I have read the articles you linked to, and I currently believe it is possible to critique Huckabee and pass on Obama's flyer and remain consistent.

While the NRO is undoubtedly biased in not wanting to see Huckabee get the nomination, I think they read what he was up to correctly. Romney and Huckabee were in a two-person race for Iowa when this ad aired. Iowa Republicans are heavily evangelical, and known for viewing Mormonism as heresy. Huckabee plays up his Christian credentials. The obvious reason is to contrast himself with Romney and play off the intolerance of Iowa Republicans for mormons.

Further, Huckabee does not use this ad style in less evangelical states, and particularly where Romney is not his prime competitor (since McCain has no obvious Religious disadvantage among the GOP).

Obama in contrast does have an obvious overt reason to remind voters he is a Christian. Certainly many would rather that his middle name or the claim his a muslim would not matter, but it does, and Obama can't fix the universe if he doesn't win. So for him, the motive is to overcome a bigoted attack.

Further, his two opponents are also not at some disadvantage religiously in contrast to him. Both are "acceptable" mainstream Christians. It's possible Obama gains some advantage from the overtly religious appeal, and given other things he has said which can be interpreted multiple ways, I am leery of this.

However on balance, he has understandable reason to do this. I do think the Obama ad goes too far to be a mere rebuttal of the claim he is a Muslim, but perhaps (not being evangelical) that's what's needed to counteract the destructive impact of the rumour among the SC voters.

As to him not doing it elsewhere, that can be explained reasonably too, as I did earlier in the comments. It would be fair for someone to ask Obama about this, rather than just guess at the reasons.

I'd also note the Talkingpointsmemo link wasn't really critical of it, just descriptive. I suppose that they highlighted it might be seen as critical, but I'd note that Huckabee had recently climbed into first in the Iowa polls at the time and it would be normal for the press to start exploring what his campaign has been doing to achieve that.

You wrote: "So you take the position that context of a remark or a belief is unimportant then? Do you judge Lincoln's or FDR's views on race the same as you would a person today? "

Jeez, let's see. You equate the utterances from people who lived 140 years ago, 60 years and today for context on a par with two people running in the same presidential election albeit in different parties.

Do you know how utterly stupid a comparison that is. We're talking brochures and utterances days apart within the exact same political climate.

Calm down. Your invective isn't necessary or all that productive.

I didn't equate the two scenarios, reread what I said: The point is that context matters. Yes, FDR/Lincoln and today are separated by time (the context). For Obama and Huckabee, time is not a factor. So far we agree, but you seem to ignore all the other factors which impact the interpretation of the two advertisements.

Huckabee advertised his religion for (I reasonably infer) very different reasons than Obama did. Personally I would rather neither candidate's religion was anything more than a byline in some profile page, but for different reason each has felt it necessary to highlight them.

On balance, Obama's reasons are much more understandable than Huckabee's. Obama is trying to survive a bigoted attack. Huckabee was trying to take advantage of intolerance in the Republican base for Mormons (as Romney was his prime competitor in Iowa).

So no, I don't buy that it takes a blind ideologue or a hypocrite to find differences in the two scenarios. You perhaps may not agree with my interpretation of what each man was doing, fine, but that doesn't bring my sincerity or others sincerity in passing on one and critiquing the other for their actions.

Thanks. I didn't mean to be lazy and come off as a "do my fucking homework kos!" post, just I want an idea of which critiques you had in mind.

Don't know if I'm alone in missing this one. But I did.

I love it when you do this, Glenn, be it Harry Reid and abortion or the notion of two guys making similar appeals albeit one is on "our side" and therefore ok and the other is on their side and therefore deserving of demonization.

So you take the position that context of a remark or a belief is unimportant then? Do you judge Lincoln's or FDR's views on race the same as you would a person today? When your friend calls you an asshole with a smile on his face, is that the same as when a stranger at a bar does it with a scowl?

Context matters and not all double standard are hypocritical or the result of partisan blindness. How many anti-abortion bills has Harry Reid brought to a vote? Did Reid stack the Judiciary committee with pro-life Democrats to foster more pro-life judges on the bench?

You can't take his stated position in the abstract and equate it to an activist who regularly seeks to impose that view. A difference in degree can matter. If it didn't, than Eisenhower should get just as much credit for fostering civil rights as LBJ, who actually signed the civil rights act.

So yeah, when Reagan gives a speech at the site where black civil rights activists were killed, that has a very different message than if Obama gave a speech there.