Yes, I do think we expect dissembling political ads during the election season. But I also think it reflects rather poorly on the candidate who runs them. It's a fine line, though, between political rhetoric (in which you emphasize your acheivements and highlight your opponent's failings) and dishonesty. Clinton's ads mention that Bush proposed to cut financial aid for families with incomes over $20,000; but it didn't mention that he also proposed to increase such aid for families with less income. I would say that both the Bush ad and the Clinton ad are somewhat misleading, but are not explicitly lying. But it also seems to me that the Bush ad comes closer to the boundary between a rhetorical shaping of material and a lie. From Time's perspective, the issue is somewhat different: the Bush ad infringes on their trademark, so they say. But don't political ads use the nameplate of publications to accompany a quotation from that publication all the time? Is Time making this argument about the trademark only because they disagree with the ad using it? ___________________________________________________________ James Peterson University of Notre Dame [log in to unmask]