uniting not dividing all across this great land.

This is the most disgusting stunt I've seen yet. Glad you're proud of your candidate exploiting an amputee.

I'll admit it makes me a bit squeamish. But Cleland seems up for it, and this Swift Boat stuff deserves to be attacked as viciously as possible.

Turning him away at the gate *was* a pretty dumb move. It's all political theater of course, but Kriston's right, the president should have invited him in (away from the cameras), met with him for ten minutes, served him some disgusting sweet tea, and given him a ride home -- past the reporters.

No. Cleland should have made an appointment like every other f***ing American is required to do. He intended for it to be show. Why should the President have contributed to the circus atmosphere?

well, the obvious answer is "because he wouldn't have gotten one". Of course this particular line of argument will go nowhere, because you think Bush isn't responsible for the Swift Boat ads, and I think that, because he is benefiting from them by having his negative campaigning done for him, he ought to address their truthfulness head on. Sorry if this is putting words in your mouth, but my point is that there will be an unresolvable disconnect on that point.

But when I said *should* have met with him, I don't mean he was obliged to, I mean it would have been smarter for him to. Neutralize Cleland's stunt, have a 15 minute powow where you express your (fake) frustration with the 527 phenomenon, call a news conference that you invite Kerry to attend at the last minute, and put together a blue-ribbon comission to investigate reforming McCain-Feingold that won't issue its findings until 2012. Then quietly send John O'Neill another fruit basket.

That's what he *should* have done, to match his questionably earnest anti-527 rhetoric. But he didn't, and Cleland got his moment. I'm not complainin', just sayin'...

Cleland is the world's biggest ass****. I am so glad Saxby beat his Maxy's hindquarters in 2002.

It would be fun if we compiled all the comments into a single page. One anti-Kerryite claims that Dole's having lost use of his arm in WWII means that Dole can say whatever he wants. Another says that Cleland, who left two legs and an arm in Vietnam, is "the world's biggest asshole."

But likening a triple amputee who attempted to protect the worker's rights of government employees to terrorists and genocidal dictators is absolutely darling behavior. Cleland has plenty of reason to feel bitter toward this crowd. It's not that he lost the election; it's how he lost.

PG-

You can buy into that lie if you like, but I live in Georgia and I know what happened. Cleland lost because the people here thought he was an out-of-touch liberal wacko who, like Kerry, was always playing the "I served in the military" card.

But you know what? I wouldn't care if that ad did cost him the election. Maxy played dirty pool in quite a few elections leading up to his Senate win, and payback is a bitch.

I'm familiar with the GA campaign, and the myth is just that, myth. Cleland lost because he voted with liberals. And GA don't like that.

thanks for the "texan born in Connecticut" tag-I have to give props to those who acknowledge that Bush is not now, nor has he ever been, a Texan.

when he loses, I can't wait to see how long it is before he abandons the "ranch"

oh yeah, and real texans drink ice tea unsweetened. It's a sacrament, man.

Ooooh jeebs I've got a herd of farm-raised Texas grandmas and great-aunts armed with lemon and sugar bowls who disagree!

Yes, and McCain would have lost the South Carolina primary even if Bush's people hadn't spread rumors about his having a "black daughter." (I did like Jon Stewart's comment on that: "They meant Strom Thurmond and got confused...")

In other words, as long as gross behavior isn't the determining factor in one's opponent's losing the election, one should feel free to be as nasty as one wishes to be?

If that's the new rule, I guess we can expect even more degenerate politicking.