Don't believe Sirota? Go read Glenn Greenwald's column!

This is nonsense. Glenn Greenwald also acknowledges what Obama has done that he agrees with, even praises him. That's a far cry from this "trail of broken promises" drama queen phrasing.

I agree with most of Greenwald's criticisms. That's partly because he limits himself to the issues, not using these blanket moralistic judgements.

Look through this thread, the Obama-bashing is laced throughout with lingering bitter Democratic Primary issues, not just a hard-eyed look at what's actually happening.

There's nothing in this article or thread that inspires confidence in the lack of ulterior motives driving it, and there's everything to inspire that in Greenwald's work.

If you don't see that, that's fine, but others can.

Wait so Salon tackles the idea that "Obama is the anti-Christ" with sections titled "What they believe" (That he's Satan's Son) and "What's Real" (No, he's not).

Yes, well thanks for "debunking" that one for me, Salon.

I love those ads that talk about the "thoughtful, penetrating writing" of Salon.

I think of them every time I see a Camille Paglia article, or the Wingnut series.

Sensationalism is the order of the day here, always has been, always will be.

I join the chorus of those wishing that Glenn Greenwald and Tom Tomorrow would find a new home. It's painful to see the rest of what's here when I come to read them.

Oh and I do thank you for clearing up that AntiChrist thing for me. Nothing gets past the steely-eyed analysis of Salon staff!

The reaction of much of the non-extreme-rigtht world to O'Reilly this past couple of weeks has been to stop feeding his insanity, his ratings, his popularity. Even people from the show-biz end of the spectrum themselves like Olbermann decided enough is enough, even mentioning this guy's name is just giving him publicity, and that helps him spread his bile that's actually getting people killed now. There's a limit to these things, and poking fun at how insane he is, while fun and good for one's own ratings, is irresponsible at this point.

And then there's Salon.

Unless anyone thinks that O'Reilly is actually going to be argued out of his hate, his irresponsible egging on of murderers (and not "murderers" the way he labeled Doctor Tiller, I mean the actual ones who commit murder as defined by our laws and society with no ambiguity), then going on his show to debate him (or to "debate" him) is obviously just going to feed his ego, wallet, and ability to continue influencing crazy people to take up arms.

I can't imagine that the editor of Salon or anyone else actually believes this however, that O'Reilly would actually stop mid-debate and say "Gosh you're right!" or even let the guest debater make a cogent point. His schtick is to use "liberals" gullible enough to go on his show as foils for delivering his own extremist right wing lectures, and nothing more.

Among the remaining rationales for appearing on the show then would be thinking that it would be good for his audience, which is huge, to hear a contrarian viewpoint. The fallicies of this thinking were so expertly skewered by Jon Stewart's legendary appearance on Crossfire as to be part of the mainstream now: those kind of confrontational left-right gladiatorial matches are about as good for our national discourse as the World Wrestling Federation is for sports.

Unfortunately, that leaves only very depressing alternatives as the possible motives, which I'd like to think are not what this was all about. However, anyone thinking that pursuing sensationalist ratings-boosting at the expense of intelligence or any other redeeming value need only look at the fact that Camille Paglia continues to be published here to find fairly convincing, and depressing, precedent.

It would be great to think that Salon was different, essentially, from O'Reilly, in the sense of only caring about ratings, stirring up controversy, and choosing sensationalism over actually adding to the national debate in any meaningful way. The evidence, I'm sorry to say, points entirely to the opposite conclusion.

The" Wingnut" writes:

"As to whether there is a connection between these acts and Obama's election, I can only say that conservatives certainly do not believe there is."

Then almost immediately follows it by this:

"It may be true that Obama's election has emboldened some of those called white supremacists — like Richard Poplawski, who stands accused of shooting and killing the three Pittsburgh police officers, and James von Brunn, who was arrested and charged with shooting Stephen Jones."

Got that? It may be true that there's a connection, but there certainly isn't! According to us conservatives, that is.

Unless the author can figure some way to explain how these extremists being "emboldened" to act out violently by the election of Barack Obama is unconnected to the election of Barack Obama. If he can, he seems to have kept this magic trick a secret from us in while writing this article.

Verdict: Massive fail. If you can't even keep from utterly contradicting your own thesis in the first few statements then why would anyone want to read the rest?

Salon: We can get this on any extreme right wing Web site. Or FOX News.

In case you didn't notice, the extreme right had control of the White House for the past eight years, so just because someone was an "official" in that administration doesn't mean this is anyone except a fringe extremist nutcase.

Sensationalism continues to rule the roost at Salon, above all else, it's got to stir up mudfights.