[eblah]

I rarely comment, but the article, until the last page was great. It felt very bait and switch -- pull you along with the story, then, oh yeah... you could vote for this guy, and be just as terrible as he is.

While the article is very biased against him, which I would usually feel is fine (and without further researching the topic, I'd agree he seems pretty terrible), but if there's a possibility that this is politically motivated let people know up front. Why not add his political affiliation early in the first page, instead of waiting until the very the end?

And to be clear, I don't believe that he "invented email."

[mcv]

His political affiliation isn't terribly relevant. The problem is that he wants to rewrite history and claim fame that's not his. He may want to run as a Republican now, but he's also convinced Noam Chomsky to support his claim. Politics isn't the point. Here's a guy who's very effective at scamming people into believing his lies and supporting his false claims.

[jdormit]

There's not a chance that he will get elected to represent MA. We are the bluest of the blue states.

[chrismcb]

I think his political motivations aren't really that relevant to the story, they are in the correct position in the sticks. He sued gawker and even tech dirt before deciding to run for office.