Lobelia said it perfectly. "WE'RE IN SO MUCH DANGER. Salon real estate is too important to squander. You don't have much guidance from the top, so it's up to you to treat each assignment as a chance to save the world."

And what are you saving the world from? From neonconservatism, from conservative media dominance, from Republican efforts to destroy democracy, from war with Iran, etc.

The upcoming 2008 election is a war.

And like it or not, as Washington correspondent for Salon, you are one of the generals, Michael.

And that means you have to fight to win.

Salon is NOT unbiased journalism. It is supposed to have a liberal, reality-based, anti-Bush approach -- or at least I think it does. Someone should check with Joan, when she's not off appearing on conservative TV shows, and see if somewhere along the line, the mission statement and political bent changed, and they didn't tell some of the writers (like Glenn), and failed to inform the loyal -- and now confused -- readers.

We keep asking for Joan Walsh to explain why Paglia? Why Dickerson? Why the steady drumbeat of anti-Obama? But she's silent on the matter. Probably because she doesn't care to admit straight out the truth: that she wants these writers and articles to drum up controversy, and generate page views -- and get herself on tv to boot. (Oh, and down the line, maybe there's a White House Communications Director job with Hillary?!)

Joan Walsh crows that Salon has doubled its readership in the last year. One only has to wonder how that happened. Add Reader Letters, bring back Camille Paglia, add Debra Dickerson, find a bunch of people to nitpick every aspect of Obama, let them all insult our intelligence on a regular basis and spew Republican/conservative/neocon talking points, and watch the letters -- and the clicks -- fly. The kaching of the cash register becomes deafening.

This is not People magazine, or the Onion, and this is no joke. Lives are at stake, America's future is at stake, and yes, there are boatloads of bloggers out there yammering in the wilderness, but there are really only a small number of influencers -- those media outlets, TV, radio, newspapers, columnists, internet sites, bloggers, pundits -- who are going to really frame the discussion.

Salon is one of them. For now.

If Salon wants to maintain that sort of respect and position, the political writing is going to have to be top-notch, and it's going to have to be primed for battle.

Leave the satire, the fluff, and the Conservatives in Liberal Clothes to other places that aren't as influential as Salon. Someone give Camille her own bloody blog and get rid of her here.

Make every word, and every article, count as if your life depended on it.

Because ours do.

I'll bet you could afford to keep Audiofile...

And Salon would be FAR better for it.

Your post is xenophobic, and, on top of that, you're a sexist. That makes you practically a perfect conservative!

Now scurry on back to Little Green Footballs with your little friends. We're having reality-based conversation here.

Watch it a few times.

Then let us know if you still think it's a good idea for a married middle-aged woman to act on attraction to an underage boy.

I know that the minute anyone at Salon suggests anything other than blowing up them Ay-rab/Infidel Musselman, the Islamophobes/Dhimmi-watchers/Zionists et. al. come out in hordes, in full-on attack mode.

But they don't see.

They can't see.

Their world is far too black and white, their view far too simplistic.

They are like children, hiding every night in their room, covers tucked up around their chins, fearing the bogeyman in the closet.

Thank YOU for seeing, Gary, and being courageous enough to say it.

Since I don't hesitate to complain about Joan when I think it's warranted, it's only fair to be as vocal when I think kudos were due.

First, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for referring to Coulter as a "right-wing provocateur" and NOT a pundit. GREAT call, Joan. Now, if everyone would stop referring to her as a pundit, it would be a small but significant victory against that vile, toxic woman.

Second, thanks for a solid interview with a truly great woman!

It couldn't be plainer or clearer.

The wingnuts who favor torture, pre-emptive war, killing of innocent civilians in Iraq, the death penalty, racial discrimination, discrimination against gays, abandoning the poor and sick -- all of it -- are the OPPOSITE of Christians.

"Hell, they jess might as well be Ay-rab Al-Kaaayda Mozz-uh-lem evildoers for all the damage they're doin' to REAL American Christianity."

What Would Jesus Do?

Easy.

No argument there.

He'd be a Democrat.

After all the discussion of the slime and the snail snot and all, I just can't imagine how you'd find them at all appetizing.

That said, I read the whole thing, and thought it was funny. Certainly, nothing I've EVER read before!

(And, whew, added benefit! A column at Salon that doesn't attack Barack Obama, slam African-Americans, promote conservative, neo-con ideas under the guise of liberalism, or appear to be written solely to draw links from Drudge...)

Digby, why do we hold the AP to a higher standard than Salon and its columnists, writers and editors?

Just check back at the legacy of coverage on Obama here at Salon, and you'll find boatloads of potshot headlines designed to take down Obama.

What AP did is irresponsible -- no less irresponsible than when Salon does the same.