I know, Uncle, but I think we will get Joan's swing back very soon. Does anybody doubt that we are soon to read a "very critical" blog by Joan on Clinton? I'm betting in less than three days we get that. But my concern is that it will be of the same quality as all the rest. Will she merely pick up the conventional narrative ("did Clinton misspeak or exaggerate about her war experience"), or will Joan highlight the reasons such considerations must remain the conventional take?

Let's be honest, there is no reason for Joan to come out and support Obama. That is not what people around Salon are asking, really. It is simply that most Salon readers happen to enjoy commentary that helps develop ideas they find to be more essential than poll analysis and the like.

And I'd say anybody (excluding me, of course) is a hypocrite who can't find a way to converse about their misgivings with Joan in a manner that is reasonable and productive. Well, no, you would not be a hypocrite if your basic notion of what ails this country is that we don't have enough righteousness and expertise and blame to spead around. Otherwise, let's recognize that, to some extent, we use Joan as a little outlet for frustration that is absolutely innocent of provoking. There is no way she derserves angery and bitter comments (however clever) just for holding opinions that some of us don't agree with. If she put her opinions out there in a manner that entoned disrespect or arrogance, it might do us well to point that out. But I don't see that. She strikes me as a great person.

I think she's voting for Obama. My hunch is that she thinks she has a resonsibility to "tackle" the issues as editor in a particular manner. I don't doubt that, but I find her approach, so far, to be a little dissapointing. If I didn't know she was intelligent and perceptive, I don't think I'd take the time to read her blog. However, I can't keep waiting for her to finally reveal that she is engaged in a journalistic performance art piece in an attempt to reflect back to Salon readers their own intolerance and thin aired thinking. Joan, we are ready!

Good points. And maybe you are correct about Joan's professional intentions. I just don't think that should matter in how we respond to ideas with which we disagree. Plus, if part of our criticism of Joan is in how much time she spends hallucinating about polls and the "true" insides of particular candidates, let's show her that you can have a much more interesting conversation without any such fetishizing and speculation. At this point I'd simply like to hear Joan justify spending anymore Salon time on the issue of who-is-more-moral between these two candidates. She seems to value this type of question, but more disturbing to me is the approach she seems to recommend on "discovering" which Senator we should be worried about. With her limited time I would expect she simply would be ignoring methods/ideas that really don't open up the discourse.

I think many of us are a bit stunned to repeatedly see Joan expousing the kind of ideas that we take shelter from, typically, in Salon. I want to stress my choice of the world kind in reference to her ideas. I really don't mind if she likes Cliton. I don't even think I'd mind if she explicitly came out and said so (as many are urging).

It's the kind (the assumptions and methodology) of analysis she is providing that I want to urge her to shift. She is a unique position to shed light on the nature of this political discourse.

I have no doubt that Joan could be very insightful about why the media sticks to these strategically conventional storylines as opposed to lifting up the mainstream rocks and exploring what lies beneath.

But I appreciate your points. My main point is that we all might do better to really just stick with the content of our disagreements with Joan.

Until she gets petty and mean about the personalities of those who support a particular candidate, it might be better to simply argue about her ideas and approaches rather than our hallucinations about how she could be a better person. But, AncientAssyrian, that's not aimed at you; I'm not seeing that in your post.

That said, I'm going to make my final pronouncement after she criticises Clinton in one of her next posts (it WILL be soon). If her take is in the "moral analysis" ("hmmm...what conclusions should we draw about Clinton based on this blah blah") or "political strategy" ("hmmm...what effect will this have on Clinton's campaign) vein of discussion, I probably won't be reading her blog anymore. I don't think Joan is suppose to agree with anybody here, but I do think she would do well to address many of the underlying questions regarding why she is covering the primary in the manner (not for/against stuff, but kind of analysis)she is; it would be a very good use of her blog, in my opinion.