For a different opinion on this movie go read Antony Lane's review at the NYer.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/11/26/071126crci_cinema_lane

Glenn, I have been reading and admiring your work a long time and it just keeps getting better. This post is just devastating. Salon made a smart move in bringing you on.

It's clear that TIME doesn't care that it is passing on falsehoods in their name since the magazine caters to the superficial readers who for the most part have fixed views like the canard about democrats-bad-on-national-security.

In the end the media will only change when people get the whole picture and chose facts over propaganda.

I've been on the sidelines for a long time about Salon, but on the basis of your column alone I am going right now to become a premium subscriber. Keep up the good work!

so how would Al Gore match up against the republican field? Imagine a Nobel laureate as US president! America respected again,.. climate change becomes a priority,.. coherent, nay, articulate presidential speeches....Nah, jus dreamin.

Salon feels its readers deserve the unadulterated truth. Though no tape of McCain's quip has yet emerged, this is what he reportedly said:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

Because her father is Janet Reno."

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html

I'm really surprised at the vitriol directed at Joe Conason here. And the same happened to Paul Krugman. These are some of the most progressive voices we have and they are attacked like dogs for daring to point to a democratic candidates shortcomings. I used to think that what distinguished dems from republicans was the willingness to hear critical thought rather than thoughtless cult-like adherance to their idol, like the Bush followers.

To those who miss the point, Obama felt it was important to run for US Senate so srike the argument that the senate is unimportant. As a junior senator he was given a subcommittee chair, a chance to show leadership, if you will. He didn't call a single meeting. He frequently voted "present" in his short career as senator. Where are his leadership qualities? Every time he tries to distinguish himself from other candidates he takes up republican talking points. He's Rodney King with a Harvard education.

we live in an era where you have bug-eyed Jim Cramer screaming one day "we've hit the bottom" buy tech now!! and a week later he's screaming RECESSION, RECESSION, RECESSION! It's Bernanke's fault...booyah.

It is strange than when the classical recession is marked by a 20% fall in stocks, right now the market has "corrected" already by about 15% and no one is even sure if we are in a recession or if we will even have one.

One sign of that this is mostly panic is the over-reaction to news on individual stocks. Look at the response to quarterly earnings recently - Intel, IBM, Apple. All reporting record profits, but if they make the slightest noise about "uncertain outlook" they get hammered by 15% in one day.

Absolutely, the best time to buy is in a panic...if you have any cash, that is.

Glen,

I generally agree with everything you write, but this post is just a mistake on your part. I'm not trying to defend the Clintons, but this post is illogical and you should admit it. You start out with a reasonable statement the charges of race baiting against the Clinton campaign were media driven and silly. And this statement

"all of the grave concern over how Bill Clinton is sullying the majestic glory of his status as an ex-president -- all because he is, as anyone would, actively and aggressively campaigning for his spouse -- has struck me as silly and slightly pompous"

which was what turned off Josh Marshall, who you so admiringly quote.

But then you claim that your turning point was the Jackson comment, which was post-election spin by Bill Clinton. You launch into paragraphs of poll data analysis to prove your point, but how does the Jackson comment explain the election results? Your initial premise was that there was no merit to the charges leading up to the election, but then a comment made after the election caused you to change your opinion. Others have made this point, see zenwick's post, but your response was unintelligible. This has nothing to do with which candidate you or I are supporting, or if you can criticize Obama today while defending Ron Paul yesterday.Just admit that you screwed up and move on.

apology accepted.

But I did spell pooch correctly.

Glenn screwed the pooch.

This is his whole point:

"The comments from Bill Clinton yesterday, as well as the anonymous comment from the Clinton campaign, constitutes compelling evidence that part of their strategy is to turn Obama into nothing more than the "black candidate." That has nothing to do with the point you attributed to me and then went on to criticize as illogical."

So Bill C = anonymous = Chris Matthews

give it up Glennn

"Well, to parrot your own logic, Clinton needs to toughen up. If she thinks these criticism are tough from obama supporters--wait until she gets the G.O.P. riled up--they will hold nothing back. "

How funny! Where have you been for the last oh, 16 YEARS..