It is well-written, therefore the reader takes it quite seriously at first blush. However, the writer mocks every suggestion to save journalism ( necesary to our civilzation) and insists there is no choice but to wait for evolution, or mutation, or something. He bases much of his argument on a story about a 14-year-old boy being able to successfully pirate Dave Barry columns once upon a time. This, he inists, proves there is no way journalists can charge for online stories, dispite the fact that many publications already do . The Wall Street Journal? --Oh who wants to read that anyway?" -- That's his argument.

It paints Jindal as a great success when in reality, many of his ethics reforms have no teeth. And he does not have the charisma of Obama. That's almost like comparing Dan Quayle to JFK.

I don't like the anonymous "one Demoncratic Source" quote,. I tis not necessary to the story and takes away from its crediblity. But other than that, I see the story as informative and fair.

It's an opinion piece, so it doesn't have to live up to the same objective standards a news story would. I happen to agree with the writer, so I like it.

Doesn't seem fair to devote the first half of the article-- about all most people read-- to McCain, devote a little to Obama, and then end with a MCCain opinion. It's a story that is pretending to be fair.