Generally, I encourage serious, piercing critiques of political proclamations. Political bias and or unbridled enthusiasm for being critical, however, can often undo the pursuit of truth in deconstructing political advertising. In this case I find these faults with this review: 1) The reviewer states that “the ad's insinuation” is that Obama “supports explicit sex education for kindergarteners”. Whereas this assumption may be obvious to the author, it is not supported with any rational or itemized supporting facts. 2) This review itself, in its bold section headlines and elsewhere, insinuates that the entire ad is false. Which is an insinuation that is not true. 3) The argument that the ad should have included statements critical of the candidate paying for the ad seems to be unrealistic ‘pie in the sky’ logic. 4) Excessive critical enthusiasm or political bias is present in the lengthy, one sided arguments in support of Illinois SB99. Evidently the Illinois Senate did not agree. The article is on target with the criticism of the “one accomplishment” statement in the ad. Rephrasing this to “one of the few influences” would have been more accurate. If it can be shown that a significant number of voters would interpret the ads’ “comprehensive sex education” which is a technically accurate statement, to insinuate “explicit sex education” to kindergarteners, then a simple warning in the critique, that the insinuation can not be supported would have been more objective. The argument that others have brought the complaint up in the past means what? Is the author arguing that Obama did not support SB99 because Keyes and Romney made past allegations that he did? Or is the author insinuating evil intentions on the part of those who make allegations that he (Obama) supported SB99?