All last year, it was quite easy to see Salon's Pro-Hillary leanings.

Anyone who is pro-Hillary, however, doesn't really have the distance to be able to see clearly, because fawning coverage, to them, appears to be truthful fact. But reality time: at least until a few weeks ago, many different columnists at Salon were relentlessly promoting Hillary at every opportunity, and that was complemented by negative or passive-aggressive coverage of Obama.

I am obviously not the only one who has complained bitterly in recent months over the apparent inability of Salon to stop the PR campaign for Hillary, recognize that Edwards actually is in the race, and stop the passive-aggressive attacks on Obama. The letters threads have been quite vocal. Frankly, I believe it was the steady stream of complaints, both on the letters, and in private emails to Joan -- as well the brief media infatuation with Obama -- that finally shifted Salon from firmly pro-Hillary back toward a more impartial stance.

That said, Joan is the Editor. And as such, Joan commissioned and/or greenlighted a number of articles that truly stretch Salon's "impartiality" credibility. Keep in mind -- this is just a tiny sampling of the MANY Anti-Obama and/or Pro-Hillary articles that have been featured in Salon over the past year:

• Colorblind: Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race -- if he were actually black. By Debra J. Dickerson

  http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/

• Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus

  In the Democratic presidential pack, the leading man is a woman and the leading woman is a man. by Michael Scherer

  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/12/obama_hillary/index.html

• Sympathy for the devil: Leave Rev. Al alone!

  Why did unnamed Obama supporters attack Al Sharpton? He's only asking questions that need to be answered. By Debra Dickerson

  http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/19/al_sharpton/

• And Joan herself, "Coloring In Obama"

  http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2007/03/20/obama_liberal/index.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But, as I mentioned, I am GLAD to see that at least in the past several weeks, the balance has shifted back to center, and the coverage has been more balanced. I don't even care why it's happened, I'm just glad to see it has...

If you say it isn't so, then find me some POSITIVE (not the classic passive-aggressive "He's so articulate for a black man" compliments) articles about Obama in Salon from 2007...

...you're guaranteeing us a Republican president.

Because if she can't even tell the $*#$*$ truth about something like this, then she's going to be TOAST if she gets the nomination.

They are going to chew her up and spit her out for lunch on all the BS retractions/spin/rewriting of history she does.

Hillary Clinton's "agreement" that Johnson's smackdown smear comment was actually an allusion to Obama's civil rights organizing experience was LUDICROUS.

And for her -- and her supporters -- to keep insisting that it was no big deal that she kept saying she believed his ludicrous explanation...well...that was CONTEMPTUOUS of the public.

And what tis the alternative? That Hillary really couldn't tell if Johnson was telling the truth? (Just like she really couldn't possibly know that Bush wasn't telling the truth about WMD?)

I have to keep wondering -- why is it that I can figure out that Iraq didn't have WMDs, and that Johnson clearly WAS smearing Obama -- -- and MILLIONS of others across the nation figured it out in a flash too -- but Hillary can't?

She's supposed to be so smart, eh?

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ...World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world..."

And just think... Most of those horrible Islamic terrorists that everyone is so afraid of are thousands of miles away, with no way to get here.

THESE terrorists are right here in our nation, in our neighborhoods, all over our country, even in positions of power and leadership -- infiltrating EVERYWHERE.

Every time the Huckatollah opens his mouth, they ought to raise the Terror Alert Level to RED...

Go back and read...

Wintour didn't say "Hillary Clinton is mannish."

If she did, show me where.

Wintour did complain about the fact that Clinton, in turning down a photo shoot because she'd feared she'd come off as too "feminine," holds the IDEA that one must look more mannish to be taken seriously in politics.

And apparently, in turning down the photo opp -- and in choosing for her political uniform a plain, dark pantsuit -- Clinton apparently DOES have that fear.

That doesn't mean that Hillary goes around looking "mannish" -- she just looks like almost ALL us women here in Washington -- she dresses conservatively, not feminine or sexy, and not especially fashionably.

And WHO CARES???????

And really, truly... WHO cares WHAT the that rude, Botoxed, anorexic fashion-Gestapo hiding behind a big pair of sunglasses thinks about politics or politicians anyway?

Are you writers at Broadsheet so conflict-addicted and Hillary-adoring that you have to CREATE imaginary conflicts just to get out your ya-yas and find a daily opportunity to GOTV for Hillary?

Yeesh...

Aren't you folks already busy enough drumming up ways to trash Michelle Obama?