I appreciate your comments. And they are funny. But I'm not kidding or psychoanalyzing about my hunch that Joan wants Obama to be president. I don't know, of course. And this isn't the type of thing that can be proven. But I'm not relying on any abstract pscyo-dynamic theories. I see a pattern. Look at what she typically surrounds her so-called pro Hillary statements with. And look at what is surrounding her so-called "negative" Obama comments.

I agree that she has been (overall, Joan- not all the time) quicker to jump on Obama, but notice the kinds of issues she pesters him with and compare those to the times (even if they be fewer) that she digs into Hillary. It seems clear to me that she has deeper concerns with Hillary on substance. Yet, for all sorts of reasons that I can understand (but don't agree with), Joan is working hard as editor of Salon to show that she is not caught up in the supposed Obamamania.

I'd love to find out someday. It doesn't change the fact that I'd expect to see Joan really get into the actual issues involved with how this race is being covered. She's smart and, I imagine, could have lots to say. Thus far her comments stay comfortably insight the acceptable range of opinion that ensures we don't like a Far Left media.

Mr. Leonard said:

"For those deluded souls who might still think there is no significant difference between the two major parties in the United States, a review of McCain and Obama's speeches this week is in order."

I might be one of those souls. I'm supporting Obama, but I don't yet have reason to believe he could single handedly extricate the democratic party away from the All Unifying Corporate Party. And I'm not even sure that is his plan. But it doesn't matter; I want the guy in the oval office.

But just to say: I think those "deluded" souls of which Mr. Leonard speaks are basing their notion of "no real difference" on the actual functioning of the parties. There have been so many incredible and insightful speeches and notions mentioned over the last 50 years by democrats (especially around elections), but until they make the kind of actual break that perhaps Mr. Obama is aiming towards, I think the delusion is in those who dreamily enjoy the apparent difference between how the two parties function economically. That said, I really do recognize that even little steps in the right direction are worthy of praise and effort (and reward)

I'm very curious as to what Joan has to say about what she thinks is driving the kind of questioning that is being attached to Obama's association with the preacher man. I have to believe that at some point, Joan will have something to say about this. So far it is as if she accepts the basic spectrum of conversation premised by our beloved social "experts". In this latest post, Joan lets us know that there is even MORE for us to be concerned about in regards to Barack's association with this man, but I think Joan is setting us up for an eventual (soon, Joan, please) analysis of what factors are making this man's preacher take on the scope it is. I can't believe she simply is accepting the current narrative. And i'm not asking her to say it doesn't matter. I just don't believe she's this lame. All we have to do is turn on any news channel on the tube tomorrow and we can engage in the latest preacher fetish. I wonder what Joan has to add to this from the unique perspective she has. Is she really just waiting to hear more about Mr. Wright before she has something interesting to say about the nature of this media coverage? No way. Joan is about to throw down some insight!!!!