What are you selling now? All of Clinton's papers are a matter of public record? Is that it? Is that why reporters have taken to calling the Clinton Presidential Library "Little Rock's Fort Knox"? Is that why Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be 'considered for withholding' until 2012? And who will be considering them for withholding, deciding on which are released and which are not, you ask- well Bruce Lindsey, former Assistant to the President, Deputy White House Counsel, and Senior Advisor in the Clinton administration, (or as the Clintons call him "Our Man in Records"). Because the Clintons most profound desire is to lay their pristine record bare for all to see... after Hillary's ambitions are stopped by constitutional term limits.

Hillary was even asked about this on Meet the Press- her answer, "it's up to Bill". Well, there they go again, delegating responsibility to one another. How grand.

Oh, and by the way, nothing I've written to date pertains to any of this. One could fill up many proper articles, to say nothing of Joan Walsh sanctioned hit pieces, with the litany of corruption the Clintons have been involved in since Bill Clinton was President. You may have noticed one on the New York Times lately.

But as long as we're taking a trip down memory lane, how did Hillary Clinton get that plush job on the board of Wal-Mart when it was busy busting unions and small businesses and depressing wages across the country all those years ago? She must have been a very fine lawyer to qualify!

The chutzpa of the Clintons and their supporters knows absolutely no bounds.

Great first post, and moniker I might add. What are the chances that someone so familiar with the Barack's career in Illinois politics would happen upon Salon and sign up just in time to comment on an applicable story? What a happy coincidence!

Ancient Assyrian, this is from the same writer that has Hamas in Lebanon. I didn't know though that Assyria contained much of Iran- I thought it was mostly the fertile crescent. Well, you learn something every day.

Ok no worries. Apologies if you were offended, but I find this piece and Salon's tacit endorsement of this type of journalism diabolical- and depressing- and perhaps that makes me a bit more ill tempered than is becoming.

By way of an fyi, the political/military organization you're looking for is Hezbollah, (literally, "party of God"), which was founded by during the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. While it's true they have something of a 'working relationship' with Syria where their interests coincide (mainly in opposition to Israel), their biggest benefactor is Iran, (they're Shia). As regards the 2006 conflict, Hezbollah did not attempt any coup, but certainly made a display of the fact that they were and remain a state within a state, and have no intention of seeding that status.

It's ok not to know any of this by the way, but if you have the time, it's an interesting subject.

Another letter writer making their first comment here at Salon on this hit job, who knows an awful lot about Rezko and Rezko coverage in the press. Will wonders never cease.

What is the going rate for blog comments anyway? Sincerity is neither paying the bills, nor changing the rhetoric of the shills. I need to rectify at least half of that.

Actually, it's me who should apologize. It would've been much easier to hijack the thread without me pointing out the invented characters along the way. Please, you have some concern trolling to do, I suggest you get to it. Times a wasting.

There are people I respect that are big Hillary supporters, and Obama is far from perfect. I concede all that. What's more, I don't hold Joan to the standard that she shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion because hers is different from mine, or because journalists/editors/columnists should be expected to be 'fair and balanced' or objective. Media types like Joan have opinions just like the rest of us, and I for one am not aware of one journalist or even one media institution that you could consider an exception to this rule (although the best journalists are so lustfully fixated on the scoop, it renders them politically neutral- think Seymour Hersh). Not one. And as such, and especially on matters of elections, you're simply damned if you do or don't- someone's supporters are going to come for you. And that can be unfair to Joan, and some people are unfair to her in their criticism, (not least when they make things up, as in this thread).

HOWEVER- that doesn't mean it isn't incumbant on readers to push back. Moreover, I don't think this piece, or others by the same author relentlessly in the same vein- are remotely defensible, no matter how many War Room articles or other coverage that appears on Salon is more favorable to Obama. As I see it, this is not a hard biting article that casts Obama in a bad light- it is a nasty piece of the worst kind of yellow journalism as emotive as any propaganda I've ever come across. And when I read something like that, I will plan on making a lot of noise until I'm censored. Perhaps I could do so more constructively so that powers that be of good will see my point rather than be turned off. Alas, I have my own character flaws to contend with.

Are you from Ireland then? Oh grand, grand. It's the only place I've ever been to where I spent more time drinking then sleeping. Don't remember much, except that it were fun.