From the above-posted link:

- If you scream "Obama's not being tough enough on McCain" that reinforces GOP messages that he can't stand up for America or won't be tough enough on terrorism or Al Qaeda or Putin or whomever. Please consider, before clicking "publish diary" or "publish comment" what your words look like if the names are changed from Obama's rivals to America's perceived rivals.

- If you compare Obama to Kerry or Dukakis or say that "this is just 2004 all over again" you are essentially reinforcing GOP messages that Obama's a wimp, not tough enough for commander in chief. You also don't seem to "get" how fundamentally different a nominee he is from all previous ones in at least a couple generations.

- If you charge that Obama or his team are running an inept and incompetent campaign you're basically reinforcing GOP messages that he's too inexperienced and not competent to be president, that he's a bad manager. Is that what you believe? If not, then think before you speak aloud in a public space.

Now, if you really believe all those things, it's hard to believe that you wouldn't be supporting McCain, which explains why you generate suspicion, accusations of "troll" (not a word I like to use) and are beginning to be seen as akin to PUMAs.

and everyone else at Salon should read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/opinion/11collins.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"If the Obama brain trust seems relatively serene compared with its seething base, it’s because they live in the Electoral College world, where the presidential race only takes place in a third of the country. They don’t care about national polls ­ a concept as quaint as measuring one’s wealth by caribou pelts. They worry about the undecided vote in Minnesota and Ohio and run their TV ads (about the economy) in places like Colorado and Michigan and Florida. If you live in California or New York or Texas, you don’t really have much of a feel for their level of effort because as far as they’re concerned, you’ve already voted."

This election, like so much else, isn't actually taking place on Chris Matthews' show, it just SEEMS like it is beecause he talks so much and people keep putting cameras on him.

It's a little arcane I know to talk about non-sensational facts like what the election is really hinging on (it's not whether Obama "hits back" or any of the rest of it) but for anyone interested, there are actual journalists out there covering it. Very, very rarely.

with every letter so far.

Opus seems to find the old Bloom County humor on his way out. Ah well. The last line was just like the old days.

I also think the dandelion patch is where he'll end up. Or should. Funny, those were never my favorites like others found them, but at this point it seems the perfect place to remember Opus, staring up at the clouds, waxing philosophical.

Or just waxing. Ouch!

Polling data shows that Palin's draw was almost entirely in the South, among people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. And no, getting his far right base fired up isn't enough to give McCain a win.

The hysteria of the news media, egged on by the far right, is now echoed by oblivious panic like this on the Democratic side.

This buying every simple minded hysterical issue of the moment is not helping anyone except McCain.

We're coming off a convention bounce. It's ending, and it hasn't been as long as Obama's was. When it's over, things end up back to where they were before both conventions and yes, before Palin.

I swear this magazine is written by people who just read the worst most sensationalist nonsense and regurgitate it whole. It's amazing.

This may end up being a tight race but there's no telling until both convention bounces fade, and they always do, and these are. To spread all this nonsense based on inflated figures in the meantime is just idiotic. Keep it up Salon. Heckava job.

John McCain: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong"

Oh yeah?

In what respect, Charlie?

like no other. That one panel on Palin sums up and satirizes with perfect aim, unmatched.

Meanwhile, the attached Salon letters column fills up with the usual vile comments largely from right wingers, racists, PUMA trolls (or Republicans pretending to be) and all the rest.

It does seem an odd home for Tom. Just a bit of cartoon/audience disonance, to say the least.

"Here's what I see: an obviously ridiculous pretend cartoon"

Uhm, a "pretend cartoon"?

As opposed to the cartoons that are what, real?

Yikes, this place is scary.

Excuse me, I have to go back to the other world now, the one where people think that all cartoons are pretend. Here, I'm not so certain, in fact I'd venture a guess that some of these letters are written by cartoons.

and for months now I've heard mostly about what's wrong with Obama and "Obama just needs to..."(fill in the blank) and how inadequate his campaign has been and how he never, not once "fights back" and all the rest of it. And even this article, which actually seems to be somewhat complimentary about him but has headlines like "Obama is not the saint his supporters claim he is" (one half of a sentence, the second part left out, so as to make the most negative and of course sensational impact possible)---

So my question is, after loyally reading Salon for the last six months or so, why would I, a Salon reader, even dream of voting for this guy?

PS: I am, very definitely, voting for him. But then I read Salon fairly infrequently lately.