Joe ...

You are a talented wordsmith. You make your living at it. You have mastered the nuance of words ... to translate your ideas with hard facts, with a poetry of intonation, with a skillful voice. I don't doubt that you feel you have covered the Democratic primary with neutrality.

Nonetheless, your words seem to be timed and focused in ways that suggest you are either 1) incompetent and lazy ... by passing along unresearched talking points from negative research campaign memos on Obama, or 2) you are implicitly deciding to put forth ... with your great skillfulness and poetry ... ideas that would likely invoke questions about your subtle agenda. in the blogs this kind of behavior is known as "concern trolling" ... which is essentially planting a subtle fear in the mind of the reader by suggesting something about a candidate. Extreme examples of this against Obama were the Washington Post's piece on Obama being "a Muslim" ... which gave validity to the underground e-mail smear calling him a secret Islamic plant. This is your crime.

You claim that you pose legitimate inquires ... legitimate questions. You explain further by writing about Obama supporters: "A surprising number seem unable to tolerate so much as a skeptical word about Barack Obama." While this is possibly true for some ... it's deflecting and completely misleading. A legitimate question is something like: Is Obama's healthcare policy positive or negative. Here are reasons why, and reasons why don't. Someone says x, the other y. I've checked this, and x is correct. This is what reporters are supposed to do. Perhaps you do not wish to report or comment on facts, though. Perhaps you wish to mislead.

As an example, Conason writes in this New York Observer article, the one where he criticizes Mark Penn for being "dumb" to publish intel on Obama's kindergarden essays:

For many months, both Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards have been tossing out attack lines that they hoped would bring down Mrs. Clinton’s formidable numbers. Mr. Obama has not hesitated to use harsh language to question her character, her sincerity, her fitness to serve and her capacity to govern if elected. He has reserved his toughest rhetoric for the Democratic front-runner while suggesting that he will find common ground with the Republicans.

That may explain why Mr. Obama has won endorsements from a panoply of Republican operatives and spokespersons, including former White House political boss Karl Rove and David Brooks, the neoconservative voice on the New York Times Op-Ed page.

It's that word ... "endorsements" ... most people take that word to mean "official endorsement." Like what we read in the news now, "X Paper endorses McCain." So, your choiceful words seem to indicate a desire to sway favor, or elict fear or doubt that is unfounded ... a deception. This is not the same as applying journalistic scrutiny. For Obama, his appeal to those moderate Republicans and Independents is because of his message to increase government scrutiny and accountability. To increase it's transparency and openness. It is not because he has policies that are Republican. He is a very progressive Democrat, by his policies. So, unless you are incompetent or dense, to suggest that he is gaining support from the "enemies" ... to elicit a concern that he isn't who he says he is ... like being a Muslim ... is concern trolling, a smear, and most likely points to your agenda. And speaks volumes about the problem in American politics and reporting: it's all spin. You are part of the problem and should acknowledge this. Own up, just like Chris Matthews.

You seem to understand the common use of the word, "endorsement." You wrote, in defending yourself as unbiased, "If I ever made an endorsement (of Hilary Clinton), it wouldn't sound like that." So, it seems you know an endorsement is a thing, a kind of official certificate. Why the sneaky use of the word in your other article? You further dig your hole with:

I don't feel obliged to make any endorsements, and readers shouldn't bother to look for hidden meanings because there aren't any. Everyone is free to disagree and blast away in the letters, but please don't accuse me of giving anybody an easy ride, because I haven't.

Which one is it Joe, incompetence or agenda?

I dare you to make my last as a counter-point to Conason's self defense a starred, editor's choice. I don't attack Joe personally, I make valid points. I would be more convinced this website wasn't a complete sham if you elected to include that in your filtering device. Or are you too self-serving? Perhaps it's true that your claim is a projected one: perhaps it is you who is "unable to tolerate so much as a skeptical word."

Joan ... I'm not one of the Obama supporters who "can't handle criticism" or blindly follows the "Obama deity." I do favor that candidate, and as such I notice some inconsistancies with how you and this website operate in terms of "fairness." I collected data that shows how Joe Conason has had a decidedly anti-Obama/pro-Clinton agenda in a recent comment I made, posted below.

My long comment to Conason lays out an argument that could easily be applied to you as well. I wish you would directly address this. I do I wish you ill will. I question the sincerity of what I think this website is about, and I want to ask for your attention to it. Of course, I can just leave ... but I imagine others will follow.

My Conason critique:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/01/24/clinton_and_obama/permalink/9bdf7f5f4eec47a848f4172062c135e3.html

"I do I wish you ill will" should read "I do not wish you ill will."

i don't personally care about getting a star ... i just want the critique to be included in the salon.com filter called "editor's choice" ... sometimes people peruse the comments only there.