"

 Controversy - a litltle balance, maybe? 

I'm fully aware that most of the authors of this articles are pro-Kerry or at least anti-Bush, but should it be quite so obvious to the reader?  

Actually, the main part of the article (while not always completely balanced)has a fair amount of give-and-take, attempting to lay out each side's statements and the other's responses.  It's clear that we have some very different opinions, but we're making some good headway here.

BUT the ""Controversy"" section is almost entirely attacks from one side(about two dozen sentences), the long list of allegedly significant ""ties"", and numerous (often angry) quotes from Kerry's team and supporters (including many in the media), many of which add little or no actual information or argument for their position.  On the other side we find a few brief Bush-Cheney denials, and maybe two quotes.  Fine, if you're trying to sound like an LA Times editorial.  But I didn't think that's what we were after here.

(And, of course, there is the insistence that certain responses to charges are not relevant, even if these are the actual responses Bush, et.al. are making.   I didn't think it was our job to judge the strength of each side's argument simply to seek to represent it fairly.)

Could we afford to shorten and limit the number of quotes that add more heat than light?   And is it possible to resist the temptation to insist that every statement that might appear more favorable to Bush or Cheney (there are precious few as it is!) must immediately be countered?"