Barack Obama is just a chameleon and is continuing whatever transformation benefits him at the time. He stirred up leftists into hating Hillary Clinton and using old Republican accusations on her to get her out of the race. He used them to get the nomination. So she went down and is out of the race. Now that he pretty much has the nomination, he can reach out to evangelicals who enjoy his psuedo-religious revival and adopt policies that he feels that white working class voters will like. He feels that he also acted black enough to make sure that the black vote is in the tank. I'm sure he is right but believes that those who voted for him before and supported him will continue because he has successfully demonized the Republicans so that they would not vote for them. They will also rationalize that the "real" Obama will reappear after the election. Evangelists don't like Mc Cain and often admire Obama's use of god-like imagery. What I think he will have trouble with are Hillary voters who didn't vote for him before and don't buy into his posturing and the white working class who didn't buy into it either.

I think you would be concerned about how Obama is so sensitive about people saying bad things about him and his response to "people creating rumors" about him. In the last week, the .com companies went on a witch hunt trying to track down websites with anti-Obama slogans. That is a strong attack on free speech and this from a guy who basically used the web to win the Democratic nomination. When are people going to realize that this guy with little background and little to recommend him for the job of President of the United States is not good for this country?

Bravo, Mt. Greenwald. This column should be distributed to every Democrat who's bought into the notion that Democrats can't win as liberals. I believe the notion that moving to the "centre", really the right, is the avenue to success is at least in part based on Bill Clinton's re-election as president in 1996, the assumption being that it was Clinton's move to the "centre" in his policies that gave him victory when it was far more likely the economic good times, a lack-lustre opponent in Sen. Bob Dole, and Clinton's phenomenal campaigning skills that did so. It is also based as Mr. Greenwald points out on an over-estimation of the strength of conservative opinion in the U.S., an over-estimation based on the distorting lens of the media. I fear that if Sen. Obama continues his Clintonesque triangulations and wins the presidency he and his advisors and many of his followers will take the wrong lesson and the U.S. status-quo will barely change, when change is so badly needed. But it's not too late. Obama can start by telling the Democratic convention he is indeed a liberal, and tell delegates and by extension Americans what being a liberal really means rather than the caricature the Republicans have made of the word. Perhaps a quote or two from FDR would be in order. What better way to signal to the Republicans that the party's over?

"He [Obama] stirred up leftists into hating Hillary Clinton and using old Republican accusations on her to get her out of the race..."

point 1: I've seen zero evidence that Barack Obama personally took any active role in fomenting antipathies to Hillary Clinton.

point 2: Many of the people holding negative views about Hillary Clinton came to their conclusions long before Barack Obama announced his candidacy. Most of them, in fact.

point 3: those people can't simply be ideologically pigeonholed as "leftists"- a term that's become so vague, overused, and inappropriately used that it's typically difficult for me to know its intended meaning, unless/until I read enough additional context to get a sense of the writer employing the label.

point 4: when it comes to accusations/allegations, what primarily matters is whether or not they're baseless. If they have merit, it shouldn't matter who purveys them. Considering the source should only matter if the accusations are slanderous.

point 5: for what it's worth, I noted almost nothing in the way of public references during the primaries to the various scandalous allegations that circulated throughout the era of Bill Clinton's presidency- or to a more recent Clinton-allied fiasco that was seemingly tailor-made for partisan attack: the apprehension and conviction of Sandy Berger a few years back, for repeated instances of theft of classified documents from the National Archive. Berger was one of the top foreign policy advisers for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Contrary to the numerous complaints about the intensity of the attacks on the Clintons in the primary season, I got an overall impression of considerable restraint (blog comments aside- but it's like that.) Even the Republicans were holding their tongues- or perhaps "holding their fire" is more like it.

No that is not my point at all. My question to Glenn Greenwald and Salon is simply "Why is there a sudden hate-on for Keith Olbermann, here in Salon?"

Thank you for clarifying. I honestly haven't seen a "sudden hate-on" for Olbermann. What I have seen, is a general distain for those who portray themselves as "journalists" who show an obvious slant toward their portrayal of the news. Glenn has been on top of that particular issue for eons and to his credit, he has shown equal distain toward those journalists who he generally agrees with and those he doesn't necessarily agree with, either factually or politically. Olbermann is just getting the same treatment as, let's say, a Joe Klein would get had he done the same thing.

In honesty, I suspect that Keith Olbermann's Special Comment was instigated by the original Greenwald article here on Salon. I cannot say it is the only reason for the Special Comment, but I do believe that the article did have some sway towards Olbermann's SC. Frankly, I can't think that one article in an online magazine or blog holds that much power to cause Olbermann come out with a pointed SC against Senator Obama, but it does seem contributory, if only in its timing.

It probably was not just Glenn's article but Glenn seemed to be at the forefront of the firestorm of criticism which ensued. Glenn was also the main actor in comparing Olbermann's position on FISA immunity which he laid out months ago in another SC, and his position last week which seemed to be one of "oh, well, since it's Obama's position, it's now ok." I honestly think that particular issue set Glenn's fuze. Glenn is also critical of those who cannot admit that "their" candidate can do wrong, or that "their" candidate must in all ways conform to a "liberal" or "conservative" position.

My point is that Greenwald seemed more angry at Keith Olbermann, than at Senator Obama's capitulation to whatever forces made him decide to support the FISA bill as originally proposed last week. That, to me, makes little sense, in that it grants greater power to a commentator than towards the subject of the comments expressed. It also falls in line with the general tenor here at Salon in recent weeks in re Joan Walsh and her continued anger and angry blogs against Olbermann as the only commentator/journalist who was the most egregiously against Hillary Clinton in the primary season. She has become like a dog with a bone in her continued railing against Olbermann, and now it seems that Greenwald has taken up the same flag and run with it, hence the "cover story" objection of Olbermann, instead of a "cover story" objection of Obama for voting for the FISA bill with the immunity clause intact.

I don't, as a rule, read what Joan Walsh offers so I really can't comment on that. I do know, however, that Obama has not YET voted for the FISA bill being considered in the Senate and, for what it's worth, that's primarily why it's important to let him know how we feel about that possibility - even if it is through a shitstorm on Olbermann.

I have no opinion in re John Dean one way or the other. I went through Watergate so I know the role he played, but other than that, I have no idea if his "transformation" was genuine or simply a way to reduce jail time.