Madden and Shapiro write:

There is a common assumption, particularly among passionate supporters of front-runner Barack Obama, that the unelected superdelegates to the Democratic Convention are waiting for an excuse to defy the wishes of rank-and-file voters and install Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

Where'd you come up with this "common assumption" fellas? I'm a passionate supporter of Obama, and I'm not assuming that the superdelegates are ready to break for Hillary.

I'm assuming that they're afraid of retaliation or excommunication by an apoplectic Bill Clinton, or they have to work with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and don't want to face her steely wrath any sooner than necessary, or they don't want to end up on the front page of the newspaper thanks to psycho RaginCajun Carville deciding they are the devil incarnate, or, perhaps that they simply want to wait until more votes are in before they go on the record.

If you go and check over at Huffington Post, and most of the sites covering politics (except for Salon, of course), there is actually increasing coverage suggesting that many of the superdels have decided FOR Obama and are waiting to announce.

So I'm not sure where these common assumptions came from, but, hey, no surprise. Salon is always fast and loose with the "common assumptions" and "everyone would say" and "most agree."

But in the end, it's a common assumption, and most would agree, that Salon actually talks to four people in the San Fran office to come up with these sorts of categorical statements...

That said, this was at least slightly less of a Hillary campaign brochure than the usual campaign coverage lately, although, it is duly noted that Salon is still unable to get through even one political article without using the words "Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

Cary wrote: These newscasters on TV are acting like high school kids. It's just been bugging me.

So's your boss lady, Cary! She's obsessed with ole Rev. Wright. For weeks now, she hasn't gone a single day without mentioning him or writing about him...

I keep hoping she'll write to you for some advice on how to get over her unhealthy fixation...

Did ya ever notice that there's never a negative headline about Hillary that doesn't somehow also get in a dig about Obama?

For example:

Hillary Clinton Lied About Being Under Sniper Fire in Bosnia (But Did Obama Lie About Being a "Professor?")

Hillary Clinton Voted to Allow Iraq War (But Did Obama Really Oppose the War, or Just Say He Did?)

That's because, you're seeing "The Official Salon Formula for Political Headlines" in action!

It must have gone out from Joan Walsh herself, in a staff-wide memorandum to all Salon writers and contributors.

TO: Salon Staff and Contributors

FROM: Joan Walsh

DATE: Jan 1, 2008

RE: Coverage of Hillary Clinton

While we at Salon strive to minimize any negative coverage of Hillary Clinton at all, we occasionally, in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality, must cover unflattering information about Senator Clinton.

Henceforth, any negative headlines about Hillary Clinton shall contain a balancing statement regarding Barack Obama, so as to mitigate the impact of any negative coverage.

The form it should take is as follows:

Hillary/Bill Clinton Did/Said/Lied About/Screwed Up X (But Did Obama Do/Say/Lie About/Screw Up Y?)

And it works! Whenever Hillary, Bill, their campaign, or their surrogates do something unequivocally wrongheaded and stupid -- if Salon even bothers to cover it at all (cue sound of crickets chirping) -- it's always balanced out with some sort of tit for tat passive-aggressive Obama comment.

As you Salon writers would say, there is a "common assumption," and "most would agree:"

SALON IS CAMPAIGNING FOR, NOT COVERING, HILLARY CLINTON.

Joe, you yourself have written about conservative myths about liberals, and crusaded against such conduct.

And yet, now, you don't think that your friend Sidney Blumenthal is "aiding and abetting the enemy" by distributing and disseminating those same conservative myths about liberals you've written about?

Is there some sort of amnesty for those who spread the conservative mythology simply because he or she isn't personally a conservative?

Is it so different to you because instead of conservatives attacking Hillary Clinton with conservative myths, we now have Hillary Clinton -- and Sidney Blumenthal -- attacking Barack Obama with conservative myths?

Is it all ok, and so easily explained away as nothing to be concerned about, and nothing nefarious at all, simply because this time, your friends are the perpetrators?