Thanks for showing what a true conservative is, Matt. One who makes up straw man arguments, one who doesn't understand what the discussion is about, and one who is unable to get past petty put downs. Matt, what do you have to say about Salon giving you this Forum? I haven't seen Joe Wilson invited on RedState lately. Enjoy your time with the clueless conservatives, you deserve each other.

I can't wait to see your next article on how George W. Bush is misunderstood because people unreasonably think he's an incompetent coward.

Really, this article misfired on all levels. False premesis, major omissions (how about hearing from his physically and psychologically abused mistress), and useless facts like "Nearly twice as many blacks thought Bonds was treated unfairly" So what? Blacks were more than 3 times as likely as whites to think OJ was innocent. With no context, it's a useless, stupid stat showing a sloppy, unthinking reporter.

This is an embarrassment to journalism and Salon and a slap in the face to your readers. I've been reading Salon since its inception, and outside of 98% of Camille Paglia's drivel, this is the worst Salon has published.

If George W Bush was a female intellectual, he would be Camille Paglia, certain of his opinions and wrong on most every one.

At least Salon has Glenn Greenwald, so this site isn't yet a complete waste of my time.

Amy Winehouse is a great artist. She not only sings like few others, but she writes most of her songs, a number of which on her latest album will be listened to long after I, and James Hannahan are long gone..

This stupid speculation about about her bona fides and motivations by someone who apparently has never met her and especially never been on a bender with her is idiotic.

If she dies young, I'll be pissed that another talent couln't give us years more of her gifts. But unlike Mr. Hannaham, I won't demean her by wondering if it was all a PR stunt gone awry. I look forward to his next article on Jimmy Hendrix "PR Stunt Cause of Death, Vomit not Real, Possibly not Black "

brave anonymous?

Edwards supporters like myself can only imagine where Edwards would be in the polls if traditional media did not completely ignore, or simply footnote the Edwards campaign while flashing their highbeams on the brotha and the chick.

Or, I thought it might be like (MS)(C)NBC, who has all but barred mention of Edwards on their TV stations, I had assumed because of his anti-corporate message.

But not even a mention by Conason?

Please explain. Not even a footnote mention?

Think about it. If John Edwards was the front runner now, race would not be an issue in the ugly way it is now being used. Sex would also not be an issue.

Oh yeah, and Edwards is also the most progressive in his policies and continually moves Hillary and Obama leftward after their focus groups tell them they like Edwards' policies.

Why not just elect Edwards?

His electability versus Republicans is very high.

And, he's against nuclear energy, understanding that it is not clean energy and a security risk.

This is all happening because Roger Clemens is black.

If he was a honky, nobody would care that he was shooting up and breaking all of those records.

Right, Joan.

Have you been going to the Rupert Murdoch/Mark Penn school of journalism, Joan? First, make up a negative sounding headline, then the article includes enough innuendo to weigh on people's minds while not proving the provocative title true.

The Washington Post had to famously apologize for such an article on Obama regarding his religion. When will you issue your apology?

Joan, I am really sick of your hard-on for Hillary turning you into an illogical imbecile. As a result, you either need to stop commenting on Hillary, or Obama, or take a vacation until things are decided between them. You are not the only Democrat who needs to do this. Bill Clinton and James Carville could join you. Wouldn't that be fun?

And I am not a an Obamaite either. I just hate the lying, deceiving, false premise filled, Rovian campaign that Hillary has run. It is not Democratic (in the party sense).

And when you write this junk about Wright based on the same false premise, illogical attacks, they make you look small. And I don't like it. And it's been going on a long time by Hillary supporters (and don't even try to argue this point Hillary People. Obama isn't as bad. You're wrong).

I say this to all white women: There will be another white woman soon who will be a better person to stand behind than Hillary. Someone who when you make arguments of support, they won't have to be filled with false premises. So, think of the nation and the party on this one and let it go for now.

And her name is Joan Walsh! LOL

But seriously Glenn, have you read Joan's latest, on the Reverend Wright? It has generated 500+ letters so far, 90% excoriating Joan for two things: Continuing the media driven view of Wright as dangerous to Obama and seeing things only from the white, not the Wright perspective, as well as simply continuing this discussion hoping that it will bring Obama down (and not understanding why it doesn't, and angry about that).

Also, her insane Pro-Hillary partisanship, and thus lack of objectivity apparent in her writing, degrades Salon editorially, and Joan personally.

You need to discuss this terror to a truthful media! Plus shitting where your paycheck comes from would be uber cool, since the inability (personal or corporate) to do that plays a part in why so many journalists suck, and I would imagine something you've commented on before.