An earlier post said, "I like a good portion of the [HuffPo] content but I am frequently disappointed with the headlines . . . [M]any times the top headline tends to be sensationalistic ... or inflammatory. These are not necessary. HuffPo does not have to miss the great opportunity in replacing the printed press as a choice for the serious reader."

Amen! Amen! Amen! A valid criticism of many HuffPo items IMHO -- and repeated misleading, and especially sensationalistic or seemingly biased, headlines will drive me away from HuffPo (and other sites as well). If the headlines on items are dishonest or misleading, what is one to think of the editorial selection process itself?

Iseman will not be vilified if she tells the truth. even though most americans view lobbyists negatively, she needs to be forthright in her statement. if she hesitates or falters, people will see her as a cruel, calculating whore for the most corrupt sector of washington. If she had the affair, she should just admit to it, write a book and live her life comfortably from the sales. If she lies on the other hand, people will sense it, and her life will be a living hell.

I like a good portion of the content but I am frequently disappointed with the headlines at the HuffPo. This one is another example.

This sounds like Flowers personally gave advice to Iseman. Now some would argue the meaning of "gets" but it is the job of the editor to be clear. Many accurate headings can lead this such as "Flowers comments on¦.."

I see other examples almost daily. Sometimes the linked article is not well related to the heading.

And many times the top headline tends to be sensationalistic. The use of the pictures and words can be bloated or inflammatory.

These are not necessary. HuffPo does not have to miss the great opportunity in replacing the printed press as a choice for the serious reader.

Iseman must be truly devoted to her job if she'd do McCain for it.

The sex affair is just to pique the publics interest. The real story that mr "straight talk" mclame was in a little quid pro quo with Paxton Communication and their lobbiests. Favors for favors. A little looking the other way on a communications bill and you can use our corporate jet and "other things" in return.

Just remember that mr asshole straight talk moron was an active member of the Keeting 5. mclame wouldn't even be a senator if it wasn't for mister felon keeting.

My advice to both of them: LESS MASCARA

Go 'way from my window,
Leave at your own chosen speed.
I'm not the one you want, babe,
I'm not the one you need.
You say you're lookin' for someone
Never weak but always strong,
To protect you an' defend you
Whether you are right or wrong,
Someone to open each and every door,
But it ain't me, babe,
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe,
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe.

Go lightly from the ledge, babe,
Go lightly on the ground.
I'm not the one you want, babe,
I will only let you down.
You say you're lookin' for someone
Who will promise never to part,
Someone to close his eyes for you,
Someone to close his heart,
Someone who will die for you an' more,
But it ain't me, babe,
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe,
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe.

Go melt back into the night, babe,
Everything inside is made of stone.
There's nothing in here moving
An' anyway I'm not alone.
You say you're looking for someone
Who'll pick you up each time you fall,
To gather flowers constantly
An' to come each time you call,
A lover for your life an' nothing more,
But it ain't me, babe,
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe,
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe.

Gennifer Flowers should go back to her Trailer Parks and just be quiet. John McCain did not have a sexual liason with this other Lobbyist. It is just a smear campaign by the New York Times. They speak out of both sides of their Liberal Mouth's.

Get real people. It's like the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

I think Jennie should come forward, and tell us about Hillary in the next room. This woman had an affair with Bill for 12 years was it? She must've know Hillary fairly well I would think. Was Hillary schleping around with Web as everyone thinks?

I'm sorry - I just can't respect a woman like this. Who was using who? with GF and BC?

And it sounds to me like McCain was set-up to be "ruined" if they hadn't been able to get rid of him with their push-polling crap eight years ago.

Just Karl's style.

*

I'm sorry - I just can't respect a woman like this. Who was using who? with GF and BC?

And it sounds to me like McCain was set-up to be "ruined" if they hadn't been able to get rid of him with their push-polling crap eight years ago.

Just Karl's style.

*

I'm sorry - I just can't respect a woman like this. Who was using who? with GF and BC?

And it sounds to me like McCain was set-up to be "ruined" if they hadn't been able to get rid of him with their push-polling crap eight years ago.

Just Karl's style.

*

Iseman might have preserved specimen, like McNamee.

Oh, quick. It's time for Matthews to have Gennifer on the show again, as he did in 1999, so she can read the list of people that Bill and Hill have killed. This woman slept with Bill Clinton in around 1980. Certainly once, perhaps more. She has made a lot of money by sleeping around. The other woman-- I don't care about the sex angle, but she certainly got men to do things and made a lot of money from it. But there's nothing the HuffPo won't say, because it's the Clintons.
My nightmare: we are getting a "progressive" movement, and it's just as stupid as the conservative movement.

Sometimes the well never seems to go dry when a deadline to fill newscopy is coming up. Thank you< Extra, for reminding us again of the wisdom of Ms. Flowers. I hope you also mentioned her work in men's magazines, with a few lurid, yet tastefully cropped selections. And once some quotable types get into the rolodex, they never get deleted. Ah, american journalism. If ever there were a croney based media, we have an fine example.