This is like reading a comment section full of posts from Chris Sinnard.

I wonder how many comments there would be if something in the comment section stopped people from putting words into Glenn's mouth. I'm guessing about 10.

Glenn never said Obama was the same as Huckabee (and reiterated that he doesn't think they are in Update I). He never said anything racist. He never claimed to be a "tough guy." He said he didn't have a problem with Obama's brochure. He praised Obama's recent speech.

Is there any criticism that could be leveled at Obama that wouldn't be met with these irrational responses? Is any criticism of him "appropriate"?

Obama clearly engenders the same type of support that Ron Paul does - the absolute kind. Bottom line, Glenn, I don't think you can criticize Obama at this point without there being an attack on your character. It's unfortunate how right you were about that.

Ask anyone who writes about political issues and they'll tell you the same thing.

-- GlennGreenwald

Crikey, I don't have to ask - I can merely read this comment section. ;)

Perhaps people that support him just realize how much of a raw deal he is getting in the press and with the establishment deck stacked against him

Care to provide evidence that he's getting a "raw deal" in the press? Or how the "establishment deck is stacked against him"?

Try talking those of who supported Kucinich, Dodd, Biden or Richardson, then talk to me about getting a "raw deal" in the press.

This whole Obama as victim screed doesn't seem based in reality. Obama IS the establishment. But, to hear some of his supporters talk, he's the second coming of Christ who died on the cross for our sins. Sheesh.

Obama is attempting to leverage a patently false Republican mythology for his own political advantage. It's a dishonorable thing to do, in my opinion, and has nothing whatever to do with an even-handed restoration of civility. Those of us who didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday are well aware of this, and are less kindly disposed toward Obama as a consequence of it.

-- William Timberman

I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!

(Seriously, thanks for that.)

I think you have to take them at their word.

-- William Timberman

I have taken him at his word. The only other option is to say to myself, "Oh, he's exaggerating to defend himself and/or get votes from those dumb South Carolinian Democrats/he has to do it/it's just how campaigns are run/justification-of-the-day." Neither choice is attractive.

I was considering voting for him in the primary, but I won't now. The many and varied rationalizations (and attempts at distinction from Huckabee's ad) I've heard here over the last couple of days haven't convinced me to change my mind. Not that Obama cares what a heathen like me thinks, anyway, I suppose.

What I don't think, however, is that his tactical decisions disqualify him from consideration, or that I won't support him, even in the primaries. I haven't made my decision on that score; I'm still thinking about it, as are many people. When the time comes, I'll do what I think must be done, but in the meantime, I think airing these concerns openly is not only proper, but important.

-- William Timberman

I apologize for my misunderstanding of what you said.

Of course everyone will view each candidate's actions differently in terms of their importance or whether they disqualify him/her. I was on the fence about Obama anyway, and was considering him only, ironically, as a tactical maneuver.

But, ultimately, we agree that airing these concerns is important. IMO, those supporters who attack people like Glenn for airing them (and most commenters here did not attack Glenn) are doing their candidate a disservice.

Digby's theory:

As for the Dems, I would imagine they just don't think it's worth the trouble. If the telcoms are given immunity they'll never know what really happened and they'll never have to face the unpleasantness of confronting the Republicans on this issue. They are getting ready to close the book on the Bush years and, like the Republicans and the rest of the political establishment, pretend that it never happened.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/its-baaack-by-digby-it-looks-like-were.html

Although I once espoused it, I don't buy into the "they're all the same" theory. But, I am starting to buy into the theory that the Dems are giving in because they believe they've got us cornered, as the conventional wisdom says they're the only choice for the anti-Bush or "left" constiuencies. (Their motivation for allowing immunity could be for any reason, but the fact that Hillary and Obama are 2nd and 3rd on the list of those receiving money from the telecoms may be telling.)

I'm, also, considering voting 3rd party. I'm in California, so it won't matter anyway. It will be a purely symbolic vote (I voted 3rd party in 2006 for all of the federal seats, and it didn't end up mattering), but I don't think I can hold my breath and vote for any Dems this time (maybe Edwards, but that's not a likely outcome). Not because they're "the same," but because they're not good enough. I don't want them to believe that their records don't matter because they're the lesser of two evils. If that's how they're operating (and it might not be, of course), that's not leadership at all. And if we need anything right now, it's good leadership.

Glenn, I love your blog, but sometimes I can't even bring myself to read what you write.

This is so depressing.