There is plenty of favorable reporting on McCain. He is widely known for chatting with reporters, entertaining journalists, and spending his time with editors. His biography has gotten favorable treatment in the press. And yet his politics, and worse his attachment to GOP cult members, are worrisome to any rational voter. Could it be that reporters/journalists/editors are basically lazy dogs? Sure there are few objective journalists, but for the most part, they run behind the political candidates, hoping for a news bite/snack. Print journalists are under pressure these days, to keep readers. Corporate "news" reporting organizations have sold out to corporate suits, who demand profits.

Think about the colonial days, when founding fathers wrote letters. These were essential "democracy papers" and expressed the passion for creating this new nation, which parted ways from the European governing model of wealthy royalty.

Today, we have these blogs which give voice to the everyday citizen. For years, we have relied on the print media to provide objective news and thoughtful opinions on relevant issues. And yet blogs are mostly opinions written by advocates. Unfortunately, many blogs disquise their motivations, just like opinion editors for mainstream media. Imagine if the Wall Street Journal were to disclose "we support McCain because he will carry the corporate flag to new heights!" Alternatively, WSJ could say "we don't support Obama because he wants to re-distribute corporate largess. That is bad for business!"

I don't know John Dickerson from John Adam. But if he is indulging in blatant advocacy politics, he ought to make plain what political "principles" he supports. Why hide behind the kilt of McCain?