From an independent , and clearly biased view this interview is a challenge and a defiant, in your face, indictment of politics as usual. With the use of information in the public domain the top tier of candidates are accuse of employing criminal and bums. Truly a cause for pause. Why have I not been hearing anything like this elsewhere?

The behavior of a future administration is largely colored by the people they attract into positions of power. This investigation of military advisers to the candidates suggests a dismal choice between tweedlemurder and tweedleassasisnate. Digesting the story may be easier if you are familiar with Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn's histories of U.S. foreign policies, and do not depend on your high school history lessons. The interviewees seem a little harsh on Edwards and do not mention Kucinich. The rest seem to get what they deserve.

This program is particularly interesting because the advisory cast of characters is the same that has been destroying our reputation abroad and bringing on the blowback of 9/11, &c., apparently to assure contributers to the front runners that the congressional military industrial complex will keep rolling along with no interruption for the foreseeable future. This when people overwhelmingly want change.

An interesting set of views in first person from the Left. More than a little transparent flag-waving for predictable causes. Whether you agree with all the characterizations, it's useful to think about who is advising whom and what you feel about that.

The story provided very good info on who is advising the major candidates on "war" policy with good summaries of real policy initiatives enacted by the advisors while working for previous presidents. It's unfortuntate that the conservative source Kelly Vlahos wasn't given a greater role in this interview.

Critical information for all citizens of the world.

It seems like the more conservative journalist Vlahos was short-changed, and Goodman allowed Nairn to ramble off-topic repeatedly. In terms of balance, none of the people mentioned are allowed to defend themselves. But I give this a higher rating for information, since this is important news that is usually absent from campaign journalism.

I am glad to see this bit of Democracy Now on NewsTrust because I believe this is the kind of journalism we need to be really informed. The sources for this piece were aware persons from diverse directions but dedicated to the facts. It is better to follow connections and to be aware of what other reporting has been done by these people, which authenticates their work.

Ms. Vlahos' assertion that the usual "clique" of advisors to the candidates, offering the same old advice is an unhelpful platitude. The candidates choose advisors with whom they are familiar and whose views are compatible with their own, even if they are members of the Washington old guard. Fresh faces would be a plus, certainly, but it is likely that anyone with sufficient experience and, presumably, wisdom would already be at least a prominant figure or a part of that Washington "clique". Mr. Nairn's condemnation of virtually all of the advisors as having been either directly or indirectly responsible for "atrocities" because they caused so much death and misery cuts much too wide a swath. According to his logic, then, the ... More »

THis is the kind of behind the scene reporting Americans desperately need. We need to know who the candidates are, and what they really stand for. This report tells you something more telling than what comes out of a candidates mouth, which is whatever they think it takes to be elected. What we get here is seeing the candidates real policies by understanding the actions and beliefs of their closest advisors.