Maybe it's time to stop wasting time with candidates verbal mis-speaks and follow the money.

The money trail should speak volumes more than obviously accidental tongue slips.

I do not include Hillary's "shooting" incident among these.

I really don't see why attack ads are that bad. We've been led to believe they are, but what's honestly so bad about them?

Yes, they're negative, but if they're true, who cares? I don't wanna get into an argument about the Swift Boat ads in particular, but it's just part of a campaign.

If you can't go out and inform yourself, you don't deserve to vote.

Um... so? I don't get what the complaint is.


But we should look at Obama's donor's too, right? Pharmaceuticals, lobbyists, insurance companies... hmmm.

Absolutely we should check them all.

I believe I see a difference in legitimate American corporations that frequently contribute to both candidates and a group that was organized to smear, through lies and exaggerations a single candidate.

Originally McCain called the Swift Boat ads "dishonest and dishonorable," a "cheap stunt," and he urged Bush to condemn them.

He has since flipped and is now accepting their aid. This should indicate something worth noting about the candidate.

I assume you're suggesting that the Swift Boat ads were true?

If you really believe in what you commented above then your last line is particularly enlightening.

No, I frankly don't care about the swift boat ads.

I believe I didn't get my point across entirely correctly. What I meant to say is that if you don't go out and inform yourself about a particular candidate's positions and instead just listen to attack ads, then you don't deserve to vote.