Your colleague, Josh Marshall, just pointed out the difference between the AP's take on Obama's Iraq stand and the New York Time's take on Obama's Iraq position. I thought the New York Times got it right, while the AP still got it wrong.

Here's the AP's characterization by Liz Sidoti in the HuffingtonPost:

On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months. He has said that the safety of U.S. troops and the stability of Iraq might force him to adjust that timetable _ a potentially flexible formulation that has troubled liberals even though he's long said the nation needs to be careful leaving Iraq.

And later, that same AP article seemed to be updated with an expansion on that same paragraph on the Yahoo page:

On Iraq, he has gone from a boisterous end-the-war call that endeared him to the left flank to more nuanced rhetoric. He has long called for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months. Last week, he said his upcoming Iraq trip might lead him to refine, but not basically alter, his determination to pull U.S. troops out of combat in Iraq and that the safety of U.S. troops and the stability of Iraq might force him to adjust his timetable. It's a potentially flexible formulation that has troubled liberals even though he's said throughout his candidacy that the nation needs to be careful leaving Iraq.

And here's the New York Times' take as seen on the TPM front page:

Voters should understand, he said, that they rarely will find themselves in 100 percent agreement with him. "But don't assume that's because I'm just doing it for "political reasons, he said.

"That just means we disagree," he said.

At which point he returned to Iraq, an issue where he has wavered very little from the stance he took many months ago. He favors a phased-in 16-month withdrawal. The McCain campaign has labored hard to suggest that he is inconsistent on this issue.

Why the two different takes on that same paragraph in the AP article by Liz Sidoti? What led to the different edit in the same article on the Yahoo page? Is it an implicit admission that Liz Sidoti, at the AP, got her characterization of Obama's stance on Iraq wrong in the HuffingtonPost original AP article?

Corn doesn't appear to be asking whether the questions are screened, rather whether the questioners are being screened. The Jeff Gannon syndrome, so to speak.

Then, of course, the McCain camp happily answers the question that wasn't really posed. "Oh, no, we don't screen the questions beforehand."

Surely, McCain is cozy enough with the press corps that he knows who is friends are (and they are many).

Their reply was not responsive, and when you tried to pin them down they gave you a non-answer, which means yes they do screen questioners.

PR 101 - Don't answer the question that is asked but rather answer the question that you would like to have been asked.

Kleefeld adds, however, that he has frequently tried to ask a question and never gotten through.

Well maybe if Eric started going to some BBQs or would fetch a couple of doughnuts then that would change.

When asked by a reporter if they were screening out certain reporters from asking questions of Senator McCain; his campaign staff replied:

"What is your name, who do you work for, and do you always call in on the same line?"