Reader reaction to Blackwell-Strickland clash

Here are more reader comments about the Ken Blackwell-Ted Strickland news:

Dan Gersten of Amberley Village wrote: "Maybe, just maybe, Nikki Giovanni was telling the ugly truth."

John W. Nenninger of Clermont County, wrote, "I suppose the Blackwell attacks of Strickland do warrant two days of news.
Day one captures Monday's debate; and day two the aftermath. Hope
it ends there...
However I do think the Enquirer's reporting re: the vote on the resolution that had support of NAMBLA, leaves the reader way-short of being
fully informed.
Legislation--and even resolutions--are chalk full of side issues
and specifics that can turn an otherwise yea vote to a nay. (Witness The
Military Commissions Act of 2006--some Democrats voted against, knowing
they may pay a price, while some Republicans--J McCain--voted for, despite deep reservations.)
The Enquirer does not explain what the resolution was fundamentally
about. The reader is left with the belief that Strickland somehow was
working in concert with NAMBLA--carrying their pet piece of legislation.
There is only one oblique reference to "later applauded by NAMBLA..."
(my highlight--not The Enquirer's); but no emphasis nor explanation.
(I'm guessing the pedophiles knew nothing about it, nor that much
much of it directly affected them. My guess, but then you could help this
reader with more information)
Indeed, you "reiterate" Blackwell charges (without directly quoting him), by writing "Strickland voted in stride with...pedophiles", and " Blackwell tried to link...
opponent to child sex predators". The reader is pretty much left with the
Blackwell allegation--voted for pedophiles.
Omission is a political trick, in journalism it's a big problem. Think-- Cranley saying Chabot has "taken" raises, while omitting that he voted against them.

And comments from an anonymous reader:

"Here's the thing - and I will still be voting for strickland - this guy hurt kids, plain and simple, it is relevant just as relevant as foley and just as relevant as hastert and boehner.my question would be - did he hire him anyway because he believes in forgiveness, saw a life changed through repentence, knew that teh guy couldn't get a decent job with that record and offered him the opportunity to go back on the straight and narrow? or, did strickland think this was no big deal? and why in the world did he takehim to italy for vacation?? i think he does owe an explanation if he knew. if he didn't know - then there is nothing to explain.i believe all criminals need a chance to change their lives, make amends and re-ener mainstream society. truth is, government is the best place to do this because so few others will give them the chance. some component of society needs to step up and the government is the best situated to do so.otherwise, criminals will remain onthe outskirts of society with no hope for redemption."