When Cheney met with Patrick Fitzgerald, did he tell the Special Prosecutor that he was Libby's source for the identity and occupation of Joe Wilson's wife? If he did, then one wonders why it was necessary to jail Judy Miller for 85 days, and the motion papers, as well as the judge's order sending Judy to jail, make it clear that her testimony was necessary to learn her source. If he didn't, he either perjured himself or hindered the investigation in some other way. It seems clear to me that Cheney broke the law; whether he will be indicted or not is another question which only the Special Prosecutor can answer.

The author concludes: "And he still has the power Rezko helped him attain." But nowhere does the author factually document how Rezko helped Senator Obama attain power. This appears to be a gratuitous slam with no basis in any of the facts in the article. As for the assist in purchasing the home, ok, that is something. But the article clearly shows that Senator Obama has not done any political favors for Tony Rezko. So, I ask again, Where's the beef? After reading this article, I believe anyone who tries to make a corrupting link between Tony Rezko and Barack Obama has a mighty steep hill to climb.

You state: "I stated a fact: Obama lost California, despite his own multiracial heritage, because he didn't run a campaign that was up to the challenge of winning a majority of Democrats in this racially complex state." The first part of the sentence is a fact - Obama lost California. The rest of the sentence is an opinion, a theory, a belief. It is not a fact. Treating your opinion as a fact is what causes Obama supporters (like me) to question your objectivity and your analysis. It would be easier to swallow what you are saying if you would just tell the truth: you have an opinion - something that we all have plenty of.

Actually, he's doing quite fine - even after losing primaries in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and California. So, tone it down and stick to the facts, please!

Isn't the NY Times enough? I have no idea why Salon wants to give more space to this garbage. Is this what my Premium membership is paying for??? If you're going to run it, at least debunk it as the nonsense that it is.

Watching you yesterday on MSNBC, and reading your last posts on Obama and Rev Wright, I come away with the sense that you, Joan, are not elevating the discourse to anyway near the levels at which Obama is speaking - and, yet, you criticize what he says. What is very, very typical about Obama's white grandmother is that she has reported being afraid of black people on the street. Every white person I know that I have asked (around 10) say the same thing; when walking down the street and seeing two black males walking toward them, they are afraid. So it is clear that what Obama said is true. But nevermind that. Why do you keep picking at the comment instead of looking at the larger issue that Obama is pointing to? What possible end does it serve? When given the opportunity the other night on CNN's Anderson Cooper to comment on Obama's "typical" statement, all three commentators, including David Gergen, brushed the statement aside as irrelevant to the larger conversation about race in America. All three commentators saw any media-driven controversy about Obama's statement as distracting Americans from the larger issues surrounding the racial divide in the country. Well, Joan, you have joined the MSM on this one - and brought the low class journalism of the MSM to Salon. Too bad. What a loss for Salon.

Imagine: rich trial lawyer John Edwards lecturing penniless Southside Chicago community organizer Barack Obama on the imperative of fighting poverty. Where was John in the 1980s when Barack was working for peanuts, including in the 1990s after graduating from Harvard Law School? Joh Edwards was winning multi-million dollar private injury law suits and buidling castles for himself and his family. Can you imagine what was going through Obama's mind when John and Elizabeth were checking out his bona fides on fighting for the poor? What arrogance. What gall. What irony. Obama must have wanted to tell them both where to stick their guilty consciences, but instead he sat and listened and stood for his ideas. Right on, Obama!

What a crock this article is, and the book it purports to review.

The counter-culture is everywhere today. My children still listen to our music. And, why not? It was/is great.

The anti-war movement didn't accomplish anything? It only brought down a presidency. No small thing.

The civil rights movement made Barack Obama possible.

Subsumed into America's enduring, dominant commercial culture? Sure - every cultural (and religious) thread in America is always devoured by America's love of selling, money and wealth.

But, still. The authors' blinding focus on the trees, and the bark thereon, obscures the forest. It is everywhere.