No, it was a feeble attempt to copy your own highly iconic imagery leaden posting style. :( But I'm fast coming to the point where I think what can be said, has been said about the Rev. Wright, at least for now. It's devolving into a talking point now. So rather than feed the trolls (yes, if someone consistently posts the same 'opinion' over and over again, it will leave tracks back to the cave), I think its time to start talking about all the other stuff going on in this campaign. The drum beats for war against Iran seem to be picking up again. Where the F is Salon on this one?

Back then, raising questions about Hillary Clinton's commitment to civil rights was his only path to the nomination.

Obama's surrogates became apoplectic about Hillary Clinton's reference to LBJ as an effective president.

The history of the run up to South Carolina is irrefutable.

I find myself in strong disagreement to your recent words. Obama's pathway to the nomination then, as now, is to run on a change mandate, a "throw the bums out, post decisive politics" message, campaign in all 50 states, harness the youth vote and build 21st a century ground game.

Saying that Obama is only winning because of the "race card" and therefore Hillary is only losing because it, is trying to paper over the numerous tactical and strategic mistakes made by the Hillary campaign.

I won't confuse your storytelling with irrefutable history. I don't think what Hillary said regarding MLK and LBJ was racist. It was stupid and a politically costly blunder. Back then, pre SC, Hillary was trying to sell this false dichotomy of "dreamers" vs "doers". Back when speeches didn't matter, when they "were just words". She put Obama and MLK into the dreamer camp and LBJ and herself into the doer camp. Not that she's done much to compare with LBJ, but that's another story.

Try telling a group of people whose Hero was assassinated for his speaking out that words don't matter, that he was just a dreamer. The AA community didn't need Obama's camp to tell them think what to think of that. They're not a bunch of lemmings ready to boil off the cliff when somebody yells "racist!".

As I've mentioned here elsewhere, you critque or diminish a mythical hero at your own risk.

While we can continue to keep sniffing for bias (my ears have perked up on occasion), I wouldn't downplay the commercial side of this. I've thought quite a few recent articles were red meat thrown into the raptor cage to rack up page hits. Salon does seem to be getting a little more tabloid, with the "dude vote" piece the a prime example.

Part of that is the readers fault, in my (not) humble opinion. If you look at the WarRoom recently, the stories with the most letters are about Obama v. Hillary and not McCain or VP Cheney.

To mangle some Shakespeare (Julius Caesar)

So the fault, my dear readers,

is not in the editors, but in ourselves,

that we are the morons.

I think that the real dudes are too busy bong smoking and watching GGW videos when they are not sleeping on the beach after getting up at 4:30 in the morning to go surf some 'way offshore gnarly wall, dude'.

If Obama is president, man, he'll change the weather, and we'll, like, have perfect tubes forever! I'm so stoked! I was going to vote in the primary, you know, but then I forgot I wasn't registered, and then I had to score, but then the polls were closed. Did you see the lastest Warren Miller, man? I was so stoked.

Seriously, for all the recent criticism of fire and brimstone theology/marketing practices I thought the dude piece was a page right out of that book. It's the story of the sinner who sees the light and is redeemed. He comes back to sell us, I mean tell us, of those poor bastards who are still mired in ignorance, and how we should vote, oops, I mean pray. for their liberation.

And if you act NOW, operators are standing by, for your FREE Fester's church of the eternal lightbulb toolkit; S&H only $19.99. Eternal self-illumination can be yours FREE, for only $19.99 S&H.

Color me unimpressed.

But the minute that Hillary Clinton made the "tin-eared" comment about LBJ actually signing the Civil Rights Act, Obama's campaign cried foul and accused Clinton of being racist by saying this.

Obama said this:

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan

Obama called the "notion" that his campaign is responsible for the backlash Hillary Clinton has faced about her comments on Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in the in the civil rights movement "ludicrous" in a conference call today to announce the endorsement of Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

"Well this is fascinating to me," Obama began of Clinton's remarks on Meet the Press, in which she accused the Obama campaign of stirring the pot among African-American leaders about her remarks that it "took a president" to pass civil rights legislation.

Obama characterized Clinton's remarks as "tired Washington politicians and the games they play."

"She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “I haven't remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement. The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/13/574170.aspx

Do you have any language (w/links) available that contradicts this?

At this point, if any Salon poster said the sun came up today, I'd have to stick my head out the window, just to double check.