I've been a dismayed reader of Salon over this primary period. Ms. Walsh, I believe that the night Keith Olbermann made that statement, Chuck Todd rolled out the numbers and announced Obama as the winner. Now that is interesting news and one that would be hard to dismiss, if you even chose to discuss it. My impression of your column is that you act like a concern troll, putting any doubts you can dream up about Obama in your headlines, while talking about your "feminism." As a woman, I'm very disappointed in the thought process in your writing, the disingenuity I find in your columns that so match the Clinton campaign. Salon has really gone downhill since David Talbot left.

I think the black vote disappeared for Clinton with Bill's remarks in SC, her willingness to tear down a black candidate, her feeling that she should be president and Obama VP as Obama led, her refusal to repudiate Geraldine Ferraro's comments, her cynical use of the Reverend Wright situation, and her husband's assertion and then denial of the taped assertion that Obama had used the race card against them. It's not her failure to challenge, but her willingness to do anything to try to garner this nomination, even when the math is against her, even when it means alienating a constituency that had been very much for her.

the only way that HRC has better numbers in the popular vote is to include two states where the Democrats signed pledges that these states wouldn't count, as they broke the rules of their party. To include them in a count and act as if that number is reality is as crooked as the Clinton campaign.

that count doesn't include caucus states either, as caucus states don't count, in the same way that nothing counts that doesn't benefit HRC.

so Hillary's pantsuits are off limits?

you seem to forget the person who called HRC "a monster" promptly left Obama's campaign. At least there is some accountability somewhere.

HRC has gone against her own party -- she has attempted to kneecap her opponent in a vast number of ways. She has tried to divide this country further with her rhetoric. She has encouraged breaking her own party's rules. She has lied. She has been no friend to Democrats through this campaign.

I don't care about her pantsuits. I just wish she would take them and go home.

How dare you act as if you speak for all women. How dare you act ss if Roe v. Wade is something to be tossed away if your candidate doesn't get selected through the due process of primaries? How can you be that petty? Please do not pretend to speak for women at large, because you do not, and what you are trumpeting is not anything that resembles feminism. It's immature sour grapes.

by the way I'm a woman (who works in women's health)

When does she have to be accountable for her behavior and her campaign's behavior? this is bull****.

To all Hillary supporters: I know your candidate's campaign is using the "we have more popular votes" as one of their primary spins, but let's just call it for what it is: a lie. It has been debunked again and again, and apparently your candidate and you think that if you keep saying it as truth, that people will believe you, but it is just a lie on on this planet where we actually use math and honor pledges and remember previous recorded statements by this candidate that actually aligned with the truth when it was convenient to her. So you can continue to say something that is not true, but it just seems at best silly.

Clinton should apologize to Obama. That was noticeably absent from her statement later on.

Hopefully this is one of her final "gaffes," but I won't count on it.

that you didn't write about the RFK statement.

it's predictable, but sad.

A responsible politician doesn't use the word "assassination" in public discourse. It opens the door for a tragedy. That Clinton will not take responsibility for her use of language, that she doesn't apologize to Obama, but instead bashes him, Joan, is indicative of the craziness that you seem to be belong to as well.

There's also the Slate article and the poll just taken that mentioned the public's concern of Obama's safety and then this "mistake." There's also the fact that she's mentioned RFK assassination before in the campaign. It's incredibly low, and I don't see how you can spin it any other way. (It's hard for me to imagine how you can spin it this way and sleep, but that's your choice.)

Have to say that I feel your continued references to "Democrats staying home" disturbing. It actually reminds me a lot of how your candidate poisons the well. Of course, I know you'll deny it. But although you didn't let the other guest on "Hardball" talk about it tonight, I think we all understand code.

I've now seen the clip. I really didn't see you make any argument other than "She could never think that" and "That's outrageous," and of course, the "Well, we could all then stay home in November," punctuated with interruptions of other people who had different viewpoints. I was very disappointed... And I don't really understand the criticism of Obama's camp circulating the Olbermann comment, which had historical references, lists of the disturbing pattern that has emerged over this campaign, i.e. some thought and hard work applied to it -- isn't this what campaigns do? Where was your outrage when the Clintons was talking to superdelegates about Wright? It seems very troubling to me. And as an English major, it seems that an editor-in-chief should know the difference between "affect" and effect." I'm just saying...