Nice questions.  Here are my responses.

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

At this stage, my support would not waver from my chosen candidate unless something truly insane were to happen (e.g. caught in bed with a dead hooker).

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

I will support either as the nominee unless the campaign rhetoric in the coming weeks gets truly too hard to stomach from the other camp.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.  

I think Ben Smith does a pretty good job.

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

I believe veracity can be judged by the media reports about the matter, the candidate's statements before the matter, the candidate's statements after the matter arises, how the candidate deals with the aftermath, and any additional evidence that is presented.

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

Same as above, I don't have a different standard depended on who the evidence hurts.

1) I support the pledged Delegate leader, who ever leads has my support (I want Obama to win, I support the leader)

2) be the pledged Delegate leader and you have my support

3) I don't think there is 1 blogger, (though Chuck Todd, over at MSNBC I trust his numbers) but, I think you need multiple sites to get a fair and balanced picture, I visit, Huffingtonpost, MyDD,taylormash,daily kos, talkingpoints memo, cbsnew.com,msnbc.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com,slate.com,times.com, politico

taken as a whole I think I can get a more fuller picture of the race.

4) site its found on, sources it quotes, do other sites or sources say anything that would agree with this.

5) same as 4. the more places that say it, the easier it is to see the truth of it

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?  I will support Hillary without fail unless a dead boy/live girl scenario emerges, and then it would depend on how old the girl was.

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?  Obama will have to convince me that he is not in fact an Elmer Gantry type fraud.  I have profound and lasting mistrust for messianic figures in any setting.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.  Tough to say, sometimes Jerome, sometimes Todd, but my judegment is somewhat clouded.

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?  Several factors.  Whether I know it to be consistent with past positions or writings of my candidate, the source of the story, the tone of the accusation, and the plain old smell test.

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?  Whether I know it to be consistent with past positions or writings of the candidate, the source of the story, the tone of the accusation, and the plain old smell test.

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

If my candidate sold out on ethics (that is a quid-quo-pro stance).  Or my candidate made devises remarks.  Or it became apparent the my candidate could not win the nomination.

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

As long as it was done in a fundamentally democratic way... that is not against the pledges delegate leader and perhaps the popular vote leader (including caucus states) I will support the nominee.  I will not support the nominee, nor any superdelegate, who overturns the votes of the people.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.  

Chris Bowers, Pablano, Alegre

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

If is from a journalistic source, that is not the other campaign... there are many things about my candidate I do no like, but I like more than the other candidate

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

I look at the source.  Some I take, Some I do not.

1) I would need Sen. Clinton to say that she would be with countries we don't like (Cuba, Iran).  Also I would need to to say that she messed up on the Kyl-Leiberman bill (she did kinda take back the vote for Authorizing Military Force in Iraq).  Finally she would need to fire Mark Penn (who is a bonehead and comes up with very divisive things such as the fact that my state doesn't matter any more)

2) I support the pledged delegate leader as that is how the will of the people is measured.

3) I like Ben Smith and Marc Ambinder (the guy at the Atlantic).  Also for his state by state delegate analysis Al G. @ The Field is good, though his other posts must be taken with a grain of salt because he is in the tank for Obama.

4) I will agree with the diarist here, with the additional caveats of looking at where it is from and what it actually says

5) the exact same as number 4

1. I'm planning on sitting the presidential race out if he's the nominee. I won't vote for McCain but I won't vote for Obama either.

2. He needs to apologize for lying about the 1984 ad, the "tea with ambassador's comment" and the "periodically get's down" comment and admit that they were misogynist comments. He needs to apologize publicly for Wright's commentary and admit that it was a racist, misogynist assault on Hillary Clinton. He needs to admit that his wife's comment about not being able to run the house, was an attack on Clinton. He needs to admit that there was nothing racist in anything the Clintons' did and that he was the one engagin in racist provocation. He needs to promise that he will have upholding Roe V Wade as a litmus test for anyone nominated to the  Supreme Court.

3. Digby and Big Tent Democrat. And Jerome. I like how much Jerome loves politics.

4 and 5. With the Clintons, you can usually pull a few of the myriad books that've been written about them and figure it out. It 's tougher with Obama, but I try and stick to mainstream news stories, preferably from the Chicago newspapers.

1) Clinton to win all of the races coming up with wide margins (at LEAST 15-20) in PA, WV, and PR.

2) Winning based on pledged delegates or be close and have a large lead in all head to head matchup polls with McCain.

3)There are a few I guess, but I try to read everyone to fight my own biases.

4)Sources.  If it comes from (say) Hillaryis44 I'm less prone to trust it than if it comes from a source with less of an axe to grind.  Primary sources are best.

5) See above.  I'll admit to accepting a few stories because I want to for a few minutes, but then I worry about it and start challenging it.   I figure it hurts Obama to put forth a story that turns out to be false.  I want primary sources.

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

Nothing. Obama is the better candidate. Hillary will make a better President.

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

A great deal. Obama and his campaign have left an extremely bad taste in my mouth and frankly, at this point, if he is the nominee, I don't see myself voting for anyone for POTUS.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.  

BTD and Jeralyn on TalkLeft.  Their blog welcomes all opinions and most posters behave like adults.

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

Look at any links provided and see if those have any known biases (FOX, MSNBC, TPM, Kos, etc.). I also try to do a little of my own research.

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

I admit, I'm at first more likely to believe it, but I do the same thing - look at the source and try to find out more info.

1. A "dead girl/live boy"-type scandal.  But since I voted 3 months ago (IA was 3 months ago this week!), my primary support doesn't matter much.

2. I will vote for the Democratic nominee.  Period.  If it were Clinton, I would work for local candidates and donate money to congressional candidates.  If she were to fully reject the 50%+1 campaign style, fire Mark Penn, embrace the 50 state strategy and give a overarching speech rejecting the politics of fear, then I may warm to her enough to help out.

3.  Chuck Todd, Josh Marshall and poblano.  I think Markos and the frontpagers at dKos were fair arbiters until the race was over, and they made that choice at the right time, but I understand the biases there.  They always to some extent followed the pulse of the community.

4 & 5.  I don't jump to conclusions on any story.  I prefer to wait and see if the veracity of the story is confirmed by reliable outside sources.  

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

The health of Obama, or pictures surfacing of him partaking of relations with someone other than his wife (after he mwas married).

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

Nothing.  I'll vote for Hillary, even if she IS able to somehow rewirte the rules, or alterthe laws of reality as we know them & wrest this thing from Obama.  Anything, ANYTHING would be better than to surrender to another 4 years of GOP executive branch jackassery.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.

Nationally, Howard Fineman. Locally, Bob Johnson does a good job.  I used to trust myself, but lately my emotions HAVE gotten the best of me. In terms of BLOG sites, I perfer kos to mydd, if only because kos at least has other focii than the election, and the bitterness here is wht causes me to lose it sometimes.

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

through independent verification of the story, assesment of sources (i.e., if it is a FOX./FREEP special...I'll tend to reject it out of hand), seeing oit repeated after it was vetted by respectable journalists.  For example...intially when the Bosnian thing first came up, I rejected it as it seemed to dreamy for those of us  who support BO.  Could HRC been so careless?  NO WAY.  Eventually though the story WAS vetted and verified.  

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

The very same way.  see above.

Recc'd.

I'll bite.

1.  Never gonna happen.

2.  It just might be too late for that.  I hate the way HRC has been treated.  I think that many of the Democrats for Obama have been disrespectful to Hillary ant that really gets my blood boiling.  She has been fight for us for years and we reward by attacking her character, honesty, integrity just like the Republicans did in the 90s?  That boggles my mind.  I'm not sure I can ever get past it.  It just proves there is no loyalty.  I thought we at least had that in common. So, I will never support Obama.  I will not reward the Republican attack machine (which continues to feed the narrative on HRC), the MSM (which is so ass backwards), or the blogosphere (which has been no better than the MSM lately.  Shame!).

3.  TalkLeft all the way.  BTD is especially smart and fair.  Places I loathe and no longer visit: DailyKos, TPM, HuffPost

4.  Check the sources.  Consider the agenda of the authors.

5.  I dont' really care about the veracity as much  how much damage it could do.  Clearly that depends on the veracity of the source.

My answers:

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

Nothing really.  I've looked at both candidates, and I just think HRC is the better option at this point in time, not only for the country, but for liberalism.

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

Nothing.  Barring a seriously insane moment, if Obama is the nominee, sure, I'd vote for him.  Much as there are some things I like about McCain, and much as there are some things I dislike about Obama, there are such pronounced policy differentiations that it would have to be say, macaca * 10 for me to even ponder, simply ponder, a McCain vote.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.  

Hmm ... well, considering that most of the blogosphere has some distinct biases, this is hard.  I'd probably give Singer credit for being the most "fair" guy this cycle, but that's from the places I've followed, and I don't claim to follow every site.

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

Uh ... it's veracity?  I think I take everything with a grain of salt this time of year.  Sorta like NFL draft rumors (but I digress).  But if it's true, it's true.  If it's not, it's not.  I'm not sure I really have an answer on that one.  I guess, put it this way, if I have the time and interest in said story, I'd go check out some articles and make a decision after that.

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

See above.  I guess, if I have interest and time, I'll go check out the articles and see.

__________

I'd conclude with that, I think the vitriol from both camps supporters this cycle has been utterly ridiculous.  I guess it's exacerbated by certain sites clearly promoting a candidate and doing all they can to bash the other one.

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

If Hillary honestly loses popular vote counting all votes including the Florida and Michigan elections.  Obama got ~0 votes in Michigan and I am of two minds regarding if he should be credited with the undecideds.

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

Depends.  Currently my preference is Hillary>McCain>Obama I haven't looked seriously at McCain on issues but I know I don't share Obama's views on democracy and fair play.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.  

No one.  I have watched a lot of the political shows and as someone with a lot of politics watching experience there is a great deal of pro Obama feel in the media.  As a democrat I have never experienced this before.  There are moments of honesty but there is a great deal of propaganda reporoted as news.

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

People who are honest have tells in the delivery that if you watch for them give you a pretty good idea that they are shooting straight.  Anyone with sufficient intelligence and experience watching people knows what I am talking about.

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

See answer to #4.  

An interesting exercise; I'll play:

1.  I will support the Dem nominee under any circumstances, including a dead girl or live boy scenario.  Nobody on the Dem side could be worse than McCain.  As far as my present candidate of choice, I'm not sure.  I would need to be convinced their issues would lead to certain defeat in the GE.  As it is, I'm fairly comfortable they would make a fine POTUS and are certainly electable.  I trust their integrity, mostly.

2.  Oops, I answered that in #1.  All it would take is a D next to their name.

3.  I'm surprised that I can't name one.  It seems I don't often take note of the authors of various diaries, nor has any one in particular stood out and made me take notice.  I take 'em one at a time.

4.  My first evaluation is to compare it to what I know to be true, based on prior experience, knowledge, logic, or history.  If any significant part is questionable or interesting, I'll follow it up through multiple (various)sources to try and glean some objective truth.

5.  Same as #4.  I actually like both candidates, so it's not too different a process.

1.  What would it take for your to change who you support in the primary process?

I won't change who I support.

2.  If your chosen candidate doesn't end up the nominee, what would it take for you to support the nominee?

Them having a (D) by their name.

3.  Who on the blogosphere do you consider to be a fair, objective reporter on the state of the campaign?  Note - they do not have to be someone without leanings towards one candidate or the other, only someone who puts those leanings aside when engaging in electoral analysis.

I like Josh Marshall and Kos. They have an Obama bias, but their electoral analysis is pretty spot-on. I balance their bias by reading MyDD and Taylor Marsh. Jerome and Todd are good analysts too.  

4.  When you see an article and/or post providing evidence of damaging information to the candidate you support, how do you judge its veracity?

First I read the actual evidence instead of the commentary. Most of the time, there's no there there. After a while, it becomes apparent who writes stuff just to be negative. I think Susan Hu is the most guilty party in all the internet.

5.  When you see an article and/or providing evidence of damaging information about the candidate you don't support, how do you judge its veracity?

I read the actual evidence, instead of reading the commentary. Actually, I disregard most of the gotcha stuff. The impressions I take away from the candidates are from their own words and actions. Take Hillary Clinton's interview on The Daily Show right before Texas (about Texas):

IIRC:

Stewart: Why should the people of Texas vote for you?

Clinton: Well, first, I actually care about the people of Texas.

What does that mean? Is she inferring that Obama doesn't care about people? She could've been joking, but that's the whole tenor of her campaign.

1.  Evidence of illegal or seriously unethical behavior.  Haven't seen either from either candidate.

2.  I'm voting for the Democratic candidate.

3.   There aren't any, really.  I like Ambinder, Sullivan, Yglesias, and Douthat at the Atlantic, and I always supplement MyDD, Kos, TPM et al with their conservative mirrors, Redstate, Corner, Powerline, etc.  Hard little factual nuggets can be found anywhere; just gotta filter out the bullshit and bias.

4.  I usually look to see how well it aligns with a pre-existing campaign theme or meme from the opponent; if so, I distrust it.  And polls mean jack shit.

5.  Same.

Good questions.