I'm afraid Mr. Scherer misses this completely. As a point ... he writes, "a regular share of the questions asked in these events to come from people planted in the audience -- puppets, stooges or well-meaning volunteers." The problem is broader than this specific example, but grouping "well-meaning volunteers" with "puppets, stooges" seems very off to me. "Well-meaning" folks likely would be the sort that ask the softball lob questions. They aren't, I imagine, scripted or prompted to follow direction, uber allis. The generalizations and forced comparisons result in Scherer's complete misunderstanding of Clinton's tragic flaw. Her campaign and persona are so rigid, scripted, and defensive that this break in the armor ... while obsessively guarded against ... is truly indicative of what her presidency would look like. GW Bush is an imbecile compared to her ... but do I really want a brilliant (even mild) paranoid and grand inspirer of vitriol leading this country? Better leaders, who are women, will emerge for us to embrace. I welcome this. I grant you that being Bill Clinton's wife is an affair (pun intended) that would make just about anyone defensive. HRC may be a savvy politician ... but her practice of side-stepping and of overt deception (and one that is shared, at least, with Giulliani ... and possibly Romney) is repugnant, and I cannot fathom how any discerning liberal could vote for her.

i dunno. i just find this premise boring.

a "friend of a friend" is as documentarian and was in iraq getting footage. this footage & the story were, apparently, not going to reflect positively on the administration. well, all this filmmaker's footage was stolen from his car when he arrived back in the states. he got a phone call from an unlisted number, and someone said "if you want your film back come to the corner of ..." blah blah blah. he came, a man dressed as a homeless person approached and said "you're not getting your film back. here is some money. now forget about all this. you have no idea what you are up against." of course, i cannot confirm this truth of this story ... but it makes sense to me given glenn's post. this stuff is disturbing. soon google and yahoo will be reporting u.s. citizens for thoughtcrimes.

This post is content-less tripe. I get very weary of a theme I see here at Salon ... poster states some provocative opinion (I presume with the goal to "get people thinking" or more likely to drive commentary or site traffic) ... and then we all rush to say "bullshit" or "hell yes." Joan, you have become a talking head ... and I fear that you are unable to see how your criticism of the mainstream media is, in part, a projection. I would welcome from the comment section an answer to this question: Where can one find intelligent, balanced analysis of current events? I don't want this reporting to be subverted by political agenda or corporate influence. I hoped to find this here ... but so much of the "opinion" ... or worse ... the "reporting" (like the coverage of the debates) is Jerry Springer with a slightly higher IQ. Meaning: it's all about the fights, and there is nearly nothing of substance. You are blowing it, Joan. I don't plan to renew my subscription. I will still read Glenn Greenwald ... who (aside from occasional decent posts from Tim Grieve in War room) is the only worthwhile political read around here. I expect so much more.

I've seen (what looks like) slightly psychotic postings to Joan demanding that she address blah blah blah, or respond to such and such. I have no desire to be in that group. But, I felt like I made some valid points in my last post about the flimsy nature of this post (and other political posts), and it seemed to be echoed by others. Why, then, is there seemingly such a desire by Joan to steer folks back to the ???? point ???? she made in her post? Isn't it good business sense to focus on customer desire and expectations and address them, overtly? I continue to be disappointed.

Glenn,

Why do you assume the Post article on Obama is a "right-wing" smear ... with "GOP operatives"? It strikes me that the Clinton camp could benefit the most from this tactic. Unless you (perhaps rightly) consider her to be "right-wing"?

because I like the occasionaly Dr. Phil looniness. The segment was on children who are "sneaking snacks and treats" from their kitchens. Parents asked, desparately, "what do we do?" Phil's response was an important one: they can sneak or steal foods that aren't there.

I'm not on Facebook ... maybe it is an essential tool ... for ... social networking??? I think the the comments about privacy and such and legit ... but ultimately, one can effectively opt out by either never signing up, or by deleting one's profile.

so ... ah ... where are those things happening? i don't think your comparison is valid. it's true, civil liberties are at risk ... but Facebook is being overt and upfront (seemingly) about how their system works and how they intend to make money off of you (the membership). plus, it's never been clear to me what a social networking site actually provides ... other than an elaborate e-mail and/or calendaring system. so, if you don't want yourself marketed to, don't join or quit. that will send a strong message to companies invading privacy that there isn't any money to be made in it. right now people think it's worth billions.