Well put. The writers/editors use the “wild rumors on the Internet” as a hook to write about Obama’s religion (which I agree is a valid subject) and more generally religion in politics.

But the article seems weirdly disjointed because it never actually addresses the purported primary thesis: that wild rumors distributed through the Internet are playing a role in presidential politics. If they’re going to raise that point, then the story is only nominally about Obama; it’s about the Internet.

Chris Hayes wrote that story, and it’s fascinating (he also tracks down the real source of the Obama innuendo; the Post should be ashamed for attributing it to the Clinton campaign with zero evidence).