Glenn Greenwald is just trying to make a cheap political point about how many of Obama's supporters are non-questioning adherents of some kind of "folk-hero" and that Obama isn't receiving the same level of scrutiny as other candidates in the media. Let's consider the following: Obama's been attacked as not being black enough, as being too black, as being a secret Manchurian candidate Muslim, as attending a racist black church, as associating with a church that awarded Louis Farrakhan an award, thus tainting him with antisemitism, as being secretly against Israel, as being naive by wanting to "talk to our enemies", as being too inexperienced, as having too many "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, as being a flip-flopper on the war in Iraq, as being a supporter of Reagan, as being a supporter of Republican ideas generally, as being a bad debater, as being too dismissive of Hillary with his "likeable enough" comment, as being a guy who uses a young "white" guy to write his speeches, as using the "race card" to garner votes, as being a potential former drug dealer, as being a candidate who is too "thin skinned," as being not sufficiently pro-choice, as having a health care plan that doesn't cover everyone, as not being specific enough in his policy proposals, as associating with slumlords like Rezco, as engaging in shady real estate deals with Rezco, as only using vague platitudes like "hope" to appeal to people, as being unelectable because of the Bradley Effect, as being unelectable because Latinos won't vote for a black person, as being unelectable because right-wing Jews are organized against him, and other Jews are skeptical of him, and as not being gay-friendly enough because he associated with the "reformed" gay Donnie McClurkin at a gospel event.

The really interesting thing is that a day after Obama made an overt appeal to the African-American community to not succumb to the temptations of homophobia and antisemitism, Glenn Greenwald, an openly gay Jew, slimes him with yet another smear, associating him with a radical right-wing Christianist like Huckabee for a cheap political point. You're better than that Glenn, aren't you?

Obviously, many of these criticisms of Obama are worthy of further inquiry; others are just plain slanderous, ridiculous nonsense. But, to argue that Obama hasn't been criticized, investigated or "vetted" as much as anyone else or to emphasize that he's subject to more hero worship than any other candidate (except perhaps Ron Paul) in the face of this onslaught of dirty politicking is just laughable. Glenn of all people should see straight through this media spin. Obama has been subject to so many smears, of such an often contradictory nature, that it's unlikely that he'd ever win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. The fact that he's in second place in the polls among the Democrats right now is absolutely amazing given the level of sleazy innuendo and outright lies that have been thrown his way since he announced his candidacy a year ago.

I've been reading Glenn daily for the past year and I've never commented until now. I've seen more blind allegiance to Glenn in the comment section of his posts than I've ever seen towards Obama. I've noticed over the last few months, however, that Glenn's often odd chosen topics of concern and his increasingly petty shrillness have diminished the quality of his writing and the importance of his opinion. I was much more a non-critical hero-worshipper of Glenn than I'll ever be of Obama. But you're right Glenn: uncritical hero-worship is dangerous. Inevitably, your hero will let you down.

Sure Bill, clearly Senator Obama is another Jesse Jackson. As I recall, Senator Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy endorsed Jesse the day after he won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. After blacks put you in office in 1992 and 1996, when you lost the majority of the white vote to Poppa Bush and Bob Dole, respectively, you pull out the race card in a cheap political ploy to marginalize Obama as the "black candidate." Shameless. So shameless. Well, the endorsement of the "black candidate" by Senator Kennedy must really hurt. I love it.

One thing you failed to mention is how Hillary Clinton and her campaign have continually brought up the Rezco matter, clearly knowing that there is no there there while using the same shameless tactics of guilt-by-association that were used so despicably against her and her husband during the 1990s. Just like the Republicans of the 1990s, Hillary is presuming her opponent's guilt and is searching for any evidence to back-up that presumption.

The Rezco matter not only illustrates the media's continuing willingness to smear Democrats with the most baseless accusations, but sadly it also indicates, how the shameless political tactics of right-wing Republicans have now blatantly infiltrated the Democratic party. I know that Republicans have accused the Clintons of shameless tactics for years. However, at least the Clintons were fighting against an opposing party, and right-wing authoritarians to boot. Now these tactics are fair play within the Democratic party? Truly sad. This is a new development, and it does not bode well for the health of our democracy when no political party can claim the high "moral" ground in these matters.