"Swift-boating" Obama? Sorry, but that ship has sailed

In the past two weeks, Barack Obama's campaign has unleashed two angry email campaigns to mobilize supporters against a Chicago radio host they claimed was smearing Obama. News stories covering the controversy have repeated the campaign's contention that they were merely being vigilant against any and all attempts to "swift-boat" their candidate. The noun that's become a verb is used as shorthand, both by politicos and the press, to describe any non-issue-related attack on a Democrat.

If that's really true, then he couldn't have picked a more inappropriate target.

Obama didn't go after Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Agar or Glenn Beck or Mark Levin or any number of other right-wing radio hosts (as featured in the terrific book Shock Jocks by my colleague Rory O'Connor). No, he went after WGN Radio's Milt Rosenberg -- a genial University of Chicago professor who for 35 years has hosted possibly the most civilized two hours of commercial radio anywhere in America, "Extension 720."

Few people have exposed more authors to more readers in that time than Milt Rosenberg has. Barack Obama should know. He was a guest on "Extension 720" in 1995 ... when he had a book to promote.

Rosenberg's crime? Interviewing two journalists, Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso, who have written critically about Obama's political, social and financial connections.

I, too, have been on "Extension 720," a show I've listened to since college days. Ten years ago, Milt added me to a TV critics' panel of Phil Rosenthal (then at the Sun-Times) and Steve Johnson of the Trib, after I sent him my TV book and, to my delight, he read it. That night, three TV critics learned how little Milt watched or cared for television. He pronounced the name of the "Tonight Show" host "Leano." He read approvingly the old quote from Groucho Marx about how educational TV is, because every time someone turned it on, Groucho went into another room and opened a book. One suspected that Milt did that a lot, too.

He's a conservative (as a quick skim of his blog reveals), but more than that, he's curious. He enjoys the exchange of ideas -- more than a lot of public radio hosts seem to -- and so does his faithful audience.

Recently, however, that audience has had to deal with a pile of gate-crashers, spurred on by something called the "Obama Action Wire." This mailing list, which goes out to thousands of volunteer truth-squadders, sends them email alerts whenever action is needed to counter the media's coverage of their candidate.

"The Obama Action Wire is a grassroots rapid response group for supporters to fight smears, spread the truth, push back on misleading media, and take positive action," says the campaign in an email.

On Aug. 26, author Stanley Kurtz was booked on "Extension 720" to discuss his work investigating Obama's "lost years," the period from 1995 to 2004 when he was seemingly just another Illinois politician. It's a time, Kurtz claims, that Obama is reluctant to discuss now that he's running for president because (a) it would underscore how closely he worked with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other lightning rods and (b) it would expose Obama as the rather ordinary liberal his critics say he would be as president.

Rosenberg's producer Zack Christenson contacted the Obama communications office the morning after Kurtz was booked to ask for someone who could provide a rebuttal. The Obama rep demanded the name of WGN's program manager ... and after he got it, he hung up. Later in the day, the campaign sent out an "Obama Action Wire" which I quote in part:

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

But as we now know, the Obama camp lied in its email when it claimed that WGN had refused to "offer sane, honest rebuttal" to Kurtz. OK, so politicians lie, even "candidates of change" lie. But just as bad is the assertion that it was "unacceptable" for WGN to use "our public airwaves" to air the program. If ever there was a pre-announcement of how an Obama Administration would regulate "our public airwaves," that was it.

Obama should be delighted that Kurtz was featured on "Extension 720," where cross-examination comes not just from the host but the callers. Instead, he hit the flagship radio station of the teetering Tribune empire with a barrage of hostility that its host called unprecedented. About 45 minutes into the program, Rosenberg finally learned the source of the deluge was the campaign itself. And then, sounding a little flustered, he told his listeners what happened and added that such an orchestrated campaign was

"the first time in my experience of over 30 years doing this program -- which is and always has been, up until this moment, an oasis in the desert of perhaps media excess. We try to run a dignified, thoughtful, intelligent program." And then, with a laugh, he said, "I think at last I'm in the big time," and thanked his guest for making it possible.

Any notion that the Obama campaign had second thoughts about laying into Rosenberg were dispelled this week, when he had on David Freddoso, author of a New York Times best-selling book that raises many questions about Obama's personal and political ties. Once again, "Extension 720" became the target of a take-no-prisoners "Obama Action Wire" blitz that recycled the line about "the right-wing smear machine" and provoked another firestorm on the public airwaves.

This time, Zack the producer had been able to book an on-air critic of Freddoso, progressive activist Dan Johnson-Weinberger. I talked on Wednesday with Johnson-Weinberger, who confirmed he had been booked well in advance of the show. He had nothing but praise for Rosenberg, on whose show he's often appeared.

"Longtime listeners know that Milt is now a very conservative guy, but he used to be a pretty progressive guy," Johnson-Weinberger said. "Look, I appreciate the opportunity to appear on the show when the author of a hatchet job's on, too. I think Milt probably should've had someone on the show when that other guy was on, and that they made their best effort -- Zack should've called me! -- but you know, I don't think it was malicious by any stretch. They should've had someone on to say, OK, half of what you're saying is factually correct, but half of what you say are lies."

On the one hand, you have to tip your hat to the Obama campaign for making the counterpunch seem so effortless. After the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had been dogging John Kerry for three weeks in August of 2004, the campaign finally started to fight back. Maureen Dowd wrote scornfully in the New York Times that the candidate "should have had a response ready, since the Nixon tool John O'Neill has dogged him since '71." But, Dowd noted, Democrats "always seem caught off guard when the third parties show up to rip their throats out."

Not always. Team Clinton I in 1992 had a rapid-response crew ready to pounce on perceived smears. In hindsight, when you consider how much baggage Bubba was carrying around, they did an outstanding job.

"Swift-boating" is little more than a myth propagated in the aftermath of the 2004 election to make Democrats feel better about backing Kerry, an incompetent campaigner who was never able to shake off the stigma of voting for the war he now opposed. It's a buzz phrase that losing candidates can use to dispel those nagging thoughts among supporters that they were too slow and too ineffectual in responding to their enemies.

And it's utterly irrelevant now that Barry's team is playing offense. If anything, Obama 08 is more effective, more responsive, more ruthless in its policing of the media than Clinton 92 was. And those are all good things. Professionalism, efficiency and responsiveness are all qualities you want from whoever's running the show, especially these days. From the moment they devised the 50-states strategy that wound up winning the nomination, Team Obama has always looked like the best-prepared political team on the block.

But this crusade against Rosenberg was complete overkill. Campaigning is not governance, and I must admit, I'm now a lot more worried than I was a month ago about how Obama will deal with criticism from the right should he be elected, because they ain't going away.

Obama says he will change Washington. That he will govern in a bipartisan way and get Congress unstuck. I want to believe him. But I think that this current wave of criticism is practice for the years ahead, and I am not encouraged by the Obama campaign's instinct to dump a pile of bricks on anyone who won't engage them on their terms. I mean, wasn't one reason Democrats liked Obama was that he represented a break from the partisan rancor of the Clinton years?

I also found troubling Obama's refusal to take part in any town hall meetings with John McCain over the summer. Judging from the comments I'm already getting, it's apparent that nothing drives Obama-ites nuts quite like McCain hammering their man on the whole town-hall subject. And admittedly it's a dubious excuse for the GOP to run every spurious TV ad its henchmen can think of -- so you don't want to discuss my 12-point energy plan? OK, then I'll just spend three weeks comparing you to Paris Hilton!! -- but you know what? You don't reap what you don't sow. Obama's poll numbers were moribund all summer long and worked his party into a panic. Had he taken up McCain's challenge, he would've had a chance to separate himself from his challenger before the conventions. Besides, running from debate belies Obama's stated desire to have open discussions of the issues and move America beyond sound bites and attack ads.

And based on his behavior toward critics in the past two weeks, I'm starting to think that anti-swift-boat measures make up the entirety of Obama's plan for so-called media reform. No new ideas, just a reinstatement of old ones, like the Fairness Doctrine, but with more teeth.

"It is a little disconcerting," Rosenberg said at the end of his second night of dealing with the onslaught of pro-Obama calls and emails. "I am used to somewhat more thoughtful discourse than that. On the other hand, freedom of speech extends to the Obama campaign as well, and thus they are free to email their supporters with any message they choose."

(By the way, if you want to hear some mind-blowing audio, check out Milt's 35-year audio archive. He interviewed Arianna Huffington on feminism -- in 1974. Malachi Martin and Jerry Rubin debated demon possession on "Extension 720" in 1976 ... you can't make this stuff up!)

Previously on TV Barn: I've written often about MSNBC and its hit show "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," but I also thought the network went too far giving Keith the anchor's seat for its political coverage. I also noted how journalists have disappeared from presidential debates and argued that Sarah Palin had more to worry about from Jay Leno than Tina Fey.

Comments

[Kane]

'I also found troubling Obama's refusal to take part in any town hall meetings with John McCain over the summer.'

If that troubles you, you might want to enroll in an introduction to politics course. I think the 1st lesson is 'when you are losing, demand a debate. When you are winning, ignore demands for a debate.

[Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I was just dreaming about those Democrats complaining all summer long that their man was neither winning nor losing and was keeping McCain in the race.--AB]

[Kane]

'"Swift-boating" is little more than a myth propagated in the aftermath of the 2004 election to make Democrats feel better about backing Kerry.'

"Swift-boating" is what a compliant media allowed to happen to an incompetent campaigner who was never able to shake off the stigma of voting for the war he now opposed; so we got an incompetant President instead, thank you media watchdogs! I would be happy to quote chapter and verse from any number of publications which show 1) how many news cycles the media surrendered to this group of blatant liars & 2)How this comps to the Texas Air National Guard story coverage granted by the MSM & 3) the SBV4tT's ties to the GOP were not interesting enough to get the MSM to report accordingly, but frankly, it's a mountain of evidence and I don't have time. Read a 'Lapdogs' for starters.

For a slightly more critical look at these two 'journalists', readers would be well served to read John K. Wilson's HuffPo blog.

I am not an Obamamaniac; but the MSM has a lot to answer for from 2004 (& 2000) and the Obamamaniac's are correct in giving no quarter to these 'journalists' or those that promote their work/smear.

[Thomas]

There's more than a whiff of left-wing authoritarianism to the Obama movement. That's why they wanted to have his big speech at Invesco--to intimidate.

[t.a.barnhart]

thanks for sharing the "Obama should have done the McCain townhalls" line. that actually puts all the rest into context. that you think he should have gone along with his opponent's preferred campaign medium means either you lack political or critical judgment or that you're simply a McCain supporter with the chance to attack the Obama campaign. the use of "Barry" is indicative of those with comtempt for Obama and what his campaign stands for; it's not a name he's used for decades.

basically, any credibility your post might have had is shot by the political posturing you failed to hide. good job.

[No, the use of Barry is consistent with any reference to his basketball biography, as Bryant Gumbel, Stuart Scott and others who have reported on his Hawaii glory days have noted. (Hint: "on offense." Maybe I'll add "driving to the basket" to make it painfully obvious.) Regarding the revisionist history of town halls, no less than NBC's political director Chuck Todd was enthusiastically looking forward to a summer's worth of town hall meetings when I spoke to him in May. By July, when we spoke again, he was as disappointed as I was: http://tvbarn.com/story/52420/ --AB]

[Andy]

I don't agree that the "Swift Boat" group had no effect, but I agree that their power has been greatly exaggerated. I remember one of those guys going on "Hannity and Colmes," where Alan Colmes (in his usual Toby-from-The-Office style) proceded to completely tear the guy's story apart. I remember thinking, "If this guy can't even survive a Colmes interrogation..."

[Sam]

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.
It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

Its an article of faith on the left that George Bush "stole" the 2000 election with the aid of the Supreme Court which gave him a win in FL that he didn't earn and thus a Presidency he didn't earn.

To this day, the myth is still perpertrated by the likes of Jesse Jackson, John Edwards and John Kerry:

There are many issues to debate and argue about the sordid Florida experience, but one of the most intriguing is how a cottage industry has sprung up among liberals to perpetuate this myth. (Jesse Jackson still refers to Florida as "the scene of the crime" where "we were disenfranchised. Our birthright stolen.") As the 2004 election grew closer, the distortions spread beyond Moore's fantasy to the presidential campaign itself. Senator John Kerry told crowds that "we know thousands of people were denied the right to vote." His running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards, ended speeches with a closing argument about "an incredible miscarriage of justice" in Florida.
The problem for the left is that there are no facts to support the myth. Unlike Michael Moore's claim in his factually challenged film "Fahrenheit 911", none of the recounts which were conducted post election showed that Al Gore would have won:

But in fact, every single recount of the votes in Florida determined that George W. Bush had won the state's twenty-five electoral votes and therefore the presidency. This includes a manual recount of votes in largely Democratic counties by a consortium of news organizations, among them the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times. As the New York Times reported on November 21, 2001, "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." The USA Today recount team concluded: "Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."
Despite evidence to the contrary in the form of that presented by the consortium of news organizations, the myth persists among the left. It is the origin of the hate which they feel for Gerorge Bush.

When confronted by the fact that the news consortium could find no basis for the claim that Bush and the Supreme Court had "stolen" the election, many on the left then made the claim that certain minorities had been illegally "disenfranchised" (by not counting their vote) and others had not been allowed to vote ... in fact, per the claim, prevented by police from voting. Enough, those critics claim, to have easily made the difference for Al Gore.

After all the media recounts of 2001 showed that George W. Bush would still have won under any fair standard, Democratic activists have narrowed their charges to the purported disfranchisement of black voters. The Civil Rights Commission, led by Democrat Mary Frances Berry-with only two Republican commissioners at the time-issued a scathing majority report in 2001 alleging "widespread voter disenfranchisement" and accusing Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush of "failing to fulfill their duties in a manner that would prevent this disenfranchisement."
So by what means did the Civil Rights Commission prove these charges? Well, in fact, they really never did.

But when it comes to actual evidence of racial bias, the report draws inferences that are not supported by any data and ignores facts that challenge its conclusions. Since we have a secret ballot in America, we do not know the race of the 180,000 voters (2.9 percent of the total number of ballots cast in Florida) whose ballots had no valid vote for president. Machine error cannot be the cause of discrimination, since the machine doesn't know the race of the voter either, and in any case accounts for about one error in 250,000 votes cast. (And, as some have asked, is it not racist in the first place to assume that those who spoil ballots are necessarily minority voters?)
The Commission simply assumed that the invalid ballots were those of minorities. That somehow blacks and other minorities were shut out of voting based on the evidence that 180,000 ballots had no valid vote for president. That somehow those counting the ballots knew the voters were black.

Sounds absurd, but that's the core of the claim.

The question then is: was the commission able to come up with "a consistent, statistically significant relationship between the share of voters who were African-American and the ballot spoilage rate?"

The answer is a flat "no". In fact, a study showed something else entirely:

John Lott, an economist and statistician from the Yale Law School now with the American Enterprise Institute, studied spoilage rates in Florida by county in the 1992, 1996 and 2000 presidential elections and compared them with demographic changes in county populations. He concluded that "the percent of voters in different race or ethnic categories is never statistically related to ballot spoilage."
Lott found that among the 25 Florida counties with the greatest rate of vote spoilage, 24 had Democratic election officers in charge of counting the votes. He concluded that "having Democratic officials in charge [of county elections] increases ballot spoilage rates significantly, but the effect is stronger when that official is an African-American."

In other words, the possibility of disenfranchisement as charged by the Civil Rights Commission took place in counties with Democratic officials in charge of the elections and counting.

How then is it possible for Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush in particular and the Republicans in general, to have "disenfranchized" minority voters in those counties?

In fact, ballot spoilage at the rate indicated in the 2000 election is about average and happens in every election:

Ballot-spoilage rates across the country range between 2 and 3 percent of total ballots cast. Florida's rate in 2000 was 3 percent. In 1996 it was 2.5 percent.
Another of the charges leveled was that blacks were kept away from the polling places by police.

Other charges from Democratic activists turned out to be "falsehoods and exaggerations." For instance, when the commission investigated the charge that a police traffic checkpoint near a polling place had intimidated black voters, it turned out that the checkpoint operated for ninety minutes at a location two miles from the poll and not even on the same road. And of the sixteen people given citations, twelve were white.
And last, but not least, "the Florida attorney general Bob Butterworth-a Democrat-testified that of the 2,600 complaints he received on Election Day, only three were about racial discrimination."

The myth's foundations are easily destroyed with fact, but not as easily dismissed by those who badly want to believe George Bush was "selected not elected". Although false, the myth gives them a basis for their claim to the illegitimacy of Bush's presidency and a reason for their hate. Whether its true or not apparently doesn't matter anymore (and I'm not so sure it mattered then) as the hate is now so rooted within them that it is a part of their political being. ABB is their mantra and ABB is who they'll vote for, regardless of whether that's good for the country or not.

[mike kennedy]

My hunch on this is that the pushback on Rosenberg has more to do with personal antipathies and Hyde Park infighting among the University of Chicago eggheads.

[Vince]

Don't forget that Obama tried to get the Dept of Justice to open a criminal investigation of a group that aired an ad on TV somewhere on the East Coast that raised the issue of assocations with William Ayers

[James]

Dear Mr. Barnhart,
I disagree with those who say that you have a concerted bias, as I note you have included complimentary comments about Obama in this column and also have derided the GOP's 'spurious' TV ads. (How I love the word spurious...its use is one of the ways you know someone has a good vocabulary).

I do think, however, that you are too generous in your assessment of Freddoso and co. There is no doubt that their books are designed not so much to highlight any real ties with Bill Ayers - any reasonable analysis would say that their association was limited to a relatively small amount of aid Obama received when he was starting out and needed help. Such an analysis would also note that he has never backed Ayers' more wacky beliefs.

Their books were attempts to tar Obama as a hardcore leftist and terrorist - since Ayers was one, you could say Obama might be, right? (No, actually, but that wouldn't matter to them). The books were attempts to smear Obama as an extremist and quite possibly play on bigoted sentiments against his background (he's got a Mid-East name and associations with terrorists! Ahhhh!).

Coverage of them does help the smear artists, so frankly it is the duty of conscientious people to avoid giving them any publicity at all. While Obama's campaign perhaps didn't go after the person who most deserved it (Rosenberg doesn't seem to have thought of the coverage as aiding smears, and he did not intend to), it did help counter a smear job that needed countering.

Also, Obama's refusal to take part in McCain's town-hall style debates is, as another poster stated, tactics. Not the best tactics (candidates should have some debates besides the formal ones) but understandable that the Obama camp would refuse to play to a format McCain is more comfortable with.

In addition, the Obama campaign certainly hasn't 'dumped a pile of bricks' on people the way Hillary and Bill attempted to do in the primary, and in fact, took the high road against them in the primary several times. SBVFT's impact was likely overrated (who's likely to believe it? Conservatives. It likely wasn't the decider for a ton of people) but still put Kerry on the defensive with despicable tactics in a close campaign. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the following points: a) Such books are highly distortive, and are attempts to tar Obama and b) Since he's lived through 2004, I think it's difficult to blame Obama for striking hard against such people wherever they appear.

Thank you for reading through these points.
Sincerely,
James Mallov

PS I don't agree with your points, but they are neither venomous nor overly partisan, and have good writing, a rare quality.

[Thanks, James -- we'll end the comments here with that. I'm going to write more about town hall meetings later this week -- AB]