How did educated, intelligent people in this country end up in thrall to the right wing master-narrative of history? -- amity

Did they? It seems to me that as convenient assertions go, this is possibly the most convenient of all.

That was a question, not an assertion, so it's not clear what you're getting at here. Or are you debating the implied assertion that there is a right-wing project in the first place? If so, it's not clear what appeal Glenn Greenwald's work would hold for you in the first place.

Further study is needed if you want a theory which more closely approximates what actually happened ...

Again, further study is exactly what I'm saying is needed, making it appear that we agree — which I doubt highly, though I can't tell how or why not.

So that aside, then, what would you say is "what happened?" The victory of the right-wing marketing effort is an illusion, and actually liberal Democrats have been running the United States for the last quarter century? The question is moot because America has never had a truly liberal movement? Or it's always been this tepid, and nothing is new under the sun? Or everything is fair and balanced and this business about slavish devotion to a captive press is so much tantrum-throwing? Or you do agree about what's happened but you just don't like my attitude?

Seriously, I'd like to know.

One of the things I love about Salon is that it's constantly experimenting with format. It doesn't always work out, but the point of evolution is not that you do it right but that you always keep trying new things. (I realize that some part of this may historically have been an "oh god how are we ever going to make money" reaction — that Salon continues to try new things when, as one hears, it's able to run in the black is a good sign.)

That said, video is definitely one of those ways I would not have gone. Salon's writers have thus far proven to be charming and articulate, and would be a welcome antidote to the inane schtick and nauseatingly bland MTV prettiness that are the current standards of video journalism. Stephanie Zacharek has these moments when she's talking about film when this palpable intensity flashes out from behind her reserve. Tracy Clark-Flory speaks like she's talking to adults, not 10-year-olds. It's great to watch, and TV news would be vastly improved if more of it were like that. But is it really the best use of their time?

Or really I should ask, more selfishly, is it the best use of my time? Because the thing is, video is extremely convenient for producers — it takes less time to produce, relative to writing, and word for word it preoccupies subscribers for much longer than print — but the relatively low bandwidth (if you will) of speech versus text means that nobody, however articulate and smart, ends up saying very much of substance given the time spent watching them, and reviewing is a pain when you have to rewind linearly to do it. If going video ever starts to seriously detract from Salon's ability to produce writing, my vote would be to ditch it.

That's not to say that the current project is completely wrong-headed — evolution and all that. Nor does video have no place in emerging journalism. In fact, if Salon wants to explore ways to incorporate video more into its format, one area that would benefit greatly would be its interviews — or in fact any real-time interaction, such as hosting a debate, panel discussion, conference, or what have you.

There's a real gap in online journalism there, compared to traditional broadcast media, and an opportunity for Salon to do something innovative (not that it would be the first time).

Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, the last of the classic American political-machine mayors, ran for re-election in Providence, Rhode Island, on a platform of "making love to the city." That was how he put it.

The obvious response, of course, was "Buddy is going to screw us all." But in the end people so liked the idea of amorous involvement with a plump middle-aged guy with a bad toupee and a Napoleonic temper that they voted him in, and kept him there despite his well-known crimes and misdemeanors, until the FBI intervened and sent him up the river.

So if it works for Hillary, too, more power to her. Just, someone beat Rudy next year (or whoever it ends up being), okay?

Nice work. It's always good to see primary sources here.

Unfortunately, the talking points coming out of the conservative machine are already showing the footprints leading back to the source of this one. The story, in case anyone is having trouble with it, boils down to something like:

"This report shows that we have Iran under control and can continue to stop their terrifying, evil, terrorist threat of terror using only our bad-ass tough-talking hard-line attitude rather than employing the much more inconvenient hard-line military invasion we claimed we were going to use."

We already know that nobody wipes their butt in the Bush regime without permission from the zampolits. If there's any reason to think that the current document, accurate though it may be, is anything other than a face-saving measure intended to distract critics from the fact that the White House is caving on war with Iran, it's not yet in evidence.