This blog post could just as easily have been titled "Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Clinton," but of course, it isn't, because it's written by Joan Walsh.

One has to wonder... Joan has identified that those who don't have doubts about Hillary are "Hillary-shills" -- does she realize that she herself is one?

Make no mistake, Salonistas. This is Joan's "Bronx Cheer" to all the reader letters from her previous blog post, in which those of us who are not among the Hillary shills have called her on the carpet for a repeated pattern of obvious pandering concern-troll and passive-aggressive blog posts attacking Obama and making excuses for Hillary and her campaign's egregious errors and inexplicably poor judgment.

We can see what Joan is doing. She panders...we call her on it, and her resposne is to give us more pandering, more cherry-picking of her favorite anti-Obama articles. By pointing to these sorts of articles, she is behaving exactly like her chosen candidate is -- she's finding a surrogate to make her ugly arguments for her, so she can claim to be above the fray.

In the end, the blog post we WANT to see is "Why Joan Walsh Hasn't Endorsed Clinton."

Because she has done so in deed, every step of the way.

@dragonlileth -- Why Joan Hasn't Been Fired

Joan Walsh hasn't been fired, and probably won't, because we are all here. We're irritated, we're fed up with Joan Walsh's pandering, concern trolling and passive-aggressive anti-Obama apologias for Hillary, but we're here. She's generating controversy, and that means page views, and every page view, and every outraged reader response, generate ad clicks, and kaching, kaching, these mean money in the pockets of the people who *could* fire Joan Walsh.

And who is to say that among the Board of Directors for Salon aren't, just like Joan (and Hillary herself), Hillary apologists, anti-Obama-ites, nostalgic old Baby Boomers, chronic "misrememberers," or frustrated and bitter middle-aged women.

Re: Edwards and the Truth of the New York Piece

I'm an Obama supporter, and, contrary to some of the posters here, that does not mean I'm "shitting on" Edwards over this endorsement issue. He's under no obligation to endorse anyone. But this New York story, and Joan's breathless excitement over it, are disingenuous. We can't presume to know why Edwards has or hasn't endorsed either candidate -- nor can the author of the story Joan has pointed to, nor can Joan, for that matter. Unless I see Edwards get up and say, publicly, exactly why he won't endorse either candidate, it's all speculation. I like John Edwards, and I think he and his wife are decent, admirable people. I don't think any of us are in a position to know if this is about his ego, or his hubris, or his personal ambition, or Obama's interactions with him, or Elizabeth's dislike for Hillary, etc. etc. This is all some sort of soap opera speculation, and it's exactly the sort of non-issue that aims to tarnish Obama that Joan Walsh loves to focus on, instead of the real issues of importance to the campaign.

re: Haters...and "If my Dem doesn't get in, I'm Voting McCain"sters

I'm also perplexed at all the hate and "haters." the discussion of Obamaniacs and Hillbots and such. How can anyone truly "hate" a candidate of your own party? What sort of mental health problems and warped projection goes into "hating" Hillary or Obama? I'll admit I am an Obama supporter, since the beginning, and sadly, while in the early days of the campaign, I had great respect for Hillary, I've lost that respect. And I make no secret of the fact that I have lost respect for Joan Walsh as well, given her penchant for Hillary pandering while claiming it's impartial coverage. But HATE? I reserve that for things that are truly evil, and that warrant such an intense reaction.

As for the "haters" who threaten temper tantrums, I will STILL vote for Hillary, if she is, miraculously, the nominee, because even on her worst day, Hillary STILL at least in concept stands for much more of the things I believe in, while John McCain and the Republicans stand for everything I don't agree with. I can't imagine how anyone could cast a McCain vote as a "protest" against the winning Democratic candidate, whether Barack or Hillary. That sort of black/white, either/or thinking is childish, anti-Democratic, and anti-American. (And to anyone who ponders voting for McCain if your chosen Dem doesn't get the nomination, we don't want to hear you whining around here at Salon if McCain gets elected thanks to you, and starts launching attacks in Iran, or appoints more conservatives to the Supreme Court or the regular courts, and continues the Bush tradition of rolling back our constitutional and civil rights.)