Since it was truncated by TPM's patented comment truncator , here's what I attempted to write.

In a disappointing sequence,NPR’s Scott Simon first attacked Obama by changing an Obama quote to make it attackable and then replied to his critics with a poorly reasoned letter which would fail a high school logic class.

The start to all this was his Saturday morning NPR program a couple of weeks ago. His letter responding to his critics provides the background. So on to that or more accurately on to excepts.……………………..

“ Senator Obama is a well-spoken man. I take him at his word. So when he says,’The Republicans are going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you
afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention, he’s black?’I take that to mean the campaign of the Republican nominee,Senator McCain.”

Well, actually: No.

Immediately after writing he takes Obama at his word Simon proceeds to do the opposite. To transmute Obama’s words “The Republicans” in to “the campaign of the Republican nominee”. In the program itself he eliminated the middle man and accused Obama of claiming that McCain himself would be involved in the dirty work to come.

By itself this self contradictory sequence could be taken as a pretty reliable signal that Obama is not Simon’s personal choice in the coming election. . But it’s amplified in various ways throughout his letter.

In this response to those questioning Simon’s assertion that Obama’s “Republicans” was a code word for “McCain”, Simon first began

“ I think it is fair to point out that when Senator Obama, or any politician, reverses himself on a specific pledge, such as campaign financing, it raises honest questions about the sincerity of his other promises”.

At another place, Simon remarks…

“As to the assertion that so many of my correspondents so confidently make that, “The Republicans will do that” or “The Republicans will do that.” I learned some time ago not to anticipate too much in reporting. It distorts your ability to report what actually happens, because you have a stake in fitting events into your storyline.”

Ok, if you say so, Scott I’ll accept that description of your admirable journalistic practice. The rest of us free of that requirement are entitled to suspect like Obama that those good folks who brought us Willy Horton, the 2000 whispering campaign against McCain himself, and the 2004 attack of the Swiftboaters just might be ready for a repeat performance.

Then Simon concluded with a comment on some letters which he felt were inappropriate.

“About ten correspondents lectured (why “lecture”, not “wrote”?) me that because my wife and I have an inter-racial family, I should share their certainties about the success of appealing to race in America. I wonder how many of those who dragged my daughters so gratuitously into their arguments consider themselves to be the kind of people who are beyond using race.”

Whether Simon was entitled to feel offended was entirely something for him to decide.

But something we can decide for ourselves is why he concluded his defense of rewriting Obama’s quote by focusing on some correspondents who arguably overstepped the bounds of good taste.

Propinquity implies association. So this conclusion left the impression, and was intended to leave the impression , that those who criticized him for putting words into Obama’s mouth are tainted by our fellow critics (all ten of them) who intruded on Simon’s private sphere this way. In short, rather than replying to our criticism, he devalued it by associating it with this handful of other critics making a completely different point.

I’ve listened with pleasure to Simon over the years. He seemed good, low key, company on a Saturday morning. I continue to think he’s a decent human being who got a bit carried away and should have copied LaGuardia’s famous “When I make a mistake, it’s a beaut.

AOBTW who probably intends to vote against Obama.

NPR has not been playing straight on Obama for months. I have come to see "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" as seriously biased newscasts.

Back in the 90s I used to give money to public radio - but not anymore. They say things that are just as stupid as the rest of the media.