I cited a number of story lines you could've taken up if you were remotely serious in challenging my contention that Obama has gotten a raw deal in the press. Clearly you're not serious about it. As regards the establishment, I doubt very much you have any idea what you're talking about. Hillary has locked up the establishment well in advance in a number of key states- certainly to include Nevada, California, New York- and advocacy groups, (notably Latino and Jewish), the extent of the import of which has only begun to dawn on me. Ask yourself how many endorsements Obama had coming out of the gate from unions or politicians or anyone- practically none. To the extent he's become establishment, is due to his success. Whereas nearly all the support for Clinton was locked in plenty far back. Obama IS the establishment? Don't blame me for the fact that you believe whatever Bill Clinton, paragon of credibility, tells you.

There you go just proving Glenn's point that Obama apologists cannot tolerate rightful criticism such as his. How can you doubt that, but for some caveats that can be disclaimed away by mentioning them, Obama's tactics are the same as Huckabee's?

The bottom line is that Glenn has no point. If he had, he would've made it. If he'd availed himself of the facts and considered both the context and the perspective of national politics in this country, I'd have no doubt that he'd be able to say something intelligent. As you note, he's not dumb. But he has done none of these things, and I wonder whether even he could articulate what it is that motivated him to pen this triumph of yellow journalism.

So, Glenn's not-remotely substantiated, politically-charged assertion in the middle of a tightly contested primary is his point? Perhaps this is what you expect of your journalists but my standards are slightly higher.

Btw, as I say, Obama has lost this contest irrespective of what Glenn Greenwald or all of Salon does. I'm just here telling truth to power. ;)

Do you know any other candidate being tarred with the stigma that is Islam in this country? Do you realize that there is one Muslim- 1- in the entire US legislature, and that he has been overtly asked if he is a traitor? Can you fathom, in your wildest dreams, that someone neither Christian nor Jewish, (and the last is the threat), having a serious shot at the Presidency? Can you fathom an atheist Senator?

Frankly, you're just falling for Glenn's unsubstantiated ruse. This advert is not threatening to all but the politically myopic, going as it does with Obama's clearly left-wing voting record and platform, to say nothing of the fact that Obama has Muslim grandparents for heavens sake. And now the atheists are up in arms at the latest example of unwitting humor posing as critique of Senator Obama.

in my last post, I used the word 'threat' when I meant to write 'stretch'- meaning that it was far from clear whether America would elect a Jew to the Presidency, although they've come closer to that than any other non-Christian religion. And it is manifestly the case that an atheist wouldn't have a shot, to say nothing of a Muslim (Ha!). No one has picked up on it, however, it was unnerving even as an error. On a far less grievous front, there is one atheist in the Senate- Vermont- but the larger point is that in National Politics (and a tiny New England state is not remotely National Politics), one has to be a religious person. This is just a reality.

As far as people being sensitive to the religious thing, I'm well aware of it. Just know that you're being presented with this precisely because you can be manipulated by it. If you were in the same position Senator Obama was, I suspect you'd see the world much differently.