Marginalizing the opposition by defining their positions as extreme is a tried and true tactic. Witness Kerry's voting record being considered the "most liberal in the senate". In truth that was a snapshot taken from '03 when he was campiagning and only voted a few key issues all of which were of a devisive nature. But it was amazing to watch how that one year snapshot was morphed to represent his entire history of voting. If you repeat "most liberal voting record in the senate last year", and then after a few days drop the "last year" part, all of a sudden everyone knows that the Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate. Hell, even "more liberal than Ted Kennedy." Some might refer to this tactic as a "half truth", some might refer to it as "lie". But wait, you said only Michael Moore behaves like that, not your guys. To your point about the difference between insulating office holders from dissent versus pundits: I agree, a candidate would be crazy to expose himself to criticism any more than he has to. But they should. Your response immediately attacks Kerry instead of defending Bush (another tried and true tactic), but the opinion remains that this administration has a less than grand reputation for open government and working with the press. This argument is about objectivity which is lacking on both sides of the debate. Your guy won using the above tactics and that's probably how the dem's need to start operating, but it by no means validates the credibility of your arguments or the truth. A slightly greater amount of people believed your side is all. But when you start defending the likes of Hannity et al. for the their non-bias, you tend to bring your own objectivity into question as well.