Corporations can openly buy politicians to block laws (or appoint/approve judges to overturn laws) that would bar the poisoning of poor communities. In other words, these corporations can buy off our government in order to continue operating in ways that increase the death rate of certain citizens. That's okay. It's not only fine to take their endorsement, you can take their money and do their bidding.

But if some two-bit anti-Semite says they prefer you to another candidate, well then you have a crisis on your hands. Oh lord, what must you say or do to sufficiently reject that little bit of speech from that relatively powerless man with whom you have no relations whatsoever?

Get real. Not only should we not be debating this, we should wonder why the question was asked. Obama has said or done nothing with a hint of antisemitism (even Sugarman here says so, and he is more sensitive to antisemitism than anyone I've met). Why is Farrakhan a problem? He's nobody.

On the other hand, the executives at Exelon or Peabody Coal that give money to Obama -- money that Obama takes -- should be of interest. Obama supports nuclear power and has pushed for funding to go to liquid coal. Unlike Farrakhan, these are issues that speak directly to the candidate and affect you, me and the kid down the street from the coal plant.

But no one will ask these kind of questions. Liberals are afraid that anything like expectations or standards would make things too hard on the Democrats, and the Right doesn't want anyone to know that Democrats aren't liberal. So we ware stuck with Farrakhan, and middle names, and madrases, and hatever else doesn't matter.

Buckley was a racist and a fascist. Not only did he support segregation, imperialism and attacks on the Bill of Rights, he lent legitimacy to those points of view as they were losing currency. He played a major role in resuscitating what was unholy and dying.

Yes, he was a charm to be around. So what? The same could be said of Mussolini.

This collection of either glowing or insufficiently critical views is a good example of why the Left loses. Were we talking about the death of Chomsky -- an infinitely wiser and more moral thinker than Buckley -- there is little doubt that all media, including Salon, would include much more critical views, despite ignoring him while (still) alive.

We revere and respect right-wingers. Even NPR will air the most putrid right wingers daily, for "balance," yet refuse to air anyone to the left of Robert Reich (who while bright and progressive, hardly is the mirror of the AEI and Heritage Foundation stooges that find a regular platform on public radio).

Reagan, McCain, Goldwater, G.H.W. Bush, etc. These are "great men," despite their support for genocide around the world and their participation in the general assault on the poor and middle class of the planent. Their backers and progeny get a free pass to make claims that are utterly false -- indeed are given megaphones to make such claims. Meanwhile, Chomsky, Chavez or any other imperfect person on the left is anathema to all media.

Quiz: if you are liberal, who is worse, Bill Clinton or Hugo Chavez? One has no capital punishment, the other cut off routes to appeal for death row inmates. One bombed at least two sovereign nations, the other has invaded none. One shut down a radio station involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the other bombed radio stations in other people's countries. One was repeatedly elected by over 60 percent of his population in internationally observed elections, the other never got above 50 percent. One cut back welfare substantially, the other invested billions of new dollars in literacy programs and subsidized food markets. One deregulated media thereby concentrating corporate control, the other funded independent radio around the nation on an unprecedented level.

Is Clinton the most evil person? No. Is Chavez perfect? No. Yet we demand perfection from Chavez. Why? If you are liberal you must be perfect, but if you're a right-winger you can get lauded when you die just because you aren't the devil himself.

That's a stacked deck my friends.

Two things must be disavowed by anyone seeking office (and the Russert police will always be on the spot to make sure it happens):

1. Any suggestion that Israel is not always right (notice how Russert conflated Farrakhan's antisemitism with a candidate's stand on Israel).
2. Any suggestion that there is merit to a leader leader who places the needs of the poor above the wants of multi-national corporations (in action, not rhetoric).

These are the only two things that are always off limits -- things for which you will get crucified by the media and all of your gutless peers. And while the way Russert enforced these loyalty oaths on Obama was racist (Belefante and Farrakhan), that was simply the means, not the ends.

Fact check my hypothesis: name just one person who is respected and given a platform by the media who is also openly critical of Israeli government policy, or actively takes the side of those who put the world's poor before trans-national corporations. President Carter comes the closest, and he is no longer respected by the media because of his views -- and he's a former president. That's powerful thought policing.