Joan Walsh's hand-wringing notwithstanding, this is a hit piece. Naked, opportunistic, filled with conspicuous and telling absences, reinforcing every prejudice that right-wing haters have conjured, and, far worse and more Orwellian, doing so under the aegis of bogus concern and hiding itself within roomy and forgiving comfort of a "progressive" publication. Is it enough?, we are asked to consider - a question loaded with insinuation and conclusion. The answer to the question, of course, is no. And it's the asking that is telling.

Living inside a smear as it unfolds in real-time has been as fascinating as it has been disturbing. The half-truths pile up on each other; the phony and operatic declamations become an ever-present Muzak, playing in a continuous and uninterrupted loop in the background; facts and legitimate testimony are disregarded; the bogus and trumped up charge keeps getting hammered; until all that is left is the dark fog of smear, obscuring forever the clear view of the candidate.

And let's not be fooled into believing that this is anything more than a smear by the right-wing and Clinton supporters (check the comments section of literally ALL the pro-Clinton sites - who are now amazingly reduced to quoting from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newsmax, National Review, etc. to bolster their smear). As Michael C. Dawson said on the Root:

Some of us have known for several months that there was an opposition playbook, (reporters from the United Kingdom were asking me about some of these issues in January) that was going to repeatedly hammer at Obama for being too politically radical, nationalist, and perhaps Islamic. They were going to hang the politics of the black community around Obama's neck. It has not just been the conservative pundits who have been gearing up for this type of attack. Salon.com for example, a liberal website that has tilted consistently toward Clinton, had a story today that was one stop shopping for anti-Obama forces looking for ties between the Senator and "scary" black progressives, white sixty radicals, and thoughtful, moderate Palestinian scholars, who -- horror of horrors-- are pro-Palestinian. How many more buttons can one push to politically discredit a black candidate?

How many more buttons will you push, Joan?

Reading over these letters I've realized that maybe Reverend Wright has done us all a favor. He's revealed that half the people writing here are crazier than he is!

Joan - your Clintonian equivocating is exhausting. Is it really necessary for you to comment at all anymore on this issue? It is completely clear that your support of Hillary Clinton has made it impossible for you to see this issue with any clarity or insight. So why bother trying? All you do is reinforce your readers' suspicions of your objectivity (what's left of it).

Listen, if Hillary had referred to a "typical male" in a candid interview, no one would have batted an eye. And no one should have. And you, yourself, would be quick to rightly dismiss such a discussion as nothing more than political opportunism.

What you're missing out on in the Obama flap is the opportunity to rally behind a fellow Democrat who has done more in two months to stimulate honest debate and discussion, on fundamental issues, in this country than any candidate has in a generation. And who, in the process, is redefining what the Democratic party stands for as it moves into the future (which it's going to do with or without you and the Clintons).

This article overlooks an awful lot to make some kind of mysterious point about Hillary's vulnerability in the general election. Conspicuously missing from the piece is any commentary on the Clintons' sudden marriage of convenience with the very people who make up the VRWC. Just yesterday our "vetted" candidate sat down with one Richard Mellon Scaife for a friendly chat about Reverend Wright. In the run-up to Texas and Ohio, Bill took some time out of his schedule to call into Rush Limbaugh's radio show. And the Hillary campaign and its supporters regularly and cravenly reference right-wing media (Newsmax, WorldNet Daily, the American Spectator, National Review) to prop up their specious arguments against Obama. I would ask Mike Madden about this new and wholly opportunistic vulnerability in the general election: who will be able to reasonably defend them against the fusillade of attacks from the VRWC when they themselves are now part of it? Every single complaint from the Clintons about right-wing attacks against them will ring hollow. Couple that with waning support among Democrats and you've got the basic outlines of a resounding defeat in November. Some Faustian bargain, that.