Well, though I think "smear" is more a device you used to get my attention than an accurate description, Cohen's editorial does indeed seem to be slanted in a way designed to hurt Obama. The disturbing thing is that his argument has so many echoes of the smear email that it's hard to believe that he hasn't seen it...and yet he doesn't mention it. I guess one might call it a refined and more eloquent version of the same smear, but it doesn't seem that congruent to me.

What does it all mean? Is Cohen part of some anti-Obama conspiracy? Was he consciously parroting the email, or unconsciously, or did somebody relate it, or was it coincidence?

For that matter, does he believe it himself? That's an interesting question, given the admission of a RightWing smearmonger of my acquaintance that he knows these are false, but passes them on anyway. I think that in an essential way, a "smear" is defined by intentional falsehood.

Beats me. Though I recognize the name, I hadn't mentally pigeonholed Richard Cohen into an ideology, so I don't have preconceptions about his agenda. I learn from Wikipedia that he's thought of as a leftist, yet he's had an eclectic (one might even say whacky) range of opinions that spans both sides of the Great Divide. Some Liberal "media watchdog" groups seem to imply he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sounds to me like he's more confused than anything.

I can't resolve a clear picture. Your subject line implies you think it was an intentional smear, Tom, so how about expanding on your point? What makes it more a certainty than a muddle?