Larry has lost it. I'm starting to doubt if he ever had it.

Joseph McCarthy, back from the dead, just in time for the Wisconsin primary! Amazing!

This guy has a right to free speech, but someone who could write what LJ wrote doesn't seem to fall within the broad, liberally defined, contours of this progressive-leaning site.

Workerbee --
Have you actually read the Johnson "Obama's ties to terrorism" piece? Think it's responsible?

Finally, I am very concerned about Obama’s lack of experience and the adulation surrounding his campaign. I bought into the nonsense that George Bush was a “uniter” and not a “divider.” I ignored his failed business enterprises. I overlooked his ignorance of foreign affairs. Well folks, never again.

There's your money quote. LJ is going to purge himself of the guilt of overlooking Bush's flaws by doing anything he can to send Senator Obama's candidacy down in flames.

But, you know, if you stop and think about it for a minute -- it's not really a bad thing to have folks muckraking Senator Obama's past. It's going to happen anyway -- better now than later.

Really, the main problem I have with what's going on at 'No Quarter' is the vitriolic nature of the 'reportage'. I mean, even if they're raising good questions (and I'm not convinced that they are) most people are going to react to the tone negatively, and dismiss these posts as screeds and hit-pieces.

If LJ wants to do anything other than preach to the anti-Obama choir he needs to dial back the venom, tone down the innuendo, and amp up the facts.

I bought into the nonsense that George Bush was a “uniter” and not a “divider.” I ignored his failed business enterprises. I overlooked his ignorance of foreign affairs.

Well, I didn't which means that I'm smarter than Larry Johnson.

Larry Johnson is the dumbo who thought Kyle "Dusty" Foggo couldn't be a crook because he lived in a so-called "modest" house.

The weird thing about Larry Johnson's loathing of Obama is that it's ultimate basis a total mystery.

I know other people who seriously dislike Obama. A some point they usually explain what it is at bottom that they don't like about him. For example, David Seaton has commented here recently about his negative view of Obama. I disagree with David, but at least I know what he doesn't like: he is deeply suspicious of powerful orators like Obama and their dangerous ability to sway people.

And I know that I seriously dislike Clinton. A lot of people strongly disagree with me, but I have tried to explain the combination of political positions, record and character traits that turn me off.

But Johnson just seems to run with whatever is the latest, daily piece of smear or hysteria coming from Taylor Marsh and her ilk. He bounces all over the place from one topic to another, and there is no consistent theme, and no discernible rhyme or reason to it all.

But it's ceaseless. It's not just a few days of tirade followed by a return to level-headed analysis, but day after day after day of furious, fanatical, spasmodic vituperation. There is some deep, deep grudge here, but Larry won't let on to what it's all about.

Puppethead, I think you're exactly right, and I think this is very astute. I'm sort of bemused by those people--you thought George Bush was a uniter? Really? Because he said so? And his campaign running calls in SC saying John McCain had an illegitimate black daughter, that's uniting?

And George Bush had never been out of the country and was deliberately anti-intellectual. Obama's history is nothing like George Bush's, and it's deliberately obtuse to liken them in that way.

You see this again and again on some of the more...vehement...Hillary sites--that Obama is Bush, because he--well, I'm not sure why. I never thought Bush could speak well. I thought he sounded like a beer-addled moron. I guess some people wanted to buy him a beer. And I agree that's not the greatest way to pick a president. But it's not "likeability" with Obama, despite how people would like to spin it. I don't want to buy Obama a beer. I want him to be President.

And terrorist baiting is gross. I'm sorry you voted for Bush. But that doesn't excuse this kind of smear--which is, ironically, so George Bush.

A $200 contribution? Is he serious?

Have we "vetted" all of Clinton's contributors? I know there's a list of sleazeball Clinton donors somewhere. And I don't think Clinton supporters want to get into an argument over who is cozier with terrorists. I seem to remember Bill pardoning some Puerto Rican terrorists to lock up the Puerto Rican vote in NYC for her Senate run.

I've donated $150 to Obama. Does that mean I have a "relationship" with him? Is the Senator now responsible for any crimes or ethical lapses I may or may not have in my past?

Are the Clintons and their supporters determined to take Obama and the Democratic party down with them?

worker bee,

I'm not sure why you're referencing that particular comment from Larry Johnson. We were discussing Mr. Johnson's post which claims Obama has ties to terrorists. Did you actually read that post? It was embarrassing. It was the most poorly-supported, poorly-reasoned "expose" I've seen from someone whose opinions are treated seriously by thoughtful people. I looked at the "evidence" he used to support his claim and found gossip, innuendo, and guilt-by-association. And a $200 campaign contribution?

Embarrassing.