malifer_volubilis

I was raised that leaving out the incriminating parts of a story is a lie.

Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money." —Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop Friday, September 19, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

What he didn't say was federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies.

The money Obama received was from employees of the company, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.

Obama from employees - $126,349

McCain from Lobbyist & directors - $169,000

So is it a lie for McCain to accuse Obama of profiting when he fails to mention he has gotten more money from special interests groups than Obama?

The McCain/Palin ticket just released an Ad claiming their mavericks who will, if elected, back stem cell research.

McCain and his campaign have said the senator supports research that uses stem cells, including the embyronic variety. But Palin does not.

Questioned about the issue in a debate during the 2006 race for Alaska governor, Palin invoked her "pro-life position" and referred to "that centeredness that I have of respecting life and the potential of every human life."

She added that she could not support research that "would ultimately end in destruction of life."

Palin's spokesperson Maria Comella confirmed those remarks constitute Palin's position, but said that "a McCain-Palin administration will be pro-stem cell research."

Even though Palin opposes it?

"Yep," Comella said.

So is this only until McCain kicks the bucket? Are their any other policies that Palin will renig on?