On the fight over Ohio Voting law

This scenario has probably been observed in politics once or twice. ;)

Them: "Here's our new great bill, which has X and Y."

(The X part looks wonderful and is loudly touted. The Y isn't so pretty.)

Us: "Nope, we're not having any of that, because of Y. See? It's right
there, and it's ugly."

Them: "Muuuum! He's against X! He's mean!"

The most recent point in case, the brawl between Obama and that other guy's
presidential campaighns about Ohio early voting law: http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters. (Via (@thenation )

A little more googling produces a host of other articles complementing the picture.

Actually, Fox News does mention both sides of the story, though the article title might be a tad bit misleading. Allright, maybe I'm being nitpicky here.

And here are the words of Obama's advisor David Axelrod (click here to read the rest):

"What that lawsuit calls for is not to deprive the military of the right to vote on the final weekend of the campaign, of course they should have that right," Obama's top campaign advisor David Axelrod told host Chis Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "What that suit is about is whether the rest of Ohio should have that same right. And I think it's shameful that Governor Romney would hide behind our servicemen and women to try and win a lawsuit to try to deprive other Ohioans of the right to vote."