"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."

t r u t h o u t is not what I would call rational. Extreme Left wing is what I would call it.

"OK, assuming every word in the piece is verbatim, you completely misrepresent what's there."

Assuming it's verbatim, one must first ask why, we are getting this from such a unreliable source. Why are all these *news people* there and at same time are not reporting the event. If it's verbatim, one is only left with one possiblity, they weren't doing work- it was on personal time.

"They did not tell Kerry what to do to be elected."

Why do you think news persons are going tell a professional politican with decades of experience how to be a politican?

"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."

Whatever. But you missing the whole freaking point- these news people aren't being news people instead they are supporting a Dem or the Dem party. Now, there is nothing illegal about this, but you should see that this means that these media have a definite bias. You know, that thing which is called the "liberal bias" in the major media- that the crazy conservatives are simply imagining. This also explains why you didn't get a story in the media- it interferes with their message that they are providing "objective" and non-partisan news.
Let me put in another way, the Liberals have such dominating monopoly on the media, that would make Bill Gates jealous- if only he had such a monopoly on operating software!