A highly informative article for those of us who are really into following the money-raising aspect of the two campaigns.

I didn't find this interview especially informative or interesting. It juxtaposes the opinions of two people, one black, one white, that don't necessarily represent the opinions of their peers. No conclusions were really reached in the interview; I didn't find anything particularly thought-provoking. In all, I found it pretty much a waste of time.

For those that were not able to watch the candidates speak at Saddleback, this article gives a pretty good snapshot of the 2 hour event in a short concise article. It remains balanced and fair throughout. Naturally, there is a lot more information that could be included, but that would involve a much longer article. The authors did a good job keeping their personal opinions out of the article -- most people who saw and spoke of the event were very decidedly opinionated.

I'll admit that I drew conclusions about this article before I even read it because of the title. I was surprised to find it a notch more fair than I'd expected, but it was still not very fair or balanced. While I do not care for John McCain, I found this article unfair and hate-filled. That McCain is painting Obama as unworthy, a celebrity, inexperienced, etc. is simply the way that campaign politics (sadly) work in this country. He'd have been doing the exact same thing to any candidate he were running against, be they black, white, Hispanic, male, female or even transgendered. It is not a sign of bigotry or racism -- it's just negative campaigning. Given the weakness of the Republican brand, the lack of enthusiasm in his ... More »

In my opinion, this article says a whole lot of nothing. It relies solely on the results of one poll (Zogby) while other polls, conveniently not mentioned, show the opposite in trends. SO much depends on the nature of the poll: how the questions are phrased, whether they are asked of self-proclaimed Democrats, Republicans, Independents or other, and in what proportions, and where the polling was done -- were more people in "Red States" polled than "Blue States" and if not, what was the ratio. This article gives NONE of that information and neglects showing the results of other polling companies and therefore really provides little to no information.

An informative and well-written article that lays out the facts behind the negative campaigning. It is written with a tilt to the left, but it is fair and accurate.

Well thought-out and presented article. All stated facts are well-backed up and a clear understanding of what precipitated McCain's most recent political ad can be extrapolated.

An interesting article about the candidates as we head toward the general election. It does lean on the side of Obama, but McCain's campaign IS largely in the shadow of Obama's at this stage in the game. The article is interesting and presents reasons why Obama is currently leading McCain in the polls but it does not in any way imply that this lead will necessarily hold until election day or that anything is guaranteed at this point.

This is a question/answer session between the author and Senator Obama. I found the questions very well thought-out and the resulting answers provide an informative view of Obama's thought process and foreign policy views.

Despite the fact that I essentially believe that the general argument made in this article is true, I have to give it low marks. It is written like an argument made by a petulant high school student -- generalizations are made and the entire argument is hinging on one poorly presented example. Also, there is a tone of uncontainable anger in it that takes away from the overall credibility. This article and argument would be much more effective if it were better thought-out and presented. As it stands, it serves in no way to inform the reader.

Sure, it was written with Anti-Bush bias, but it never pretends not to be. The information contained within the article is indisputably factual.

This was a rather compelling article. It shows pretty clearly the problem that Obama is having, and will continue to have, with small-town Americans. While it focused entirely on a few residents in one small town in Ohio, it's clear that this problem is not contained merely to this area. At times, it seemed that the author was trying to paint the people in this town as small-minded or somewhat racist, but it was, sadly, truthful and I don't think the residents of this town would find his article offensive in the least.

This article seemed written merely to incite anger and disgust. There was so little information given about the specifics of the case or what exactly the Texas Supreme Court was saying with it's judgment. This article forces the reader to look up the specifics if they wish to know more, but most people won't. Also, the grammar wasn't very good.

While the article was interesting, it wasn't really revealing or amazingly informative.

This was a HIGHLY informative article backed up with facts and explanations. I absolutely learned something from reading it.

I found this article to do an excellent job in showing the ways in which John McCain compares and contrasts to George W. Bush touch on all of the major issues. The reader is able to draw his or her own opinions as to whether a McCain presidency will continue to be more of the same or will move our country in a different direction.

Suprisingly well-balanced for an opinion piece. It looks at both sides of how people may view Obama's father's day speech while backing up the author's argument that it was not merely political pandering.

This article was clearly written with a liberal bias, and while it was written with anger against John McCain it was due mostly to his pandering to his party platforms rather that staying true to himself and for playing on this country's inherent fear and racism. The quotes taken during interviews with people who attended McCain's rally painted his supporters rather clearly as racists. Whether there were an equal number of supporters there that did NOT provide racist comments or views is not stated. However, through the anger and attackiness of this article, one thing remains frighteningly clear. This country is made up of a whole lot of people who will give any excuse to not vote for a black man. How sad. Due to its tone and ... More »

An excellent fact-based article that serves as a welcome balance to the media articles that have been focusing on the few and LOUD Hillary supporters who now claim to support McCain. By giving this minority so much attention, it has appeared that they make up a much larger percentage of voters than they actually do. This article provides a much better picture of how things stand, backed-up with polling figures. My only complaint is that they relied only on the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Because the way questions are asked in a poll can influence the responses, it would have been nice to see results from another poll as well.

This article is written without bias or opinion. It simply presents the facts and quotes relevent sources.

This was an interesting article, well backed-up with facts and figures but I failed to glean much actual relevance from it. While I enjoyed reading the article, I can't imagine I'd ever recommend it to anyone simply because while it presents an interesting and accurate snapshot of the media coverage in a particular week, it doesn't really seem to say anything -- at least not to me. I'm sure that there are people out there who can appreciate and use this information better than can I or the average American.

This is an informative article. Both the questions asked and the responses given were well thought-out. However, in the absence of answers given by John McCain to the same questions, the article really fails to present the "big picture." There is no saying with any certainty that Barack Obama will win the general election so in the absence of his opinions, this article could prove to be entirely moot.

The article absolutely shows the difference between how the candidates do and would handle national disasters. The difference between actually doing something, as opposed to offering lip-service offer a foreshadowing of how they would likely behave as POTUS. The article is biased in favor of Obama but does not fail to produce a fair and accurate picture of what each candidate is doing in response to this natural disaster.

Purely an opinion piece. I'd rate this article the same even if I agreed with it, which I don't. "'I'll have babies if you pay for them,' one Leftie blogger said on the social networking website yelp.com." See? An anonymous blogger said something on an insignificant platform - I can use that to back up my argument! What tripe.

Seriously? A ridiculous blog in which a metaphor is attacked as though it were meant to be taken taken literally. This isn't news. It's not even something that can be confused as news. The author of this should be ashamed.

This was a very balanced article clearly outlining differences in what the candidates are proposing. This is done with no bias.

This article dealt mainly with facts, laying out the arguments being made by the two candidates without including the author's opinion or any type of investigation. It's basically a simple rundown of what they said for those who don't have the time to read or watch it themselves.

A well thought-out and informative article.

There's really no spin since it's just a question and answer session but it seemed like some of the questions would have been a little better with a follow-up question for clarification. All in all, it does allow the reader to come to their own conclusions.

While initially this story appears to be factual and well-presented, the general tone of it is rather unfair to and biased against Hillary Clinton, seemingly without reason as she has already conceded defeat in the primaries. From needlessly rehashing the Monica Lewinsky scandal, to mentioning the price of her Washington DC home to the statement, the authors sentiments are made clear. The author calls her speech on June 3rd "distinctly ungracious" because she did not endorse Obama that night and later states "but angry senior Democrats quickly forced her into yesterday's endorsement" but that is merely conjecture. He never considers that perhaps her supporters were just not ready and open to receiving an Obama endorsement on ... More »

This story gives a really good indication of the toll that the war is taking on our soldiers. It is unfortunate that there is no way to get full numbers of soldiers who are currently serving while being treated for depression and anxiety as many cases are unreported, but even the high number of those that ARE reported is surprising. I found it telling that the journalist mentioned that the number of soldiers taking medications is higher in Afghanistan than Iraq. I think that the war in Afghanistan is largely ignored by the media and the American public.