What's remarkable about this post is that everybody here, and even a few fools on the conservative sites, think Goldberg was talking about blacks.

If you followed the link on his original post, you'll see he was discussing, not a reference to Obama's race, but an insane, gushing, embarrassingly ecstatic description of Obama by one Ezra Klein. Now, I've read the research concerning black-sounding names, and I understand you can't always tell the race of a writer by the sound of his name, but I'll wager every penny I have in the bank, plus whatever I can borrow, that Ezra Klein is white.

Goldberg is expecting, after years of hearing Kos Kids and Huffies describe their Bush Depression and watching deranged public displays by "Truthers," that liberals will collapse into a heap if Obama loses. He infers this from the treacly ecstasy of Mr. Klein.

Not blacks rioting. Liberals bursting into flame. Seriously.

Can you folks please, please get your heads out of the 1960s? The glory of the civil rights movement is long past. You have to carry on today. Times have changed. You're not fighting Jim Crow laws anymore.

Get it?

You posted the content of the blog post that you felt was "ugly."

I'm curious to know what, precisely, you felt was wrong with that post.

No, this is not about what I believe or don't believe; I want to hear what you feel is offensive about what he said. Specifically. Not sneering, not "I don't believe you're asking," not "How stupid can you be," not "Surely you don't believe that..." I want to hear your analysis of what, exactly, is offensive about that post. To YOU.

I'll bet you can't do it.

...that the reason Crocker answered that ridiculous hypothetical the way he did is because the US Military, the Iraqi Army, and the Sons of Iraq have been kicking the living s--t out of al Qaeda in Iraq for the better part of a year, such that they're barely able to project lethal force anywhere but Mosul anymore, has it? Or that if we had not been kicking the s--t out of them for the past year, Crocker would have had to answer that question somewhat differently?

And I don't suppose it's occurred to anybody here that al Qaeda is not, by far, the only element in the war against radical Islam? That perhaps the long-term prospects for a peaceful middle east is a more important consideration than where OBL or al Zawa have found a comfy cave?

This was a laughable question with no purpose other than to excite the robots in the base (nicely illustrated by the comments on this thread, thank you). Crocker's initial answer was correct, al Qaeda is a threat wherever it appears; but it's not really even all that relevant a question.

And Salon has demonstrated yet again that Democrats are simply incapable of thinking past their own facile talking points.

Greenwald wants us to believe that John Yoo's claim that Guantanamo's detainees were captured "fighting against the US" is false because they were not carrying weapons or engaged in actual battle at the moment they were arrested. What's objectionable here is not Yoo's dissembling, but Greenwald's laughable casuistry in his definition of "fighting against the US."

By Greenwald's definition, we would have no right to arrest enemy spies here in America during wartime, nor would we have any basis for capturing enemy soldiers who happened to be, say, traveling to an R&R facility behind their own lines -- we could only call them "enemy combatants" if we caught them firing weapons. Similarly, action against enemy propaganda mills would be improper, as the writers and purveyors of such propaganda are not "fighting against the US." The only people who are fighting against the US, according to Greenwald, are those who are actually shooting, and they're only fighting against the US at the very moment that they're shooting.

Does he really expect intelligent people to take him seriously?

Actually, this is just the sort of legal word-parsing that we can now expect American soldiers to have to face when defending their legitimate execution of American policy. In his fevered quest to find something, anything, with which to accuse those who correctly identify the insanity of the Boumediene decision, Greenwald has accurately illustrated one of the reasons why it's insane.