The entire point of the article on Huffinton was that Blumenthal was attempting to create an echo chamber with people exactly like Conson. Cleary, the tactic is working. And since Joe didn't bother to quote one word of the article or offer anything more than a "hey, who reads whacky Sid's emails anyway?" defense, here's a taste of the article Conson shrugs off:

"One can only speculate how much influence Blumenthal did or did not have in elevating the Ayers story into the mainstream media and into the national political debate. What is certain is that Blumenthal sought to keep this classic red-baiting controversy alive.

Blumenthal's April 24 email dispatch featured a two-year old article by Sol Stern, published in City Journal, sponsored by the right-wing Manhattan Institute. The article, from the journal's Summer 2006 issue, doesn't mention Obama. Why would Blumenthal resurrect it now? The article, entitled "The Ed Schools' Latest--and Worst--Humbug," was, instead, a frontal attack on Ayers' views on educational theory and policy. Blumenthal obviously wasn't trying to offer enlightenment on educational policy or Obama's positions on school reform as much as he was presumably trying to keep Ayers' name, and his controversial past, in the public eye.

As a follow-up punch, Blumenthal again dipped directly into the "vast right wing conspiracy" by retrieving and circulating an article from the current issue of National Review -- the staunchly conservative opinion journal founded by William F. Buckley. The piece, titled "The Obama Way," was penned by Fred Siegel who, like Sol Stern, is a former 60s leftist who has moved to the opposite end of the political spectrum, serving at one point as a political advisor to Rudy Giuliani. Siegel's piece links Obama to corrupt Chicago machine politics, observing that "Blacks adapted to both the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics" of Chicago's Democratic Party. In the process, he manages to throw in as many spurious ad hominem attacks on Obama as he can, calling him a "friend of race-baiters" and a "man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist."

When Blumenthal worked in the White House, a big thorn in Bill Clinton's side was the Weekly Standard, the right-wing magazine edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. But in mid-February, Blumenthal's email attack featured an article, "Republicans Root for Obama," written by Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes. That same month, Blumenthal also offered up a piece by Scott McConnell, titled "Untested Savior," that appeared in The American Conservative (a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan) claiming that Obama "would probably lead them [Democrats] to disaster in November.""

About Obama supporters you say; "there's nothing to stop them from refuting anything they receive that they find distorted, objectionable, etc. ... not only on their very own distribution list but also to Blumenthal personally ..."

If you read the article on Huffingtonpost.com that Conason bashes, you'd realize the article does exactly that. The article exposes the despicable tactics the Clintons have sunk to using.

Furthermore, the crime isn't that some hack Clinton advisor is throwing mud. Or that the audacious Blumethal, after having bitched and moaned for years about the "vast right wing conspiracy" to destroy the Clintons, does whatever it takes to beat Obama no matter how Rovian the tactics. The true crime is that Clinton's tactics are aimed at a fellow democrat. A democrat with a very very good chance of being the democratic nominee. Regardless of who you support, democrats should reject the swift-boating tactics from either campaign. But it seems like only the Clintons are the camp willing to muck through the mud, on their knees, throwing slime every which way as they slowly sink.

Months ago here in the heartland when Obama crushed Clinton by 50% points on Super Tuesday, the mood of democrats was, "hey, whoever wins, we have a great candidate."

What we're getting from Hilliary Clinton, someone us Prairie folk used to dream of seeing become President, is a totally destroyed democrat party. And that's the fucking shame Blumethal, Conason, Joan Walsh and the Clinton's will be living with for a long long time.

"...what Jeremiah Wright has in common with Gennifer Flowers."

That line alone says everything one needs to know about the discourse on Salon.com.

Frame that line and post it over the main Salon.com entrance way. You can slap it like the Fighting Irish do with "play like a champion today" as you run out to gather more inane facts for your next irrelevant article.

it'd take a lot of balls for Salon.com to cut ties with the Pentagon and stop taking ad money from the industrial military complex. Joan aint got em.

Years ago Salon.com was going under. To prevent bankruptcy, they pleaded with readers to save their "liberal journalistic enterprise." The "Salon Premium" membership was born. Readers paid up and saved the site.

Since then, the site has stoked the fires of division within the democratic party. Notwithstanding some noble exceptions like Greenwald, Salon.com prefers fabulist gossip mongering to writing intelligent, relevant articles--this didn't used to be the case.

The site also happily publishes Camille Paglia, a fervent denier of global warming. Camille thinks it isn't caused by man. She didn't do well in science. And Salon.com never challenges this.

Finally, and most disturbingly, the site is sponsored by the Pentagon. Credibility is gone.

So when some of us read "Jeremiah Wright" and 'in common" and "Gennifer Flowers" in the same sentence, well, we just can't help but barf out loud.

Mr. Greenwald,

As always, great article.

Salon.com takes money from the Airforce. The same Airforce that is dropping the bombs your article mentions.

Do you find it somewhat odd or hypocritical to be continuously writing brilliant articles about the failures of our war mongering leaders, only to then take advertising dollars from the Pentagon?

Where do you stand? I look forward to a reply.