i'm not explicitly familiar with the huckabee criticism, other than my own. i think he is appealing to christian fear, appealing to born-again folks who desire "the rapture to come," and may see the "war on islamofascism" to be a holy war with christians in the right. this is the subtext to his campiagn, in my opinion.

obama, as you describe in your post, does not go this route. so, in my opinion is seeking to appeal to the "spirituality" aspects of christianity ... the mlk jr, kindness, embrace others message. not fear mongering.

perhaps this distinction isn't evident in the two items you post to compare ... but i think it's clear from the tone of their campaign messages ... at least from my standpoint.

you write:

Clearly, there are major differences between Huckabee's views on the role of religion in government and Obama's, as evidenced most recently by Huckabee's call for the Constitution to be amended to comport with God's will on abortion and homosexuality. Obama has no such positions (and I agree with both Pam Spaulding and Andrew Sullivan that Obama's speech yesterday at Ebenezer Baptist Church was courageous and, in several important respects, admirable in the extreme).

Glenn,

After many months of reading and commenting here, I think I understand your macro points. I think you are beating this drum fairly consistently, and it's a critical drum: to teach "us" (those of "us" like me who need this) to be discerning, passionate, but emotionally adult political readers/activists.

My story: I am an Obama supporter. I don't think he is perfect, but I see him as a real (or as close as we've gotten in my lifetime) agent of change. Someone who is saying many of the things I would want to say if I was in his position, and who has the political savvy to actually mobilize people around this. It is very inspiring to me. That doesn't mean I am without doubts or concerns. I've also felt great aversion to Clinton getting into office. I think she is "bad" and "manipulative" and other nasty words. When I read articles, commentary that were pro-Obama I cheered. When I read pro-Clinton stuff, I argued.

I have appreciated your efforts to deconstruct media influence (your posts of the Hillary vs. the press stuff), and to help salon readers like me understand that one can argue certain points in a public forum and not necessarily believe them privately (how you disclaim being "pro-Ron Paul" by writing about some of his Constitution-upholding policies). Through this, I think I have become less reactive in political dialogue, and more precise and discerning when I read articles (for example, I didn't find you particularly anti-Obama in this post ... more like throwing some ideas out for debate). Ultimately I think I’ve become more effective as a political human through your influence, and I want to thank you for it. Sincerely.

A couple points for your consideration, though:

- I think there is something healthy about your readership being reactive and untrusting to "the media" since there have been pervasive snow jobs by our government for the last 7 years (at least). Some of this media snow job has come here at salon.com, if you have read all the articles in the last 3 months. There is a decidedly pro-Clinton spin here that has died down a bit in the last couple weeks, but was repugnant prior to that. So, assuming you were "one of them" was not too far afield. This may be why you consistently get comments that question your motives, or misunderstand your precision.

- It's my opinion that the black-and-white worldview that you often criticize of Bush et al is reinforced by /some/ of your (albeit mild) inflammatory language. I think you balance things generally well ... provocative vs. inflammatory ... and most times your absurdist or mocking humor is a /response/ to vitriol. You tend not to start fights. But ... sometimes you do. I think more inviting language will teach more people faster, but I also think you know what you are doing.

In summary, my point is this: if the political climate is one that feeds on knee-jerk reactivity and that can distort "accuracy" in reading and writing of politics ... helping people digest what they don't like if better than ramming it down their throats. I think you move the conversation forward in monumental ways. I also request that you examine how you (or moreso the forum you choose in salon.com) might compromise your efforts.

hey eric ... do people ever give you feedback that your compliments feel like insults? or maybe that your insults feel like compliments. just curious. i kinda felt like you punched me in the gut, laughed with your pals, and told me how much you thought i looked funny.

but ... i don't care that much, and i'm not feeling too juiced up by it.

on the other hand, i'm sure i don't feel like a mental patient or that i've been through re-education camp. i also didn't intend to be funny, per se. but i don't really mind that you and your pals got a giggle out of me. there could be much worse things in the world.

i wanted to insert a different tone in these comments, and also introduce a human element to (what can turn into) internet handles having misunderstanding/war with each other ... sometimes (in my opinion) to discharge emotions. seems like folks react and react and react ... and miss the whole point. hopefully you didn't do that, too.

stay cool eric!

thanks derbig!

since you won the contest of "most google searches prompted by a commenter" with your fancy phobias (and gave me a nice laugh) ... i submit for you this link which reveals the TRUTH about mike huckabee's evil agenda

here:

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/mike-huckabee-taps-chuck-norris-and-rick-flair-for-cabinet-p.php