Here is what Joan said, again:

I went into the early primary season assuming I'd vote for Obama, his landmark Boston Democratic convention speech having transformed my thinking about politics in 2004. But I'm not sure. He's starting to get tougher on Hillary Clinton, which the conventional wisdom says he had to do, but he hasn't found a galvanizing issue or role that sets them apart.

I see a pattern in there that I see Joan repeat often. She conflates a principle with a strategy. She is FOR Barack based on the principle of his speech, but her concern is....not...based on principals...so it seems. A couple months ago she said she upset about a cheapshot Clinton made...but...then...she later wrote that her friends pointed out it was a good strategy. There is a weird conflation of principle/strategy she tends to make (it seems to me) that I don't get.

But here is more "evidence" that Barak is her man: notice her last sentence in that quote:

...but he hasn't found a galvanizing issue or role that sets them apart...

Has she? I don't see that she has. She shares all the mainstream criticisms of both Obama and Clinton, it seems; I, so far, don't see where anything significant took place to make her change her mind. I think her reporting is due to a combination of things that don't have to do with her personal opinion. Still, I wish she'd use her time to write about topics we can't get from Fox or CNN's big dogs...

Think of how stubbon Edwards appears to those who don't agree with him.

Think of how badly he supposedly wants a figher in the White House.

Think of how clearly he KNEW Clinton was not an agent of change.

Think of how impressive Clinton became when she needed his support and imagine how off putting it must have been, in contrast, when Obama stuck to his ground and did nothing to impress Edwards.

If Edwards endorses Clinton because she was able to impressess him think.....think of......oh....don't bother....

Hasn't it also been reported that Edwards considers Obama a "pussy"?

And hasn't it also been reported that Barack refused to offer Edwards a position in his administration (on principal; he won't offer anybody positions for endorsements), whereas Clinton offered him one of two options?

You don't have to be an Obama voter to realize that Edwards souring on Barak may be more complicated than Joan wishes. In fact, is there any reason to believe it is that simple? I don't mind on bit that Joan has her bias (I'm convinced she's pulling for Obama over Hilary), but it is growing increasingly clear to me that I am being delusional to expect Joan to offer anything other than a very superficial analysis of the data.

She doesn't need to agree with my interpretation of what is really going on for Edwards, but I personally look for analysis that lifts up that first Foxy layer of information. Joan is just being Joan, I'm starting to think. Where did I ever get the impression that she is the type who digs deeper? Unless there is good solid evidence that Joan really does like to lift up the Fox layer of information, our frustration is our problem. It would be like expecting my daughter (six years old) to help me work my way through this election. Joan clearly has the intelligence to make the basic conventional observations that go along with an election. But why do we expect more from her? I understand the arguments that point to our support/expectations of Salon in general, but that's not what I am asking about here. I mean: do we know that Joan herself can actually look more deeply at the kind of stories she keeps presenting without making the conventional interpretations.

And for those of you who think I only accept analysis that supports Barak, not true. I can imagine legitimate reasons Edwards might not go for Barack, but I simply couldn't reduce to the kind of narrative that Joan finds so interesting...

Just wondering?

We are only a few days away from Joan's first explicitly critical look at Hillary. Let's take a deep breath for a couple of days and then see what she has to say. It should put much of her current "analysis" in context. If I'm wrong and she doesn't do what I'm almost certain she is on the verge of doing, I will eat my cyber hat and write a political poem entitled

"This strange Woman made me think I was crying"

But I really do expect her statement before Wednesday night!

p.s. Even though I am increasingly certain she's rooting for Obama, I don't expect her Hillary Critique to be an explicit endorsement.