I don't have the time or interest to get deeply involved in this article.  It seems to have been a battleground for those wishing to ridicule "birthers" and the birthers themselves.  But I will say this: if you compare the WSJ piece to a lot of the sources in this article, it seems quite neutral.  Looking at the lead alone, footnotes 8, 11, and 14 look pretty opinionated to me.  And note that I used in-text attribution for the WSJ piece, as is commonly done for other opinion sources later in this article, but you removed the in-text attribution.
Anyway, rather than become a bigger  target for relentless charges of POV, quote-mining, and all the rest, which I think would be more aptly hurled at much of the existing text in this article, I'll not reply further.  I'm not betting that Chris Matthews will be mentioned for long in this article.