I find your disingenuous tripe about Obama far more idiotic than the most extreme Clinton supporters on these boards. At least they are honest and say what they really think. Your pretenses of concerned punditry are nauseating. I let my premium subscription end a couple months ago, but I'm gonna stop visiting this click-bait rag until after the primaries are over. You're promoting the worst in journalism and deliberately bringing out the worst in your readers just to generate ad revenue.

For weeks he/she has been trying to say that Obama can't be elected because all the stupid, racist, voters will hold the Wright business against him. Now, he/she has finally admitted to being one of those stupid, racist voters. Really sad when someone has to demonstrate their point by sacrificing themselves like that.

Nagourney at NYT, Huff Po (the excellent Barbara Ehrenreich article mentioned by some posters), DailyKos, The Nation, Slate, CounterPunch, Durst at The Progressive (Durst took Clinton-loathing Molly Ivins' place) etc. All other progressive news sources are telling truths about Clinton (both her right-wing fundamentalist politics and her dim electoral prospects) that Salon won't touch. It's getting embarrassing.

Wright's church is known as EXTREMELY gay-friendly, and he's a strong supporter of LGBT rights. Obama generally is a stronger supporter of LGBT rights than Clinton (he's opposed to 'don't ask don't tell' and DOMA, for example - both B. Clinton-approved policies). Learn a bit before you spout Clinton-approved talking points, or just assuming that because it's a 'Black church' it must be anti-gay.

(there's much better stuff to hate on Salon for, like their Clinton-Obama trolling). At least they got rid of Kansas O'Flaherty!

From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx

"From NBC's Chuck Todd

As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York."

and:

"In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points"

"(CNN) – Hillary Clinton’s argument that she is the Democratic contender best-equipped to win the “big states” the party needs to capture the White House took a slight hit Thursday with the release of a new survey that seems to suggest Barack Obama is better-positioned to win California – a state where she won last month’s primary contest.

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California indicates if the election were held today, Obama would hold a 49-40 percent advantage over McCain in a hypothetical fall matchup there. Clinton’s 43-40 percent edge over McCain falls just outside the survey’s margin of error. Fifty-seven percent of independent voters in the state have a favorable view of Obama, while just 35 percent say they like Clinton."

Why not Obama-Gore or Clinton-Gore? That seems more likely, and perhaps what Pelosi was hinting at a few weeks back about a 'dream ticket' that didn't include both Clinton and Obama. Gore could be promised a powerful vice-presidency, like Cheney's, from which to address climate issues. He wouldn't have the pain of leading another ticket, which he has said he really didn't want to do again. By the way, for the nay-sayers, HE WON last time, with LIEBERMAN.

That seems to be the best thing the Clinton campaign can say about her right now. "We're not that bad!!" is a great rallying cry. Much like criticizing Obama for being 'likeable' and 'articulate.' "People only like Obama because he's so great at stuff!" Yeah, good luck with that tack.

Yes, the pro-Clinton posters are doing their candidate a great disservice. I like reading them because they make me laugh. Speaking of which, how do you feel about Salon seemingly cancelling your comic?

I'm an Associate Professor. Ask me at a party what I do for a living, I say "I'm a professor." That's not a lie. I've been saying that since I was a lecturer out of graduate school, and 'professor' is what I've always put on forms that ask me for 'occupation.' If you have ever been to a college or university, you call the people who teach there 'professors.' In high school, they are called 'teachers.' In college, 'professors.' No matter what your rank is, if you teach in college you can call yourself a 'professor.' This isn't rocket science (unless you are a professor of rocket science). There is a significant difference between listing your rank on a resume, (eg. "Assistant Professor, UCLA, 1990 - 1996") and saying in a little bio about yourself that "I was a profesor at UCLA." If you are not in academia, you might not understand the difference. It would be like saying you can't call yourself a lawyer if you're not a full partner in a law firm, or a business person if you're not a CEO. In most university faculties only about 10% are ranked "Full Professors." To claim that the other 90% who teach at universities can't call themselves 'professors' is absurd.