It shouldn't at this point, but it continues to amaze me that Hillary supporters can spin her assasination remark into it being somehow Obama's fault. And you're right; the remark did offend me greatly. But it's not about your candidate. It's not about a five day cycle. It's about the comment. Don't you understand that when you start with an apology and end with a slam, the apology is pretty much nullified? If you don't mean it, don't bother. (And why bother writing about McClellan? It's obvious in this piece that you just wanted to criticize the Obama campaign more.)

I really appreciated this column. I thought it was wise and well thought out, and hope all Democrats take it to heart.

a) that the Clinton contingent seems to often hit discordant notes instead of having the discipline to stay on one theme

b) the thuggish nature to their demands, and then the flip side being playing the victim card.

then the latest news from Rep. Andrews of how the Clinton camp played the race card in their conversation with him.

I can't imagine a worse strategy to try to get on someone's ticket, but it has been typical of this campaign.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html

Olbermann's ratings have never been higher, and I think it's because he truly covered what was happening in the primaries. Clinton ran a seriously flawed campaign, and Olbermann was willing to talk about it. The sexism issue is nonsense, and as a a woman, I find it disappointing, in the least, to see it framed that way.

of writing in Hillary Clinton's name in the general election? Sure, you would be expressing your preference, but in these times, when so much is at stake, isn't it more akin to a 5-year-old having a temper tantrum?

a) I do think that Salon, as a whole is obsessed with this story and seems intent on keeping the flames burning

b) polls suggest otherwise

c) also keep in mind that a lot of the letters that I've seen have been written by the same people. "Hundreds" seems pretty misleading to me. It reminds me of all of the stories about Obama not able to connect to working class people, and then you look at the polls now. It seems pretty silly to me.

was the placement of the article, the photos, and title. GG had some great points to make, but all of that made it seem like it was a hit piece on KO, which to me, seems like it goes back to the grudge match with Clinton, which Salon can't seem to get over. That does seem simplistic and childish to me.

work fatigue -- should have been Salon's grudge match with Olbermann regarding Clinton

that's what I meant...

anyone who would think that there wasn't more to dig up on HRC needs to step away from the Koolaid.

that it was understood that Bill's dealings post-presidency would not be able to pass vetting standards, so it was understood that she would not go through the process. Now Salon can frame it however you like, but that is what I've read in other places, and it makes sense with the talk of the undisclosed library donors. Clinton supporters can do what they want, but they might want to consider that it was something in-house.

I don't understand why there's so much space devoted to the divisiveness. To describe people not supporting Obama and then have this (To Be fair, many) sentence at the end seemed disingenuous to me. It just feels like a manufactured story written by people with agendas.

why can't we just judge people by their qualifications and positions and what they've done?

Sarah Palin comes up short in all of these categories. It certainly doesn't make the race "much more interesting" to me. I would really not want a person with her lack of experience, who is in the midst of a scandal, who believes in creationism and is against a woman's right to choose to have such position of power in our government.

this is so last Monday. just stop it.

Palin would restrict women's rights in this country, hardly a feminist. Genuinely tough people directly take people on, considers feedback, admits when they're wrong, makes the hard decisions, know that for important position, one needs to be scrutinized -- this woman reads from a script, tells lies, continues to tell lies after they've been disproven, tries to fire people who she doesn't like, etc.

Please let's take what information that has been gathered so far (mostly independent from the MSM, herself, and the campaign, thank you very much) and please think very hard before calling his person a tough feminist!!!

and his great line, "The game is rigged."

with MSM tied up in Republican interests, the corrupt games the Republicans play, it doesn't surprise me that the Democrats crack. Sure they shouldn't, but I don't think they should be written about as if they and the Republicans were playing on an equal playing field, and the Republicans are masters of anything but corruption and deceit. That's just silly.

Sounds like Gibson didn't follow up and ask her about her on record characterization of Clinton as being a whiner during the primaries.

I wouldn't say "skewered." The town hall stuff was b.s. I wish somebody had done their research on Sarah Palin and her earmarks so when McCain lied about that and governorship, they could have called him on it.

this article has been thoroughly debunked on a highly respected site, Nate Silver's 538.com. It does not reflect well on Salon that this got through the editorial process and is now your main story.