Where even to start in criticizing this grotesquely one-sided screed of Hillary propaganda, the gist of which is "if the rules were different than they are, Hillary would be winning"?

Unless Salon decides to headline a similarly one-sided Obama tract, I think we should all understand that Salon is a pro-Hillary outlet which has no interest in objectivity.

Just to quote one ridiculous passage which pretty much exemplifies the whole piece:

Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000..

Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida."

You mean, the Obama camp doesn't want to count the votes in contests that both candidates and many voters understood wouldn't count beforehand, in states neither candidate even campaigned in? Wow, imagine the nerve of the Obama people for thinking the rules shouldn't be changed in the middle of the game to favor their opponent. Obviously Obama is just like George Bush.

I find this article unworthy of a headline spot in Salon. It simply makes no attempt whatsoever at fair-mindedness, and is full of all sorts of unsubstantiated slurs about the Obama camp's supposed role in suppressing re-votes in Michigan and florida. I hope Salon realizes that crap like this hurts the overwhelmingly likely Democratic nominee's chances this Fall.

If you can point me to a similarly propagandistic screed in favor of Obama published on Salon, I'd gladly concede your point. I don't think it exists.

My contention is that Salon isn't much of a ref at all. Ms. Walsh is nakedly pro-Clinton in her own writings, as she's entitled to be, but that seems to have tainted her editorial choices as well.

In addition to its one-sidedness, I just don't believe this essay rises to the level of quality to which Salon should aspire. It contains too many slurs and unsubstantiated claims.

If people don't want to vote for you, no matter what their reasons, you're not a good politician in the context in which you're running. One can cry "unfair" and play the victim card, but that's just another political play in order to garner more support.

Clinton and her camp have very clearly insinuated on occasion that Barack Obama can't win because the country isn't ready for a black person. Obviously Wolfson, Penn, Clinton, Williams and company are at peace with the sort of realpolitik that accepts that heaven hasn't been achieved on earth and that therefore we shouldn't pretend that it has in the way we pursue political office. In fact, their most persistent caricature of Obama and his supporters references his and their supposed "naivete" -- as contrasted with Clinton's savvy and scarring experience.

What's not obvious is that Clinton's supporters have come to the same realization. Crying "unfair" in politics is sort of like complaining that you were tackled too hard in football. Unfairness is integral to the game. People just don't play nice when it comes to power.

Perhaps being a woman running for president is a greater disadvantage than an advantage, all other things being equal. (My suspicion is that, in the Democratic party, where a solid majority of voters are women, that it's more of an advantage than a disadvantage. I might be wrong.) Whatever the case, claiming "unfair" misses the point, which is to win votes not sympathy, and certainly contradicts Clinton's claims to being the more worldly candidate.

that Camille Paglia is on the payroll.

Yes, she's terribly biased once she makes up her mind. But she expresses herself with such wit, insight, panache, dexterity. Just the opposite, in fact, of the political hackery of Sean Wilentz.

The presence of the unique and wonderful talents of Paglia, Havrilesky, Tennis, and Kaufmann is why I'll continue to be a Salon "concern troll" whenever Salon chooses to publish hacky dreck such as Wilentz's most recent piece of propaganda.

because it's not a rhetoric bomb thrown into a race that seemed to be just starting to cool down. It's whole tone is much cooler and assuring than that -- sort of like Obama himself, go figure.

But it is a needed balance to the Wilentz propaganda, like a Colmes to a more charismatic but thuggish Hannity. Thank you Salon.

Is one of those lies about Obama that have been making the rounds in emails over the last year, along with his being a Muslim, etc...

Shapiro should have noted that it is false before or after he quoted the woman repeating it. Isn't that Journalism 101, not to give implicit credence to falsehoods?

FNL may have gotten some of the broad strokes wrong last season, but it's still the best show on network TV at the level of fine detail. For instance, the whole body-dumped-in-river plot was misguided, but that didn't make the scenes between Landry and his dad any less true-to-life or heart wrenching.

I've found that once a show has made me care about its characters, I tend to cut it some slack on story-line. Personally, I'll follow Landry, Riggins, Tyra, Buddy, Matt, Lyla whatever places the writers want to take me, even the unrealistic ones (i.e., Matt's affair with the Mexican nanny; Landry dumping a body in the river.) I just love that little show and everybody on it. It's earned it.

By the way, I don't think Landry is any less charismatic than, say, Matt. Less pretty, but equally interesting. That show was in drastic need of a main character with a little homeliness anyway.