...and if it's the only one we have on this subject, then I won't accept anything in it as fact. The internet (like O'Reilly) is full of crap! I really thought you might be able to confirm some of this stuff and that's why I asked. I see now, that your proof of its veracity was that it seemed to you to be negative for Kerry. Fine for you. Don't expect an arguement like that to have any weight with me, though.

My first impulse was not even to discuss it without another more-rational-sounding source. But as you are fond of saying, fine, have it your way.

OK, assuming every word in the piece is verbatim, you completely misrepresent what's there. They did not tell Kerry what to do to be elected. They grilled him. Let me explain to you where this might come from: there is a lot of talk among Democrats that this was a soft-ball selection process. That Kerry flew beneath the radar and was not fully vetted by the voters or by the press. That we don't have a good view of how Kerry will do as the candidate because his dirty laundry was not properly rubbed in his face during the nomination campaign. Sounds to me like this was designed to finish that process.

Even so, I read questions from the press, and answers from Kerry. I did not see any questions or answers that referred to behavior (present or future) of the press. How else is a meeting with the press supposed to work?

And since freaking when is it mysterious and evil for a candidate to meet with the press???? Do we need to start monitoring conversations between Bush and the WH press corp to make sure there are no improper contacts (whatever that means -- "The eagle flys at midnight" nudge nudge wink wink)? Should we prohibit the press from traveling on AF1?

Tom, I can't tell if you are willfully making campaign-fodder out of this crap, or if you are just being paranoid.