Glenn is dead on with regard to the definition of "Judicial Activism." The Right would have us believe that they are against any instance where the Judiciary opposes the will of the Peepul. But it's only when it's the will of their people, the classic case being Roe v. Wade.

If a ruling goes their way, on the other hand, it's clearly not judicial activism. The classic case here is Bush v. Gore, which was both a bad ruling and which the Supreme Court tried to pretend didn't set any precedents. Scalia leads the way in this area, of course, shouting "original intent!" and "federalism uber alles!", except when his ox is gored, at which point those bedrock principals are tossed out the window. (Aside from Bush v. Gore, there's his ever-popular dissent on the Texas sodomy case, where he ranted for several pages about gays. How that doesn't count as "judicial activism" is beyond me.)

Like much else with the Right, it's power and getting their views put forth that counts; things like "judicial activism" and "voter fairness" are merely hypocritically-used tools to that end.

I used to think conservatives had principals, as odious as I thought some of them. It's clear that they don't; just power.

Item 1: I thought Joan's entry was good, and I agree with AncientAssyrian about what appears to be a new level of balance here on Salon with regard to the candidates. I agree that there had been a very significant pro-Hillary slant for a couple of months at least, but it definitely seems to have abated since the new year.

(I don't mind if Salon wants Hillary to win, but if that's the desire, I would prefer it to be an open endorsement or some such.)

Item 2: I can't decide if you're being disingenuous or not, Gary, but aside from the articles AncientAssyrian cites, there are also these columns:

"How bashing Hillary backfired," http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/01/10/new_hampshire/

"Obama's European problem" http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/

"Why conservatives love Barack Obama" http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/21/right_and_obama/

"Hillary Clinton's softer side" http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/01/07/ctv_joannh_2/

"The comeback chick" (ugh!) http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/01/09/hillary_victory/

And there's plenty more. Sorry if this comes across as abrasive, but did you even look?

Thanks for the view "from the trail," Joan.

I think Geoff has an excellent point about how the focus of the reporting can change people's perceptions. As I said, I think Joan did fine in this piece, and I really hope to see more "inside the trail" posts from her, honestly; all we usually get from the MSM is the "common wisdom," slightly repackaged, which is boring and, frankly, repetitive.

How this focus issue can play out--without there being any actual misrepresenting of facts--is like this:

Last spring, the San Jose Sharks played the Detroit Redwings in the playoffs. (I know, I know; just bear with me.) Here's how the action was reported by the play-by-play and color commentators:

When the Sharks had a power play, the commentators said, "Let's see how the Red Wings defend against this power play." When the Red Wings had a power play, the commentators said, "Now let's see how Detroit does on the power play." If a Sharks player was hammered, it would be "Wow, that was a heck of a hit!" If a Red Wings player was hammered, it was "He took a solid hit, but bounced right back!" "The Red Wings back up quickly into their zone to defend." "The Red Wings drive deep into the offensive zone." And so on.

Now, nothing the commentators said was demonstrably wrong, but if you had no chips in the game, you would think this game was between THE DETROIT RED WINGS and "some other guys; I think it was the Sharks."

And that's how, as Geoff points out, information can be distorted without being "wrong."

We've got the chance to create a Democratic majority in the same way that Reagan created his Republican coalition, and what do the Democrats do instead? Foment civil war.

Shouting each other down? Charges of racism? Voter suppression? Push polling?

Bush has been the worst president in living memory (for my Mother's generation!), the Republican party is splintering, American's want to see the Democrats in control, and how do they respond? Why, the same as usual, of course: a circular firing squad.

I can't decide if I'm sick to stomach with disgust, or anger.

Well, given those sources, it's hardly shocking that they are limbo-dancing around assigning blame (in much the same way they avoid, at all costs, using the word "lie" when referring to the various lies of the Administration, e.g. "We don't torture"). Look at who we have: Howard Kurtz, Elisabeth Bumiller ("Steven Colbert? He was there at the dinner? Who knew?"), Michael Cooper, and Frank Rhee (heaven save us from hearing what Charles Savage thinks!).

Frankly, I'm surprised David Broder hasn't weighed in with what the "regular folks" think after one of his brief road trips. But then, maybe heading down to South Carolina is simply too far to go.

The rot is deep. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment that disallows the press from staying in the Washington area for more than 2 days out of the week (sorry, Tim!).