Thanks, Pyrian. Eric Boehlert, formerly of Salon, now with Media Matters, probably did more than anyone but Bob Somerby to refute media myths, meanness and lies about Al Gore. You can use Salon search to find a column in which I was very critical of Maureen Dowd. I've repeatedly criticized Chris Matthews's sexism (he likes not just Irish Dems like Biden but manly men like Jim Webb!), although I've also said -- and Somerby disagrees with me, I know -- that he was a lone voice of skepticism among his ilk during the run up to war with Iraq. I don't deny the media played a role in Gore's undoing -- in the "Swooning" post I noted that the New York Times piece I referenced was a preview of the kind of coverage Candidate Gore would likely receive, with its focus on his weight and his "contradictions." Ahem. However, I believe that Gore hurt himself in 2000 by running a campaign that was far less inspiring than he is, personally and politically. I believe that because I watched it with my own eyes, not because I'm a Beltway insider out here in San Francisco. Somerby and others can disagree with me, but it's silly to claim I'm either hostile to Gore of part of the MSM clique of Gore haters because I do.

Monica, I have to disagree when it comes to Salon. We did our job -- in 1998, 2000, 2004 and today. You can disagree with individual stories and individual writers but as an institution, we reported fairly on Gore's campaign and candidacy. I don't think of a candidate as a product; the way he or she communicates is definitely part of the way I think he or she should be judged as a leader.

David, thanks for the nice words about my past work, but I've blasted MSM pundits like Dowd and Matthews plenty of times, although probably not Frank Rich, who is one of my favorites.

Zaynab, you may be right. I'm just happy he's calling me "Joan" and not "Ms. Walsh" any longer. But both things can be true -- certainly he shouts me down when he thinks I'm wrong, so I took his saying "You've made your point" as a sign that he didn't have anything to shout at me.

And Joe, come on, other than the "time of year" this is no different? Other presidents replaced the USAs at the start of their term; only 5 of 486 have been replaced the way these eight have by Bush. You can do better than that.

Lev, read the post again: I was spoofing the media's obsession with Gore's weight, not poking fun myself.

Keith, we could debate the Gore campaign all day, and I don't think there's an objective "right" position. Plenty of people in this thread have pointed to their own problems with how Gore ran. But in no particular order (hey, it's a Saturday!) here goes: Distancing himself from Clinton meant he couldn't really run on the good things Clinton did, especially the strong economy; picking Holy Joe was a disaster; the Carter Eskew/Donna Brazile/Bob Shrum team really didn't work; Gore lurched back and forth between being a populist and being a good corporate Dem manager; he never seemed to have the courage to run on global warming and the environment, where he's been a true leader, even a prophet; there really wasn't a coherent campaign message, and sure you can blame the MSM for their focus on bogus storylines -- he's a liar, a serial exaggerator, he sighed during the debates; earthtones! -- but that wasn't the only problem, or (in my opinion) the main problem. Mikey, you list several factors, and nobody knows which one made the biggest difference. In a race that close, they all mattered. Little Brother, I have several friends who voted for Nader and I had a hard time forgiving them, but as I look back at these seven years, and try to look ahead, these circular firing squad kinds of debates -- you're the reason Gore lost! No, you are! -- seem like part of the big overall problem, not part of the solution.

And that's my issue with Bob Somerby -- if I'm worth a long angry column, that's really too bad. And also: Now that I know he's been inaccurate about and unfair to me, I'll have a hard time believing what he says about other media people.

Locutus, I appreciate your passion for Salon and agree with many of your posts. I deleted your most recent post here because while I'm moderating these threads very lightly (and for now avoiding Editor's Choice picks because I'm not sure how best to make them on my own blog, quite honestly), I will delete ad hominem attacks, including those that wish their subjects get cancer. If you want to come back in and make many of the same critical points, please do.