I'm with you on this one.

To what end, I'm not sure, but Glenn has clearly decided to gin up a truly absurd controversy, and he clearly doesn't have a specific point to make here. (And no, his labeling those who chafe at absurd criticism of Obama as lovestruck Obama supporters is not insightful or valuable to the discussion.)

Some of Salon's writers have a habit of expressing their political viewpoints in a very passive-aggressive manner. Glenn hasn't typically been one of them...until this post.

Glenn has been unable to articulate his real point, and frankly, Glenn has veered into Salon's "passive-aggressive" style of political coverage with this blog post.

Good grief, Timberman. Reagan had America in his pocket. Even if he was a doddering, conservative fool, he was canny, and could connect with people, and communicate.

Obama knows that. Obama gets it.

He doesn't want to be a conservative like Reagan. But he sure wants to tap into some of Reagan's ability to communicate, inspire, and command devotion and dedication from his followers.

It's called charisma.

And if Obama can tap into it, corral it, and use it, and for causes much more to my liking that Reagan had, then more power to him.

Has everyone become so cynical and callous that candidates like Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney actually pass for inspiring, charismatic figures in politics?

Charisma, being able to inspire people, having enough communications ability that people will listen to you -- it's a rare thing.

It's not enough to just have charisma, of course, as we know from Ronald Reagan. You need the politician to have the smarts, and I want them to also be on my side, philosophically.

But I'm one of the people who believes that Obama, who possesses a smart mind, a reasonable position on most issues I care about, AND the RARE ability to get people excited and interested and passionate about politics -- is smart to study Ronald Reagan and JFK and RFK and, Bill Clinton, and frankly, ANYONE who understood and mastered the "communications" part of politics.

Being an inspired communicator doesn't mean selling everyone a polyanna sunshine load of crap -- but it sure makes it easier to get people to do what you want.

Cause I love Sam Waterston...

Hasta la vista, Freddie...now go book that facelift -- you're looking like a Sharpei these days!

My feeling that Salon coverage had taken on a more balanced tone is now officially OVER. There's nothing fair about reprinting verbatim a Hillary attack ad on Obama.

Come on, Joan. AT LEAST JUST ADMIT THAT YOU SUPPORT HILLARY-- and we'll shut up. We'll argue with you about your position, but honestly, and up front. Because this passive-aggressive support, and trying to pretend impartiality, is eroding credibility.

But Joan -- you Dems who are promoting love Hillary are underestimating the extent of Clinton fatigue, including among hardcore Democrats. Frankly, as much as I favor Obama and even Edwards over Hillary Clinton, I am at the point where I'm terrified that we won't even see a Democratic president take office in 2009.

I'm card-carrying ACLU member, union member, and ultra liberal, and I don't like Hillary Clinton (and I'm not alone.) Why don't I like Hillary Clinton?

• Because Hillary Clinton touts herself as having 35 years of experience, when her experience is as a law student, lawyer, and gubernatorial and presidential first lady, with several years as a senator. That is NOT 35 years of LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT experience.
• Her husband's tenure as a president and governor is NOT her experience. Why no one is pointing this out I don't know.
• Having been through divisiveness, political attacks, and media antipathy is NOT something to be proud of, nor is it a qualification for being elected. She and her husband went through that BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DID, AND DID NOT DO. She is not a good communicator, she bungled health care reform, her husband made VERY bad judgements, she stood by him...these two generated chaos, controversy, and more chaos and left a trail of scandals -- at times undeserved -- behind them. But does ANYONE think that this propensity for chaos isn't going to come home to roost if she's the nominee?
• She screwed up her war vote. She has failed to stand up against the war...consistently. She says one thing, and votes another...over and over again.
• She fails to inspire. Can I repeat that again? She fails to inspire. She may be the world's A#! bestest greatest bureaucrat ever, but SHE FAILS TO INSPIRE.
• Some people really hate her. They don't even know why. -- My father, a lifelong Republican over 70, switched affiliations so he can vote for Obama in the primary, because he loves Obama. He will vote for Obama if Obama is the nominee. He DESPISES Hillary, and will vote ANYONE Republican AGAINST Hillary if she's the nominee. Go ask around -- my father is not the only one who feels that way.

There are independents out there, and even Republicans, who will vote Obama, but NEVER vote Hillary. The opposite can not be said. And that very well could mean 4 or 8 more years of Republican rule.

I will HOLD MY NOSE and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, but it will be a vote AGAINST the Republicans, not a vote of confidence in Hillary Clinton. If Obama were the nominee, I will walk joyously into the voting booth, and cast the first truly passionate vote in my life -- and I am 46, and have voted in every election since I turned 18.

But for you and Salon, either way, it works out, right? Hillary shocks us all and wins, and you have a shot at an administration or TV pundit gig?

And if they swear in President McCain, that will be good for Salon, because there's more energy, money and controversy in being the loyal opposition, right?

Geesh...