Honesty, integrity, morals. Just words to a democrat. They have no meaning.

HAHAHAheeheeheehee...

After the past 8 years Zelsdorf, GA, I have to ask, just exactly what do they mean to a Bush Republican??????

Won't happen till we use it against them and win.

I honestly don't think it's big enough for that.

Most people will give politicians some grudging points for "desire to win."

Yes, from your perspective Obama should have put principle before winning ... but certainly everyone who just won with him is going to see it the other way. Perhaps even some on the right will admit that they would have done exactly the same thing.

I mean, James wrote in the new thread "McCain ultimately ran a pretty tough campaign, going negative when he had to."

Substitute "Obama ultimately ran a pretty tough campaign, going for the money when he had the choice."

Everyone should admit that Obama's reverse on this was a bad thing.

Won't happen till we use it against them and win. Then they Will propagandize it as if we were the first to do it and it's the wost thing ever,same thing the liberals always do in almost every situation. LIE,BlAME,LIE.

If you promise to talke public funding then don't because you can get more funds from public pandering, I say you have no integrity. But then we are talking about a democrat. Honesty, integrity, morals. Just words to a democrat. They have no meaning.

Everyone should admit that Obama's reverse on this was a bad thing. Many of us though would also admit that it is fair within the range of things we call politics.

If politics are dirty, this was only a small to medium dirty incident.

Compare it to the way Obama's "palling around with Terrorists" is old news the day after the election, and no one really blames McCain.

Those figures cited do not include favorable press coverage admitted by many in the press.

This one also contains a correlation/causality tangle.

What if there WAS more favorable news?

Those figures cited do not include favorable press coverage admitted by many in the press. Post election mea culpa's are so easy to give after your candidate has won. While you may not be able to buy an election you may be able to win through sympathetic press coverage.

Steve, you have to differentiate between favorable and accurate (i know, hard to do when "your" guy is losing) Pretty much all (left and right) agree that Obama ran a near flawless campaign, while McCain made several mistakes. If reporting the truth under those circumstances (and remember, McCain entered this race as the "Maverick" darling of the press) is "biased"... we can use a little more bias in the future.

I don't recall anyone pondering whether or not George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush or Ronald Reagan "bought" the presidency.

All three had significant fund raising advantages over their opponents.

I really hope this was tongue-in-cheek--a simple Google news search of the New York Times' archives yields articles hitting on the theme of a big money candidate "buying the presidency" stretching back into the 1800's.

How would we ever disentangle the chance that a popular candidate would attract (and spend) more money, from the chance that a candidate with a lot of money would become more popular?

(Maybe if Obama started with a small amount and it snowballed, that would be an argument that popularity bred money and not vis-versa?)

So, we're down to Clintonesque parsing of words, already, Alex?

When you combine CDS with ODS, what do you get?