I am a responsible poster, and, gee, I even have an ID, unlike you.

I did NOT say that Salon was the first to jump in on the "how black is Obama" bandwagon, but they were one of the first, with Debra Dickerson's article. And just because Dickerson is black doesn't make it any less ridiculous or racist. Just like Hillary's surrogate Johnson's commentary was racist crap, even though Johnson himself is black.

But fact is, Debra Dickerson's article was here in Salon, and said, and I quote:

"Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race -- if he were actually black."

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

Dickerson WAS one of the first, if not THE first, to raise that particularly idiotic argument. She even landed herself on Colbert Report (where Colbert made her look like a total fool as he chewed her up and spit her out for lunch -- Debra Dickerson's not an especially deep thinker.)

Thankfully, Dickerson is no longer here at Salon it seems, and is over there lambasting the folks at Mother Jones with her peculiar racist nonsense. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't Salon and Joan who gave her her platform on which to trash Obama.

If Obama was doing this, Billary would be going insane.

All she cares about is winning -- damn the rules, damn the people, damn everyone except herself.

The woman truly and clearly needs a THERAPIST, not a job as president.

Your position on whether or not Obama will win more Latino voters on Super Tuesday is based solely on Dolores Huerta's snarky "Como se llama" comment?

Necesitas hacer mas tarea, Joan. (Translation: You need to do more homework, Joan.)

"Hilaria" has been losing ground in California.

Last Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Obama -- Obama has TWENTY California newspaper endorsements. I believe Hillary has one.

More and more Latinos are getting on board for "Como Se Llama Obama..."

Just watch next Tuesday...

She's still wondering whether Obama is black enough...

Just giving you some encourage you to keep up the great work!!!!! Thought that when Tim Grieve left, all was despair, but you are terrific!!

If Joan can blog with her pro-Hillary bias on her sleeve, why do other readers have a problem that you are giving Barack a fair shake?

Alex haters -- just go bookmark Joan's page -- you'll get plenty to love, as she can't go more than a day or two without bestowing some sort of love on Hillary -- or passive-aggressive negative attention on Barack.

Seriously, Joan. WE GET IT!

You want people to take you seriously, and believe that you're not biased for Hillary Clinton, and you let hack "journalist" (a term used loosely when in conjunction with him) Ted McClelland do another hatchet article on Obama for Salon -- this time on the Rezko NON-story.

MoveOn had the cojones to issue an endorsement, based on their principles.

Why don't you go ahead and do the same for Salon?

Because then you wouldn't need to continue the passive-aggressive smear campaign Salon is waging, with you at the helm leading the way and writing the checks to people like McClelland.

Yes, Joan, WE GET IT.

Joan Walsh wrote:

"...my journalistic ethics."

Joan...a reminder. You are NOT a journalist. You are a columnist, a website editor, and a tv "pundit" on occasion. At best, you can be called a "citizen journalist" on account of your blog.

I'm sure you have ethics, and are a good person, but you do not have journalistic ethics. Not in the numerous biased and passive-aggressive pieces you have personally written, or greenlighted as editor. That's your prerogative of course, as editor, to approve stories that favor one candidate over another, but it's not journalistic ethics.

You, Kos, Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. -- columnists/pundits/talking heads/bloggers yes -- but "journalists?" No.

Journalists, in the purest sense, conduct exhaustive research, and do everything possible NOT to be biased in their writing.

The dictionary definition of journalism:

"writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation"

This is not what you do in your blog, or as editor of Salon, and it's not what Salon does in most of its political coverage. That's not to say that there isn't any journalism at Salon -- there are the occasional investigative journalistic pieces by some of your writers, yes, and they are often good.

But you, and this piece (or any piece for that matter) by Ted McClelland -- sorry -- that's not journalism, not by definition.

@maureenodonnell, yes, I do want Joan Walsh to have some "cojones" -- or guts, or whatever you'd like to call them, to stand up, endorse her preferred candidate Hillary Clinton, and cut the passive-aggressive smear campaign and finally stop trying to perpetuate the fantasy that she's presiding over impartial, unbiased or "journalistic" coverage of the Democratic field of candidates.

(By the way, most of Assyria was actually what is now Iran and Iraq, and I'm not a guy, and gee, let's hope that by using a word in Spanish, I'm appealing to the Latino voters in California. You confused much?)

(Totally off-topic irrelevant -- but some of the key villages of Assyrians that were wiped out in the Turkish/Kurdish massacres circa 1917 or so were actually up around the northern part of Iran, near Urmia and even Tabriz. Many people, like maureen..., seem to think that Assyrians are just "ancient" Syrians, but they aren't really at all. Very few points of connection, actually.)

Also haven't had a chance, but just want to mention that I appreciate your posts, and usually find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly...

Ok, inter-poster lovefest over. ;-)

Hasta pronto*

(*note to maureen... -- that means, "until later" in Spanish, and it's my direct pandering appeal to the Latino voters of California to vote for Barack Obama!)