Oh, come on. If this site is going to support mrs. bill. Put it on the front page and be up front about it. Then I will move on. This is despicable. Maybe greg you can do a piece on her accomplishments in the senate or her qualifications to be president. Maybe after you do some research and ignore the spin, you might change your tune. I didn't know the qualifying factor to be president is to be a former first lady.

can't you please just have a single link for Hillary news like how she takes her iced tea that the NY times reported yesterday.

for those of us who don't want propaganda this site is becoming lame

I am trying hard to enthusiastically support Senator Clinton but it keeps getting harder. This has nothing to do with personal dislike but rather real policy differences. Can any Hillerylikers help me out here? (I won't accept the "Vote for her because she'll be mean back to the nasty Republicans justification") Explain to me why someone who has the following marks against her should excite enthusiasm from this progressive but not radical Dem?

Clinton has or will:
1. Voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
2. Will not support a war tax to pay for the Iraq War.
3. Supports the 401 K accounts we fought like dogs to keep Bush from instituting.
4. Will work with the Drug and Insurance Companies to create expansion of health insurance.
5. Place Very little real emphasis on global warming (It's in the 80's and sweltering up here in autumnal Upstate NY.
6. Seems to be committed to a long stay in Iraq.

I do not think that this site is propagandizing or subtly endorsing for a specific candidate. Having said that, I believe this is a prominent leftie site, and it, er, happens to be physically located in you-know-who's territory. Nice to keep the neighbors on your good side, whatever your preferences.

But I agree with Michael that any coverage of the depth of the candidates' backgrounds and positions seems to be editorially, decidedly taboo, especially seen in the choice of this paltry one-dimensional scattershot 'improved' format.

Maybe if EC were trying to do something more akin to deep serious reporting, the site would really risk attack or unknown consequences.......better to give a forum to allow posters to do/report that deeper work, and even prod them into doing so in reaction to inanities.

Speaking of inanities....sort of.....doesn't Penn's forte have to do with this business called 'micro-targeting'? If TPM ever needs money, I bet they could quietly join together with other horse-racy blogs and collectively charge Penn to float consecutive micro-subjects around the net...... offering pretty instant feedback on such things as 'what is your reaction to seeing Hillary dressed like a witch'?