Hirshman goes on to congratulate both New York magazine's Amanda Fortini and Salon's Rebecca Traister for what she calls "courageous, conversation-altering essays about the rabid anti-feminism alienating even [Barack] Obama's own female supporters."

How was this "work" (wouldn't "writing" be more accurate/less pretentious?) in any way "courageous"? What danger did Traister or Fortini face? That people would dislike what they wrote? That people might disagree? Is facing this now a sign of courage?

Don't get what "conversation-altering" means, either. What what the conversation? How was is altered? Has the conversation continued in this new direction?

When the article ostensibly addressing both candidates was negative, the sole picture was of Obama (okay, Obama and two former losers). Now that the tone of an article, again ostensibly addressing both candidates, is positive, the sole photo is of Hillary. Beaming. Behind an American flag.

Um, if it's "not over" why is only one candidate shown? And shown as if beaming at being awarded a great prize?

No editorial slant in all this of course.

And if you believe that, you might swallow Bush's case for WMD. Like, you know, Hillary did.

They should be. As already pointed out, Obama hardly deviated from the high road by mentioning Hillary's weaknesses. Another, slanted, biased article. Embarrassing.

I realized this, I think, last night. She insisted from the start (ominiously, it turns out) "I'm in it to win it." I suspect if she looses today, she'll nonetheless remain in the race. And if she loses in North Carolina. Until the party actually says "the votes have been tallied, you lose," she's going to keep going. It will help to destroy the party, and give McCain a dangerious edge. But it should have been obvious to us weeks and months ago that Hillary will never be gracious, will never be a class act. Her ego and will to power will not allow it.

I'd like to be more optimistic than that, but expecting Hillary to show some tact would be like expected Salon to be even-handed. It would be so wonderful, but it ain't gonna happen.

It's really kinda overwhelming.

This isn't a delayed April Fools' joke, is it?

The votes go to Obama. He's won more caucuses, he's got more votes and the ten point victory Shapiro wants to laud is in fact a far smaller lead than she had earlier in the campaign. In other words: all signs point to a win for Obama, who remains in the lead for the Democratic nomination despite losing the race in this state. This isn't a gray area. It is not a question of a neck and neck race in which the real winner is hard to fathom. If the superdelagates give Hillary the win, they will not be following the majority's wishes, and they will be compromising the integrity of the party.

who still trails Obama in pledged delegates, mathematic possibility and endorsements by major musical acts

Notice how the crucial information is spun by that last dig, as if all this stuff is ephemeral, and doesn't really mean anything substatial for Obama.

She won by less than 10 points. She hasn't won the same number of votes, so she isn't in much of a position to win the nomination. It's a long shot for her, at best.

Notice, too, that any victory on Obama's part is always greeted by somber articles about the difficulty of the future. When Hillary wins, we get these bright, candy-colored snap shots and euphoric cries of her great achievement.

Salon is embarrassingly full of it.

ALG2008 may be speaking for Hillary supporters, but if so, he's doing it ironically. His post isn't meant to be taken straight.

They didn't ask you to sign the petition because they know you support Hillary.

Really, when you are unaware of the message you're sending out (you feign surprise on this point) and systematically alienate a core group of your readership, you're in no place to criticize a political candidate for failure to connect with the people.

In all your criticisms, you fail to note the amount of working class people Obama has picked up, significantly higher than was expected, or the malignent nature of the Hillary's attacks. Of course, when he mentions these, you're quick to complain about his "going negative."

Your editorial essentially says, "he lives in dreamland, she deals with issues." That's what you're writing. And it's called and endorsement. If you don't realize that, or don't mean to convey that, you should seriously consider another line of work. At least until the primary elections are over.

How can Salon still rally around Hillary when her husband set back gay rights for over a decade with "don't ask, don't tell"? He, and she, conisistently court the gay community and then abandon our issues once the votes are in.

How can Koppelman say "I can see arguing that Obama may be better on the issue than previous Democratic candidates" and yet still title this article "Can Obama Really Stand Up for the Gay Community?" As opposed to, say, "Is the Democratic Party Really Standing Up for the Gay Coummunity?"

Koppleman really gives it away with that sentence. He admits Obama is better on the issues than anyone else running. Yet he still slams the candidate.

Par for the course for Salon.

is that Hillary isn't the people's choice but it doesn't matter because people in the majority wanting a candidate is not what this election is about. It's about three states. In three states what the majority thinks is important. The minority is the majority. That's how democracy works. Or government by representation. Because those three states represent, and the other states don't do that. So they don't matter. And the majority of Democrats asking that their party nominate the candidate they want doesn't matter. Because that's not what this is all about.

I just wanted to get some clarification.