Aimed as it is at British readers, the article does a fair job or reporting on one of Fox's many biased comments against Obama. The story drifts off from its main point--Fox's bias--into a side show about Michelle Obama.

It's about time that someone calls a spade a spade. Most articles report "gaffes" whenever McCain says something that isn't true, but this one points out that this is McCain's style.

Rather than trying to report fairly, the author uses loaded words ("whining about GOP obstruction") to push her private, neo-con agenda.

The title suggests that the article will provide some new insight into how Washington insiders manage to get away with something, but it doesn't. Most of the article is about how Wall Street investors are making out like bandits by speculating on rising oil prices, and efforts by some in Congress to limit their efforts.

Although privatization of seeds for food crops is nothing new (I'm not a farmer or even an activist in the area, yet I've known about it for some ten or fifteen years), it's an important story that has to get out. The story offers a new twist on the problem--climate change--and it gives some hard figures to back up its point.

The article is somewhat biased in favor of Obama, recognized as an unknown, over McCain, seen as a reactionary hothead. It points out that while most Germans would like to see Obama elected, he is likely to push the German government to do things (for example, in Afghanistan) it doesn't want to do (send more military forces). It's refreshing to read the foreign press once in a while.

The article is rather inconsistent, and one might ask, "Why bother?" It does little more than summarize McCain campaign propaganda, taken directly from the official web page. It does point out some of the flaws in the official thinking (such as the fact that the campaign claims that most people support McCain on Iraq, but that it's own figures show that isn't true.)

The article jumps from one topic to another, and it is hard to really focus on anything the author says. He never really answers his own question that is raised in the title.

The article explains the positions of both candidates on a number of issues related to energy policy, and the reader can clearly see a difference. It's one of the fairest pieces of writing I've seen in a long time.

The article states that an "industry insider" uses "anecdotal evidence" to support his theory that there is a lot more oil underground than most people believe. His point is that there is no need to look for alternate fuels. How convenient for Big Oil! What nonsense! The author shouldn't have wasted his ink on such a non-story.

I laughed at McCain's campaign blunders after reading this article.

Everyone knows John McCain dumped his first wife in favor of a rich beauty queen 18 years his younger, but few know the whole story. Despite his callous treatment, Carol McCain supports his candidacy. The story is well-written and informative.

The article isn't bad in and of itself, but it seems rather irrelevant now that Clinton is out of the race for president. It also seems like a text-book example of how not to conduct a public opinion survey, since only 250 telephone owners were contacted.

This story is a real eye-opener, as most of us have probably never heard of the International Republican Institute (IRI).

The story mentions where the Democrats accept contributions from lobbyists, but it basically buys the RNC criticism of Obama without pointing out that he doesn't control the Democratic Senate or House campaign committees. Nor does it say anything about the large number of lobbyists who work for McCain.

The short title misses the big picture, and the author calls McCain's outright lie a "gaffe," but otherwise it's a great article.