Here is what Joe Conason wrote in the most recent NY Observer article on this same subject. Seems Salon editors are wise to have him parse his words here, but the Salon readership should be aware. Conason writes:

For many months, both Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards have been tossing out attack lines that they hoped would bring down Mrs. Clinton’s formidable numbers. Mr. Obama has not hesitated to use harsh language to question her character, her sincerity, her fitness to serve and her capacity to govern if elected. He has reserved his toughest rhetoric for the Democratic front-runner while suggesting that he will find common ground with the Republicans.

That may explain why Mr. Obama has won endorsements from a panoply of Republican operatives and spokespersons, including former White House political boss Karl Rove and David Brooks, the neoconservative voice on the New York Times Op-Ed page.

Full text here: http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-s-still-race

Yes, perhaps Conason has borrowed Bush's dictionary ... the one that allows the president to say "we don't torture" seems to also allow for a loose interpretation of what "endorsement" means. Conason still writes for Salon:

William Kristol endorsed Obama in an editorial titled "Time to Move On ... From Hillary," urging Democrats to prevent the return of the Clintons to the center stage of American politics.

The latter part of Conason's sentence is accurrate, the former is not. Here is what Kristol actually writes:

What we are not looking forward to is the prospect of Hillary Clinton in the spotlight, as the Democratic nominee. She might be easier to beat than Barack Obama or John Edwards. She might take positions that are a little less distant from this magazine's views than Obama or Edwards. But the last few weeks have reminded us--and, we suspect, many other Americans--how little we should want the Clintons back on the center stage of American politics.

To say that a Democratic candidate has been "endorsed" by neocons can serve no other purpose but to smear him. Isn't it clear that Americans are sick and tired of fear-mongering to install agenda, Joe? Didn't we get enough of this with Iraq? And now with Iran? Shouldn't one assume that this language must have originated from those who would benefit from a smear? Whom are you speaking for, Joe? Are we soon to have the pleasure of reading your "liberal" take on Obama's middle name? Or your concern that he might have sold drugs as a teen!

You ought to explain yourself, Joe.

I took Glenn's advice, and cut-and-paste this together. I wouldn't necessarily use the text as it's shown below, but maybe go to eff.org & cut-and-paste yourself so you can maintain their embedded links:

Forgive the intrusion ... I almost never send out e-mails like this. But, I've assembled some information that I really hope you will all read. There is a raging battle that a small group of dedicated senators are waging against the Bush Administration's practices of SPYING ON AMERICANS ILLEGALLY. This is not from Orwell's 1984 ... it is happening now.

I really mean this. This is an important issue. (and ... happy holidays )

In 2005, Americans learned that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap phone and email communications involving United States persons within the U.S. without obtaining a warrant or court order pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). FISA prohibits unauthorized electronic surveillance. Shortly afterwards Americans also learned that the major telecoms participated in warrantless surveillance surveillance, handing over billions of their customers private communications and communications records.

Key Facts:

1. Reporting from every major American media outlet and undisputed whistleblower evidence show that AT&T and other phone companies were complicit in the NSA's warrantless surveillance. This included the records and full content of the private domestic communications of millions of ordinary Americans. The President and the phone companies hid this information from Congress and the American people for at least six years.

2. These actions violated at least four major privacy laws that have protected Americans' privacy for over 30 years. The laws deliberately and specifically require telephone companies to safeguard the privacy of their customers communications, especially when the government seeks to access them. The violation of these laws is at the core of almost forty pending lawsuits against AT&T, Verizon, MCI, Sprint and other telephone companies. These lawsuits have been consolidated before Judge Vaughn Walker in California.

3. Now, the phone companies and the Bush administration are trying to bar Americans from defending their privacy. Their arguments in favor of retroactive immunity are manipulative, illogical and simply unconvincing.

4. The American people deserve their day in court. Companies that break the law deserve to be held accountable. Oppose retroactive amnesty for telecommunications companies.

For more info, or to take action visit these web pages:

http://www.eff.org/ ... is a non-profit to protect our privacy rights

http://firedoglake.com/ ... is a blog where writer Jane Hamsher writes on these issues

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... Glenn Greenwald is a former constitutional lawyer, turned blogger, who covers these issues almost daily. a very good read.

http://chrisdodd.com/blog/standing-dodd-fisa ... Senator from CT Chris Dodd is waging a war on this issue. he is running from president (and i don't necessary support him in that endeavor, but I do support this). Other Senators are assisting ... like Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer.

oh ... those pesky typos. luckily i have let go of being right about things.

(ha ha)