<p>I can see that you’d like to drag this discussion off into the weeds at as great a length as possible. </p>

<p>For the record, I think all of the "lobbyist" gotcha is annoying and even a distraction. But since Obama and McCain have already both disdained the influence of money in politics, it’s only fair to subject them to this kind of scrutiny.</p>

<p>And when Newsweek has relevant reporting, it should promote such a story with the same diligence as its Obama cheerleading.</p>

It’s one thing to disagree with the argument that a closer look at a given article reveals that it doesn’t add up to the supposed sum of its parts. Dismissing such an argument as something necessarily borne of an unwillingness/ inability to look at things– I assume this is what the term “rose-colored glasses” refers to– strikes me as sort of counterintuitive.

There’s no reason for me to get personal with Ellen Miller, to whom I’ve never spoken, and she seems reasonable enough to show the same courtesy to others. She’s making a strong argument for the perspective that we ought to use the term “lobbying” to refer to a broader set of activities than we traditionally do, to include the consulting activity that seeks to manage public perception. That can be argued on its own merits.

I’d be interested to know, for instance, whether the “medical experts” in the scenario she mentions were to be compensated in any way. I’d also like to learn whether any of Axelrod’s political clients were in positions to affect the outcome of his corporate clients’ policy initiatives at the time he was working for them. Would I need to express a certainty, without seeing any additional reporting, that the answer to these questions was affirmative, in order to not be called disingenuous?

Even though most of us were enjoying the long three day holiday weekend, Obama’s gaffe machine didn’t take any days off. Gateway Pundit has video of a speech Barry O. made in New Mexico today where he said, among other things, the followin…

Are you calling Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation a liar? Because it seems to me she is calling you disingenuous.

Isikoff’s piece is carefully reported, not at all disputed, and yet you think nothing of Newsweek’s non-promotion of it?

Time to get those rose-colored glasses cleaned, my friend.

Are we ready for Obama as president is the type of typical liberal guilting of voters into voting for their guy I expect these hacks to try and do all the way up to the election. Nevermind asking a more serious question, like is Obama READY to lead us?

NEWSWEEK has long been in the tank for liberal causes and Democrat candidates. I’ve talked to their writers and read their articles. It’s pretty said.