Did anyone else notice the ever-so-slightly-obvious bias in the Strib article? They bookended the story with the Coleman “controversy” effectively giving Franken only half as much coverage, and in the middle of the story where it’s less likely to be read by those skimming the news. Typical, I know, but I wanted to point it out anyway.

There’s a non sequitor if I ever saw one. Though, at least she’s consistent… she presides over a magazine noted for objectifying and dehumanizing women… and she helped create an organization that promotes shuttling the little sperm catchers to the abortion clinic when they’re stupid enough to get pregnant.

Coleman received donations from a lobbying firm, DCI. That firm’s clients include the repressive government of Burma. And I don’t know that the junta is a recognized terrorist organization. They sure are a bunch of bastards though.

That said, I can’t say I disagree with the idea that the Coleman should give the $10K to charity. It’s not going to make or break his campaign.

Al Franken is still a no-talent ass clown.

Tommy you’re right. The guy who worked for DCI was working on the RNC convention. Once his ties to the junta came out, he was asked to leave. He did.

But ol’ Smokescreen’s ok with the dough.

Go figure.

For those who didn’t read the piece, it would seem the article was all about Franken, rather than a piece that showed that the Republicans are attacking Franken for a 20 year old Playboy piece while ignoring the fact that Norm Coleman has raised thousands of blood-soaked dollars directly from warlords in Myanmar.

When I have to choose between a candidate who writes a racy article for Playboy, or a candidate who refuses to give back donations from a recognized terrorist organization, the choice is not too hard.

To not stand up and say that Norm Coleman needs to give the money back is tantamount to saying that you are fine with his cozy relationship with terrorists.