I used to get frustrated about these sorts of blog posts from Joan. Now, instead of despair, I am trying to find humor in what is otherwise an inexplicable change of direction.

Anyone else?

In keeping with the approach of naming any perceived Obama gaffe, maybe his debate performance should be called "Peevish-gate?"

I'm still thinking that you ought to label this one "PeevishGate."

After Bittergate, and FlagPinGate, this is definitely the one that's going to bring him down!

I mean, come on, the flag pin issue is YOOOOOGE!!!!

Patriotism, apple pie, Fourth of July --- it's the deal breaker!

FlagPinGate may just do what Bittergate, Rezkogate, and Gutterballgate couldn't!!!

I'm so over the whole Bittergate thing.

Because come on, the flag pin issue -- it's YOOOOOGE!!!!

FlagPinGate -- you got patriotism, apple pie, Fourth of July, all wrapped up in one little lapel pin --- it's the deal breaker!

FlagPinGate may just do what Bittergate, Rezkogate, and Gutterballgate couldn't!!!

You are SO right, Glenn. Not a single one of those Sunday news shows mentioned that they are being fed government propaganda like foie gras geese!

And they will refuse to comment on this story and will black it out.

Typical. And you're right. It does say a lot about what they really are and what they really do.

At the same time, maybe you can help us figure something out.

How is it that Salon keeps publishing one thing after the next, assuming as "fact", for example, the idea that "Bittergate" is a a big debacle for Obama, or that "everyone" believes Obama's "peevish" performance at the debate (shall we call it "Peevish-gate?!") was a problem for him, and so on -- and yet you never mention it.

Your own colleagues, and your editor, seem like kids at the candy shop as they come up with every day's new offerings of Clinton campaign talking points, Republican spin, gaffe-based gotcha blog posts-- the VERY things you regularly expose, and rail about in your column when they take place at other media outlets.

And yet you fail to comment...

Help us understand.

Why is it abhorrent when other media outlets twist, bend and manipulate the issues to manufacture stories and controversy, but the same behavior is both invisible and unmentionable when it happens in your own venue, with your own Salon colleagues?

Please help us understand what this says about you and what you really are and what you really do.

I adore Glenn Greenwald. Truly I do. I think he speaks the truth, in a time when so few do.

But I am, admittedly puzzled.

He is so indefatigable at ferreting out the hypocrisy, bias, and general BS at other media outlets. He goes after the sacred cows, he seems to know no fear. He does battle with anyone who deserves it -- and he is brave.

But yet, he stands by, quietly, and with no comment, as his colleagues perpetrate the same bloggish atrocities he abhors elsewhere.

This is what puzzles me.

As Max Eastman wrote: “Humor is the instinct for taking pain playfully.”

Glenn is Salon's pain-free oasis. But his oasis is, as our pal Chomsky would say, a "comforting illusion," given what else is going on elsewhere at the site.

So, it's time to play!

You know, there's a theory out there that Hillary knows she can't win. But she doesn't want Obama to win, so she stays in the race, hammers away to try to destroy his credibility and candidacy, hopes for a McCain win. That way, she can come back in 2012 and try again.

So at least we can understand the motivation -- even if that motivation is megalomaniacal self-aggrandizement and power-grabbing -- behind why Hillary seems hell-bent on destructing the Democratic party, and ensuring a Republican victory.

So what's Salon's excuse?

I bet I know... tee hee...

Who wouldn't love Bill Clinton?

He's so wry and self-deprecating. An intellectual Everyman. AND, so politically astute! So dedicated to his wife's success! So forgiving! So understanding of the changing nature of politics!

A true political genius!!

And the man who gives new meaning to Andre Gide's statement:

“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity”

I understand that Glenn is a contributor -- but he is on the Salon payroll.

And given that he is drawing a paycheck from Salon, and Joan Walsh is the editor, he works under her editorial direction -- however she exercises it.

I'm not suggesting, actually, that there is much in the way of editorial oversight of Glenn's work or that they tell him what to write. His writing and analysis is broad-minded and insightful -- it doesn't show any evidence of having been manhandled by Joan. If they were telling him what to write, we'd be getting paean after paean to Hillary Clinton.

But I remain puzzled, and I guess I have to spell it out clearly.

How can Glenn Greenwald continue to draw a paycheck from Salon and work under the editorial direction of Joan Walsh, while at the same time, pointing out things like media outlets blindling accepting a bunch of corrupted generals as sources, the inanity of things like Bittergate, "gotcha making a gaffe" media coverage?

How can he NOT acknowledge that these same things he points out as absurd and despicable are going on right here at Salon, every day, in other columns?

As I've said before, I adore Glenn Greenwald. I think he's a wonderful writer, a brave crusader, and smart thinker.

I realize that in some ways, he has his own little world/universe here, and that many Glenn fans never even bother to look at the rest of Salon (for increasingly good reason.)

But as an original Salon subscriber and fan, who came to Glenn through Salon, I remain puzzled. How does Glenn reconcile his scathing (and quite on-target) media critiques with the fact that Salon is very often guilty of the things he is criticizing.