How about "fact-checking" the RFK part of Hillary's comment (or at least putting it in some context)?

Lyndon Johnson didn't announce that he wasn't going to seek re-election until March 31, 1968. RFK wasn't the only one actively campaigning just 2 short months after LBJ's decision ... ALL of the Dem candidates were actively campaigning. Why use RFK as your example, Hillary?

Perhaps even more relevant, back in 1968 only 13 states held Democratic primaries. The rest of the states' delegates were controlled by each state's party leaders and oftentimes those delegates didn't "commit" to a candidate until the actual convention. (A convention that didn't take place until late August in 1968, by the way.) A clear case of apples to oranges so why even use 1968 as your example, Hillary?

Those who insist on giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt on this one would do well to ask themselves why someone as well-versed in political history as HRC would include Bobby Kennedy (and his assassination) as a reason for her to continue campaigning when her campaign is in no way comparable to his, nor is the current primary process in any way comparable to what it was back in 1968.

Unless or until somebody asks her to explain how her staying in the race is in any way analagous to RFK staying in the race and she actually comes up with a plausible comparison, I'm going to continue to think that her remark was calculated to send a chill up the spine of every Obama supporter

"I'm sorry, but the action of a lone congressman who's widely considered something of a laughingstock, especially when it's clear that action will never come to anything, just isn't especially newsworthy."

Widely considered a laughingstock? Rep. Kucinich was re-elected in November despite a Republican opponent who was backed by millions of big-business Cleveland bucks. I guess the people he represents don't think he's a laughingstock nor do the people who actually take the time and trouble to read some of his very articulate and eloquent speeches or check his voting record.

I guess in the "new" War Room newsworthy is now just a rehash of news you can get elsewhere or another of Koppelman's lame videos.

Steve Benen would have never gone down this route. I joined Salon when it was a blog befitting a liberal slant. With its' occasional Elephanman and Moderationinall closet neocons sprinkled in for amusement. Where were you hired away from, Fox Noise?

Time to get a new site. Benen's Carpetbaggersreport.com is free and speaks truth to power. Convince me to ante up my $45 once again...

And Tim Grieve sure as hell wouldn't be writing the kind of self-important drivel that's becoming a hallmark here at Salon (Glenn Greenwald excepted, of course). I've already made it clear to the editors that I'll not be renewing my premium subscription when it finally expires and I join you in recommending thecarpetbaggerreport.com (singular, not plural). thehill.com and smirkingchimp.com are also worth a look (and they're free too).

wrote:

Thanks for the tip!

Can someone specify where the "Auto Renew" button can be found? I checked my account page and don't see it...

Way at the bottom of the "Edit Your Account" page are four yes or no "Account Preferences".

Say NO to the 2nd one. ( "Automatically renew my membership. (Keeping this set to 'yes' helps Salon remain independent. )"

I don't think it's something you could have un-clicked -- all of the preferences are yes or no things that you could say "yes" to for a while and then say "no" to later (e.g., "I would like to receive the daily Salon newsletter.") At the top of my account page I have a message that says "Your account will expire in 493 days". (Serves me right for doing a 2-year renewal ... on a brighter note, I said NO to automatic renewal months ago). Do you have a similar message about when your account will expire? Of course, it occurs to me that I'm getting the "expire" message because I'm NOT automatically renewing. In any event, I think it's very sad that the $29/year people are getting short shrift. (Of course, before your post I didn't know that there were $29/year people !! :-)

I suggest you read some of the 168 comments posted in response to Alex Koppelman's Kucinich blog, the one where he states:

Some liberals in the blogosphere are complaining about the dearth of coverage of Kucinich's resolution. I have to disagree -- as I've pointed out before, when discussing complaints of liberal bias from the right, the media is in the business of covering news. This barely qualifies; if it deserves mention in the mainstream media at all, it certainly doesn't deserve to be accorded the status of something big and breaking. I'm sorry, but the action of a lone congressman who's widely considered something of a laughingstock, especially when it's clear that action will never come to anything, just isn't especially newsworthy. (I cover it here mostly just because I know Salon readers care, and partially because I wanted to make that point.)

It seems to me that the War Room (and perhaps salon.com itself) is sinking every bit as fast as the Titanic did.