The bill cited age appropriate sex ed for k-12. When asked for specifics on what was age appropriate, William Burton, Obama's spokesman, cited educational materials in Oregon. Those materials say that 5-8 year olds get "Level 1" material. Level one material includes, but is not limited to:

- vaginal intercourse
- c-sections
- all the private parts


I thought McCain's ad was BS, 'til I researched it.

It wouldn't suck if Slate required its writers to do the same.

<link>

do you con idiots EVER get tired of lying and misleading

he supported teaching kids NOT to let other adults touch them inappropriately

boy that's terrible

Did you read the bill? It repeatedly states "age appropriate" material and would make the course material available to the parents to review. Whose parents would send their 5 year old kid to a class on vaginal intercouse?

I did a search on "william burton" oregon and "sex education" and found no references to support your post.

Can you please cite your research?

you cant site a source when you pull your "facts" out of your rear end like knumb did.

lol !

...

Yes, the sex ad is a slanderous attempt to smear Obama. It had no worth more than that.

A bill to help inform and educate children about child predators and molesters is honorable.

The McCain campaign obviously has no honor.

Don't let these numbnuts simpletons throw you off knumbknuts.

Ding-Dong said it himself.

Is that bitch Palin's little slut can have sex then what is so wrong about 6 years old doing it!

With respect to the evidence proposed by "knumbknuts", this does exist. First of all, although this sounds quite unnecessary to suggest, Bill is the shortened form of William and any competent search should reflect this.

As for the allegation that Obama Campaign Spokesperson Bill Burton referred to existing guidelines on Sex education, that encompassed children of Kindergarten age, this is undeniably correct to make. This was reported by NBC's Mark Murray on First Read, this is available at

<link>

and the quote (as told, first hand, to First Read) was

"You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there." In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has curriculum for those in kindergarten.

Furthermore the curriculum does exist,

<link>

On page 24 it refers to Level 1, starting from age 5, a Montgomery County Public Schools site indicates that age 5 is Kindergarten level (<link>)

Page 25 refers to the messages for Level 1 which include pretty much of what has been stated by "Knumbknuts" but no specific reference to sexual intercourse.

As to Obama's position on this issue we have,

<link>

which states "Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama" followed by

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

So, what to make of this. First, since Obama has hinged the education on being "age approriate" ( a very vague term) it is valid to examine his campaign pronouncements to gain a better understanding of what "age appropriate" would entail. The main communication on this subject appears to be from Bill Burton who referred to the Siecus curriculum that does suggest a level of explicit sexual education to children from age 5.

Therefore McCain's advertisement does have a basis in truth (although exagerated in that Obama has not said specifically "Kindergarten children should receive x,y and z education). This basis is obtained from the statements of both Barack Obama and Campaign spokesperson Bill Burton as validated by both NBC and ABC political reporters. McCain has done no more than to interpolate on the positions taken by the Obama campaign as is typical in any election campaign.

If anything this is the result of Obama not clarifying his position and stipulating what "age appropriate" means, such evasion means that his opponents will try and fill in the gaps from other evidence available.

As to the opt out clause in the legislation for parents this is irrelevant, the issue is what the candidates views are on quite relevant subjects

The whole thing stinks. Its a fucking cowardly smear. Swiftboating at its lousiest. Even Karl Rove the king of smear, fear, and personal slander said it went too far.

This ad is specifically targeted to the lowest IQ Americans and the far right conservative voter who would never vote for Obama in a million years, even if it were Bush again, which its turning out to be.

McCain has shown he'll do anything and say anything to win this election. Its despicable and pathetic.

If this were the school yard, McCain would get a bloody face. He's lucky.

This response is posted above, but since you have double-posted, so will I.

The kind of ads that are 1) misleading and 2) require a jesuitical multi-point answer like yours to even show any "basis in truth" is EXACTLY what the article is talking about.

When Karl Rove says you're not campaigning truthfully anymore, you can be absolutely sure you're into the politics of pond-scum.

The worst part? I volunteered time to the McCain 2000 campaign to FIGHT just this sort of swill in national politics. And I have defended him more times than I can count. No living politician has disappointed me as much as John McCain has in this campaign and it not only just about breaks my my heart to watch him "fall off the wagon" and in to the gutter, it makes me sick to my goddamned stomach.

The ad is true.

Despite what Obama claims, the legislation Obama supported was not for the purpose of teaching young children about inappropriate touching and predators. That purpose already existed in the Illinois School Code in Section 27-13.2 many years before SB0099 was introduced.

The language in the bill changed the specific mandate for STD transmission and prevention education from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12.

If there was no intention of providing STD education in kindergarten, it would not be necessary to deliberately change the language in the bill to include kindergarten in the STD education mandate.

The bill leaves intact language which mandates that alcohol and drug use and abuse education be included in grades 5 through 12, but deliberately changes the language that mandates STD education in grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The intent is clear. There would be no reason to change the grade level requirements unless kindergarten were to be included in the mandate for STD education.

There was so much objection to mandating STD education, among other Sex Ed topics, for kindergarteners and early elementary students - even among Democrat legislators - that an amendment had to be added to the bill changing the bill's originally proposed language of 'grades K through 12' in the STD education mandate passage back to the Illinois School Code's existing language of 'grades 6 through 12' (line 3 of the amendment - the amendment then goes on to change the bill's proposed requirements of 'grades K through 12' in several passages back to the School Code's existing 'grades 6 through 12').http://www.ilga.gov/legis­lation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09­300SB0099sam001&GA=93&SessionI­d=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=734&Doc­Num=0099&GAID=3&Session=­

Obama voted for the originally presented grades K through 12 version of the bill, before the amendment.

Fact: McCain's ad is true.

The timeline:

The bill originated in the Health and Human Services Commitee, and was voted on in that commitee as originally presented. Obama, the Commitee Chair at the time, voted for the bill. The bill passed out of commitee.

The bill was placed on the Calendar for the 2nd reading (part of the legislative process). Objections to the bill were immediately raised. There was so much objection to the language to include grades K, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the bill's Sex Ed mandates that the bill had to be amended to retract that back to grades 6 through 12 (grades 6 through 12 is the language that had already been in the School Code for years).

The amended bill died. There wasn't much reason to pass a bill that just restates the 'grades 6 through 12' in the passages - that language already existed in the School Code.

It is important to note that the bill NEVER EVEN ADRESSED Illinois School Code Section 27-13.2, which is the section that actually deals with education about inappropriate touching and recognizing and avoiding sexual abuse.

The questions?

Why did so many media outlets and so-called 'fact checking' organizations jump on McCain for the education ad without even checking the legal documents - which are in the public record, and easily accessible - that show that McCain is indeed correct in the ad's Sex Ed for kindergarteners assertion?

Why did the media, fact checking orgs, and more than a few columnists not even bother to look at all of the Sex Ed bill's legal documents, or the Illinois School Code before expressing their outrage?

Sloppy journalism. They've made themselves look like Obama shills. Their integrity is shot.