[intricatic]

Is it really surprising, though? From what I can see, all of the candidates are engaging in one form of nationalization or another. The article rightly points out that McCain refuses to accept donations from lobyists, but still has them as advisors - the same as Obama, and Clinton. So why only criticize McCain for doing what all of them are doing, if it's an unrelated fact that both sides would propose opposite supporting mechanisms in terms of dictators? It seems like an irrelevant issue constructed to inflame people against McCain more than a criticism of something unique only to him.