via MAL Contends

The campaign reactions tell the story.

You can see the difference in the integrity of the two campaigns by their reactions to this inane, imbecilic forum last night by two manifestly unqualified debate moderators.

There was a serious debate last night and Hillary won, says Hillary's campaign.

Obama’s site offers Americans the opportunity to comment on this travesty, "Post Debate: Any thoughts? If you're tired of a slash and burn politics that trades distraction for real debate, you don't have to sit idly and watch anymore."

Clinton’s site pretends that this was a real, substantive debate, "Hillary's Reviews Are In: 'The Winner,' 'Strong Presence,' 'In Her Element'" [Just like Hillary is pretending there was a primary in Michigan and Fla.]

Hillary is still the same, old, lying politician to which more and more Americans are taking a dislike.

In Jonathan Weisman's page one, well-disguised hit piece on Barack Obama in today's Washington Post (GOP Doubts, Fears 'Post-Partisan' Obama), Weisman makes numerous references to Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Writes Weisman: " ... In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked (Obama) at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals. (italics mine)"

Why the suggestion that Feingold (and Boxer) have something for which they need be apologetic?

Was it Feingold's vote against the Iraq War? The discredited Patriot Act? The Bush tax cuts for the super-rich? Feingold's authorship of ethics reform? Feingold's fight for the Fourth Amendment?

Update: Excerpt from a nice e-mail from a reader regarding the rabid pro-invade-everywhere advocate, Shane Hensinger.