Two left of center readers tell me they’re not going to be checking the site anymore because of my analysis of the McCain education ad. As one puts it, “you can parse the language of the bill all you want, but of course you know that Obama didn’t actively support of the kind of sex ed for kindergartners that the ad implies.”

I’m not quite sure why it’s so unimaginably unfair to look at what the bill actually said, and what it actually did, as opposed to what Obama said he wanted it to do. I’m being told to judge Obama, once again, on his good intentions. (Recall that when discussing his years as a community organizer, his surrogates only talk about what he went into the inner city to do, not what he actually achieved.) We’re told Obama only wanted the unobjectionable good-touch bad-touch discussion, not the actual discussion of sexually-transmitted diseases and how they’re spread that the bill directed to begin in kindergarten. If Obama was bothered by that provision, he could have amended the bill to take it out.

I’m sure President Bush intended to find WMDs in Iraq. I’m sure he intended to have a Hurricane Katrina response for New Orleans that ran like a well-oiled machine. I’m sure he’s had good intentions every day he’s been in office. But those good intentions aren’t enough for his liberal critics; I don’t see why Obama can’t be held accountable for the bills he actually voted to pass.

I mean, it’s not like he didn’t know he could vote “present.”