Take your pick between disingenuous, illogical, and uninformed. To begin with, in an essay that is supposedly about Clinton's tough week, you spend the bulk of it continuing to promote trash and 'misstatements' about Obama: 1) Barack Obama is her "less tested rival" how? How has she been tested more? She's coasted into politics on her partner's coattails, and dragged him through the gutter for six months. 2) Obama is "wilting a little now that he's the frontrunner." According to whom? All recent polls show him swinging strongly up on Clinton, and doing better than Clinton against McCain. 3) As others have already pointed out, claiming he lost Texas is a blatant falsehood. 4) You continue to push the tripe about how Pastor Wright "still threatens to limit his broad appeal," despite all highly-publicized evidence to the contrary. Everyone in this country but you seems ready to move on that issue. 5) EVERY commenter that I've read/listened to in the past week, across the political spectrum, who isn't directly working for the Clinton campaign, understands that Obama is going to win the primary and that all Clinton is accomplishing at this point is helping McCain. Yet you say, "I don't think there's anything wrong with Clinton staying in the race." If you want McCain to win, I suppose there isn't anything wrong with that statement. And if you understand that all Walsh wants to do is generate page-clicks through yellow journalism, there's nothing wrong with this blog.

Ask my poor children. However, if ultimate accountability is "democrats lose in November," then something needs to be done so Michigan and Florida democratic voters don't feel totally screwed. This sort of compromise seems more doable than a revote (which was going to be expensive and had legal problems). I'm not sure about the details, but splitting a certain percentage of the delegates 55/45 (I think Clinton originally got 55% of the vote) and tie the rest to national results seems fair - it'll end up 50/50. Thought it seems to be opposed by a lot of Obama supporters here, it just might be the numbers he needs to reach 2,024.

But I think Obama's nuts are a little better. It's like Brazil nuts vs. cashews. Ummm, cashews.

with an argument for a winner-take-all primary. I don't have a problem with an argument that claims FL and MI have been "disenfranchised." However, those two arguments do not play well together. A winner-take-all primary, like our electoral college, disenfranchises almost half the voters in the country. If you're in the 49% who 'lost the vote' in your stae, your vote counts for nothing.

To those who claim that Obama has 'thwarted' efforts to get the delegates from FL and MI seated, you're not paying attention. His campaign worked on numerous compromises that would have allowed the delegates to be split and seated according to a variety of formulas, all of which Clinton opposed. He was opposed to a total re-do because much of his support amongst independents would be 'disenfranchised' because they already voted in the Republican primaries (the 'real' ones), and would not be allowed to vote again by law.

to generate a 101 pages of comments. To prompt a parade of "I hate the hateful meanspirited bastards who swear at my candidate, those assholes" posts. Joan Walsh is the queen of yellow journalism at this point. Run it if it generates page clicks, damn the party, damn journalism, damn us.

...whose purchase of rubber boots was used as evidence that they were "well on their way to committing a terrorist act," because, you know, your shoes get real muddy when you bomb things?

Sigh. The other lesson here is that a random set of jury members seems to know more about the law then our Federal prosecutors. Yeah for that, I guess.

I used to read Salon almost religiously, using it as my primary online source for news and commentary. But now, thanks to her piloting Salon into the death spiral that is Clinton's presidential campaign, I've wandered off to spend most of my news-gathering time in a wider range of other places (Slate, The Nation, Huffpo, The Progressive, even CNN). Thanks for teaching me that there are more and better places to spend my time!

I would guess about 1/4 to 1/3 of Clinton supporters are saying they'd vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and ditto for the Obama supporters. I don't think that will last. I think ultimately only a tiny minority of supporters will never get over their loss, and either stay at home or go for McCain. Once the nomination is settled, and ill feelings fade, I think people will rally around whoever the nominee is, and McCain will be back down 15 points.

...did not wage a vicious, negative campaign against his competitors for the republican nomination. It's not the kind of candidate he is. Yes, the right-wing-noise-machine will do it's best, but I do not think McCain will go as relentlessly negative as Clinton has.

I encourage others to seek out the far better discussions of this election that exist in every progressive corner of the web except Salon:

www.progressive.org

www.thenation.com

www.huffingtonpost.com

www.dailykos.com

www.slate.com

etc., etc., etc.

No other progressive journalist seems to agree with what Walsh is claiming about that debate, or about the race generally. The only people who agree with her are paid Clinton supporters (hint hint) or members of the right-wing noise machine (hint hint).

Please read this thread and see what Ms. Walsh is doing to the magazine. She's essentially using it for the sole purpose of promoting her own future career in other MSM (TV, most likely). It's destroying the legacy of Salon for her own selfish interests - something I would think the CEO should be interested in.