"If we want to point out how misleading they are, we air the ad. McCain's campaign wins the point. If refuse to point out how misleading they are, McCain's campaign escapes criticism."

I guess that doesn't strike me as much of a dilemma. Ads that aren't actually being aired aren't really "negative campaigning" because no one sees them...until CNN reports on them. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If our crack political journalists get an email about it, you can be sure it will!

Wait, are they *still* saying they're not airing the Hillary ads?

I live in Michigan, and I saw the "all Obama has is a speech he gave in 2004" ad about seven times last night. It was on so many times I almost threw stuff at my TV.

With all the praise Clinton is getting for denouncing the ads, and for giving her "unifying" speech, it seems no one is pointing out how destructive it was of her to say the stuff in the first place. At the time, a lot of bloggers said she had crossed a line. But now that her line-crossing is actually being used against Obama, no one seems to want to point out again how low it was for her to say these things.

Maybe it's just me, but hearing Hillary praise McCain doesn't really dispose me to liking McCain any more. Hillary is not the sort of endorsement that I would want McCain to be playing up.

McCain's Campaign should be "McCain: Slightly Less Liberal Than Obama. But still enough of a Democrat that Hillary likes him!"

Seriously, who responds positively to this sort of stuff? Do I want to hear the Republican's political enemies saying nice things about McCain? That's an endorsement?

McCain needs to lay off the green crack and get high on endorsements from, I dunno, conservatives or something.

Why can't Ambinder and all of the rest report that McCain is a f*&%$*g liar? They've really internalized his John Wayne bit, haven't they?

Bottom line: having some tape to roll and talk about makes the cabloids happy on a very base, structural level. It eats up time. It's 'free media' from the perspective of the cabloid as well as the campaign.

McCain needs to lay off the green crack and get high on endorsements from, I dunno, conservatives or something.

The McCain people seem absolutely convinced that running as a right-winger is not the way to win the 2008 election. I suspect they are right.

Kevin, for a guy who claims to only be interested in tax cuts, you're pretty obsessed with making sure that candidates strictly adhere to a right-wing ideology and bash liberals.

Your Republicanism seems a lot more driven by the identity politics than by the policy motivation you claim that is behind your voting preferences.

So in order to call something a lie they have to perpetuate the lie? Hmm. No wonder you never see much coverage of crime on the news. In order to talk about a murder, the reporter would first have to kill someone on camera in the same exact fashion as the alleged murder so you could judge for yourself if it was indeed murder (assuming no video of the alleged murder exists). The reporter can't be seen as taking sides by simply labeling something 'murder'. Ideally, you would want the corpse in question on camera too. Shouldn't the viewer be allowed to judge if the 'victim' is really 'dead'? Other crimes can be even more complicated. If there was a bank robbery, how do we know it was the bank's money in the first place? We can't just take the banks word for it. The reporter would really have to present both sides of the issue. How many other 'bad loans' has the bank given out? Do any of the bank managers have skeletons in their closets?

Are reporters the biggest chicken-shits on the planet? Call it a freakin duck and be done with it.

If I might be so bold, it is not only the televised media that's playing into the McCain talking points hands, but the blogosphere has done it's own hit job.

The value of the new media is we can circumvent the commercialized old media, right? How much attention are blogs paying to the travesty that is, especially cable, televised media and print agencies like the AP?

Instead we have more blogs than not insisting Obama is not reactive enough to the McCain food fight rather than going after how sophomoric the food fight is.

More entries like this one will go a lot further toward better elections for us regardless of party affiliation. Call campaign tactics for what they are...if they're lies use the dang word.

If you haven't noticed, the blogs can easily drive the MSM. Use that power for the betterment of our campaigns rather than the constant dumbing down of them.

Keep after the old media Ezra.

By 'transparently dishonest' you must mean playing direct quotes of Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

well, no more like using a couple words out of context in a sentence of obama's in order to provide evidence that he holds a view that he clearly doesn't.

I think the media needs to be held accountable, but don't expect it.

Keith Olbermann's guest last night, a guy named Luke Russert said that Barack Obama is popular among Liberals because they 'can stomach black people' more then old people liberals can.

Olbermann did not call the young twerp out on his racist comments. Suggesting Olbermann had no problem with the assertion.

"""This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that McCain's Hillary ads aren't actually airing anywhere in the country"""

Now who exactly is being 'transparently dishonest'. The fact is McCains ads are being aired in pretty much every state. I've seen them on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, CBS and CNN. They are being aired regularly.

Just because McCain isn't paying for it, doesn't mean their not being aired. What they meant to say is McCains ads aren't being aired with Mccain funding, but they are being aired extensively.

So McCain saying they will be aired in key states is absolutely true...by the free media.

Kevin, for a guy who claims to only be interested in tax cuts, you're pretty obsessed with making sure that candidates strictly adhere to a right-wing ideology and bash liberals.

I'm not only interested in tax cuts. Generally, I like the right wing better. I"m not demanding anybody bash liberals--I am saying that negative campaigning seems to be what works for both sides, and not doing it is a very risky strategy. Also, I'm a very likely McCain voter, and I don't want to hear Hillary praising McCain as part of a campaign commercial. If that makes me a firebrand of an ideologue, then I probably am.

Your Republicanism seems a lot more driven by the identity politics than by the policy motivation you claim that is behind your voting preferences.

I suppose that could be the case. But, if it is or it isn't, why would right-of-center voters want to hearing left-of-center politcians praising their candidate? Why not come up with some, I dunno, conservative endorsements. A Bobby Jindal, a Thomas Sowell, Kathryn Jean Lopez, a Peggy Noonan or a Mona Charen. Larry Kudlow. Any of the conservatives in the house.

But I do like tax cuts. If Obama was promising to do the Bush tax cuts one better, I might have to consider him. Identity politics is one thing . . . across the board tax cuts, that's something else.

I'd also like to see us tapping our own oil supplies, getting refineries built, federalizing gasoline formulations so unleaded in Tennessee is the same as unleaded in California (I don't see this happening no matter who gets elected to what, but I still mention it) and so on.

"""This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that McCain's Hillary ads aren't actually airing anywhere in the country"""

Now who exactly is being 'transparently dishonest'.

Apparently the Wall Street Journal, dipshit. Can't you read? Smarter trolls, please.

I'm not only interested in tax cuts.

Fair enough, I don't think you have any reason to lie, so I'll take your word for it, but you've been telling a different line over the past week or two since you showed up.

I just now saw one of McCain's Hillary ads air on CNN, and not as part of political coverage.

Seitz:

Now who exactly is being 'transparently dishonest'.

""Apparently the Wall Street Journal, dipshit""

Nooo, actually if you READ the WSJ they never make that assertion....dipshittier...

I think the left is just mad because McCains ads are so effective because they are so true. Barack is an empty suite who barely eecked past an empty pantsuit.

Kevin, you are, without a doubt, the worst troll ever. You don't pretend to be a mindless McTroll. You can't seem to bring yourself to pretend to be a former Hillary supporter. Your attempts concern trolling consist of giving generally honest advice. You don't even try to insight fights. Hell, you actually contribute you to the conversation in a civil and constructive manner. I'm not even sure 'Troll' is an appropriate term for someone like you.

In short, you are doing it wrong. I'm afraid your Mcain Point account must be pretty empty.

err, incite. Damn too many beers.

The point they make about their hard choice regarding coverage is completely bogus.

Thats like saying they cant have headlines regarding the capture of people who film child porn without showing the pieces in their entirety. Its bogus. They can and they do.. they simply omit the offensive material and have a story about what the offenses are and any proof surrounding it.

If anything this kind of excuse says that they dont _want_ to have a story about McCains campaign. ..and they want to find any excuse not to do so, even one as thinly veiled as this.

Hey Ezra, when the 3 Day Clinton Convention is over, are you leaving town or are you staying for that other guys Convention tommorow night at Invesco Field?

I hear the Temple of Obama is complete on the Invesco Plain and ready for the Annointed ONE to ascend tomorrow evening. He will speak to the huddled masses from the Obama Temple alter and tell them fear not; for he has come to deliver us from the evil McCainnites.

Fair enough, I don't think you have any reason to lie, so I'll take your word for it, but you've been telling a different line over the past week or two since you showed up.

I did say I'm always going to vote against Democrats until they get their heads straight (in my opinion) on tax cuts and energy policy. But I didn't mean to imply their were no other issues to me, or that was the only thing I ever thought about. Though I'm all for tax cuts. That is true.

If I said something else that contradicted something else I said, I apologize. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but I may occasionally be, ah, incomplete.

I'm not trying to be misleading. But some of my comments are toss-offs. Something that occurs to me. Nothing nefarious . . . unless, of course, I'm nefariously lying about that.

I figure, if I am, you'll see through that pretty quick, anyhoo. Gotta go change a poopy diaper. Peace!

Let me get this straight. For the past couple weeks, the MSM has been airing Mc Cain attack ads which would never be aired otherwise in order to offer mild commentary about the Mc Cain Sleaze campaign. And they had to know they weren't being aired by the campaign because their accounting depts had no records of the ad buys. But now that those ads are being paid for & run, they are refusing to air & offer well deserved negative commentary upon them due to so-called ethical concerns over THEIR spreading the Mc Cain falsehoods?

Tell me, Ezra, why YOU are not calling out the networks over their outrageous lying upfront in bold type headlines? Instead you sidetrack into a lame "Why is Mc Cain treating his friends in the press like idiots?" meme. It's obvious as Hell that the MSM are airing the freebee ads solely to help Mc Cain get his message out on the cheap, doncha think?

Kevin, you are, without a doubt, the worst troll ever.

I'm trying to do better. Give me time.

You can't seem to bring yourself to pretend to be a former Hillary supporter.

I like a lot of things about Hillary, but never, ever considered her for president. Even though I didn't think she'd make a terrible one (sorry, I'm not into the "if-my-guy-doesn't-win-the-world-is-doomed" mode of politics . . . I think America will survive either John McCain or Barack Obama pretty well . . . we surived Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon). So, no, I'm not a former Hillary supporter. I haven't voted for a single Democrat in 20 years. Even when I really liked the Democrat in question, I voted a straight party line ticket.

Perhaps not always for the best reasons.

Your attempts concern trolling consist of giving generally honest advice.

Amateur wonk analysis, I prefer. I doubt either the GOP or the DNC is going to listen to me. Just how I see it.

You don't even try to incite fights.

Been there, done that. As someone who has done some inciting in the past, I would say that I think it's often from, um, over enthusiasm for one's own point of view . . . and not a little incredulity that people can't naturally see how right you are about everything. Not actually (not always, anyway) a desire to start a fight. The fight just naturally comes from the approach.

Hell, you actually contribute you to the conversation in a civil and constructive manner.

I hope so. I do need to keep in mind that toss-offs and wisecracks that would be easily understood as such by my right wing fellow travelers aren't always going to be understood (in this sort of forum, with many reasonable but troll-wary liberals) in the spirit they are made . . . so perhaps best not to make them.

In short, you are doing it wrong.

Story of my life.

I'm afraid your Mcain Point account must be pretty empty.

I don't much care for McCain, and I remain dubious that his newly discovered conservatism will quickly giveway to a quasi-liberal big-governmentism with aggressive foreign policy that, mostly, won't please anybody. In other words, he'll be Bush II, but probably without the tax cuts, and no real conservative agenda outside of questionable foreign military engagements. Yay for my side. So I can live without the McCain points. I was at least excited to vote for Bush in 2004. I'll hold my nose and vote McLame in November . . . but I won't be happy about it, dammit.

Thanks for sharing this information.I don't think you have any reason to lie, so I'll take your word for it, but you've been telling a different line over the past week or two since you showed up.