"The Romney campaign desperately trying to change the subject"
Now that is rich.
The subject is supposed to be the current economy which the Obama campaign is desperately trying to change with their allies in the media. Is this transparent sophistry an insult the audience?

"The Obama campaign has been extremely skillful and successful.." in their dishonest and cynical distractions.
Are Obama supporters being lied to so much that they are starting to like it?

Is five trillion gone in less than four years a "financial scandal in the political realm"?

"..Continue to paint this administration as not fully, sort of, fully sort of being in control"
What would give anyone that idea?
No budget passed and no serious plan to deal with the massive deficit they increased.

Democrats want to "campaign against Wall Street". Two words...Jon Corzine.

In just one day, The Takeaway produced more stories on alleged "outsourcing" of jobs at the direction of Bain Capital, than the program has ever done, all year, about Elizabeth Warren's claims of Cherokee heritage.

Today we got Todd Zwillich on Bain Capital; Molly Ball and Kirsten Grind on Bain Capital; and Edward Conard on Bain Capital.

I understand the point made by Molly Ball; that there continues to be persistent "chatter" (her word) about Bain Capital. "Chatter" equates to "chatter on the news media," and of course we understand the news media to equating with the mainstream media typified by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the major three-letter broadcast news networks... and public radio. All of whom seem to have done a notably questionable job in reporting the original story, in having carried water for the Obama Administration for a couple of news cycles at least (so says Bob Garfield on 'On the Media') and in generally failing to parse the Obama side of the debate, whatever it might be.

"Chattering," such as it is, can only be interpreted as a strategic victory for the Obama Administration and its many friends in the media. Including, it would seem, the producers at the Takeaway.

This really is the conceit of your program specifically, and of public radio more generally. You can produce technically adequate stories on Bain Capital, such as it may be. John Hockenberry can ask questions that don't cross any boundaries of gross error. It all sounds sort of nice. But at the end of the day, your editorial choices have advanced the precise agenda that is desired by the Obama presidential campaign and (as a 'for instance') the Warren for senate campaign. You continued the chatter about Bain Capital, and you killed any chatter about Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee Indian.

I defy any producer at The Takeaway to explain how it would be that Bain Capital would merit this kind of attention, while the Elizabeth Warren story would merit zero attentinon. In terms of the time when the relevant events occurred, in terms of what the facts might say about the candidate(s) in question, in terms of how meaningful the stories are about current electoral issues; is one of these two stories highly relevant, and the other completely irrelevant? I'd like to hear how those answers, and how The Takeaway's editorial choices might be explained.

This man supports abortion nationally and internationally. When a child survived an abortion attempt and was born, he argued that the child could be killed because that was the mother's intent.

Some don't like his use of drones, or think it out of character. Not so - he clearly capable of great violence, and his campaign will be vicious as well.