Um... Rufus: you're not really helping either. Maybe take a little time out, buddy.

...And as for you, Mrs. Walsh. It is time to unite the party. And a good way to do that would be to not start your editorials by dividing the universe into Clinton-haters and non-Clinton-haters. I don't hate Hillary. But I do like Obama way better. And I've been offended, on principle, for a long time, by your biased coverage. Not the media's, not Salon's, not the New York Times; just your one blog -- whose intriguing captions "A New Low!" "Will Racism Hurt Obama!" -- I get to read every time that I come to Salon in order to read other things. As I and many many many other people said many months ago -- just say that you're for Hillary, for chrissake. There's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with this whole situation here.

...with JStewrt. And I'm gonna stop leaving comments now. But I could care less if Joan supports Hillary. It's the thin scrim of faux-unbiasedness that drives me crazy. The facade of, "Oh, well I'm just a neutral observer." Stop it. Just be in the tank for you candidate. There can be plenty of honor and dignity in that.

...for the "Hardball" clip, Xrandadu. I don't have cable.

Like I said before, I don't hate Hillary, and I don't feel comfortable attacking her or her supports. But for all you people threatening to stay home on election day if your candidate doesn't win (be it Obama or Hillary or whoever)... please go f#ck yourselves, then. Stay home and have your little hissy-fit. The Democratic party may need you, but I don't want to be associated with you.

...Oh, let me do this one. I can, personally, because it's intellectually dishonest to write a supposedly unbiased column while actually being fairly incredibly partisan in support of one candidate. Doesn't that bother you at all? And like I said many many times (and like so many others have said), if Joan would just say "Hey, I support Hillary," then we'd have nothing to complain about.

But I know why she won't do that. Because she's the Editor-in-Chief, and hence represents Salon, and Salon is supposed to be non-partisan. Hence the never-ending parade of "unbiased" biased editorials, where we get stuff like, "now, granted, Obama has run a good campaign..." followed by six paragraphs of what Obama has done wrong this week... in the World According to Joan. Which this week apparently constitutes somehow not stopping his supporters from being offended by Hillary's comments, I guess. Quick, Barack, stop all the millions of your supporters from being offended! To the Obama-mobile! Because you're responsible for all that. And because Hillary's supporters would never be offended if the situation was reversed...

...You should be angry, but not at Clinton. Be angry at the people who chose to manipulate her words to imply that such a horrible thing could happen, or that she believed it could happen. They did it just to get headlines and to manipulate your emotions, to make you hate Clinton. They used your fear to control you. That is hateful.

Wow, Jed. Condescend much? I believe that Obama could easily be assasinated. Many black leaders, and other leaders, have been. Not because of Hillary's words, but because that is something that happens in America. And it's not really pleasant to be reminded of it, even if it is for the higher cause of Hillary Clinton explaining for the 10,000th time why she should stay in the race. Tone-deaf, for sure.

As for her words being manipulated, I've only ever heard her original quote, repeated verbatim. Maybe you can point to some example of the Obama campaign changing her words around?

Tell me: if Obama was behind, and suggesting reasons why he should stay in the race, and out of all the thousands of possible reasons, he chose... RFK's assasination... you're telling me you wouldn't be offended for Hillary's sake.

I don't see this one as being so partisan. It was kind of an offensive thing to say.

Gawd, Joan, you're such a sh*tty writer and a sh*tty rational thinker. I mean, my gawd.

My gawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwd...

How long? For how long most we sing this song?

Everytime I see one of your posts, I like, "No way will it be annoying this time." And then it is! With the exception of your last-post, which was thankfully Hillary-free.

But yeah, Hillary's RFK remarks. Totally outrageous! And so, so Obama's fault!

Or not. Except you're made the mistake that every Hillary supporter seems to be making these days. Instead of criticizing, say, Obama the candidate himself, you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against his supporters and against the media. Oh, that big evil media! That you're a part of! I work for the media, like you do, Joan, and as you probably must realize, at least at some level, there is no "media conspiracy" about... anything. The media is made up of people, like you and me, who are tired and who drink too much Starbucks. We don't all know each other and we don't all hang out in some big evil cave somewhere, plotting our evil schemes... We're not well-paid enough or organized enough to create some sort of conspiracy.

But keep circling those wagons, Joan. That's been working out for you well so far. And those 90% of people who leave messages disagreeing with are wrong, clearly!

You'll never get it, will you?

We are a nation of the dumb. It sucks, truly.