For god's sake, Gary, what is the point of this headline?

Leave it to Salon to confirm the stereotypes of disrespectful liberal elites. What would we do if Obama were portrayed this disrespectfully?

Oh wait, he already has been, and we've already been outraged.

...we go again.

Why would Obama be against this if he thought it would work? Clearly his is the harder position to take. Just look at the working class hero Hillary has become using this issue (okay, some Jack Daniels was also involved). Her reality distortion field continues to impress.

I was about to complain about the influence of this article only a day before the primaries, but then I remembered only us unimportant latte slurpers actually read Salon.

Increasingly (adjective):

Used by "journalists" in lieu of actual quantitative evidence of a trend they feel is occurring, based solely on their own experience, or with rare, more rigorous reporting, the experiences of like minded individuals deep within the journalist's comfort zone.

It's not just you, Rebecca. I like your stuff. But a little data never killed anyone. Maybe this is the wrong article to complain about. But the complaint needs to be made.

Are you on the Clinton payroll? How can you gloss over the fact that Obama had nothing to do with the punishment of Florida and Michigan? He, along with all the other major candidates, agreed not to campaign in Michigan or Florida. And he didn't.

Hillary expressed absolutely no interest in the Florida and Michigan issue until she was losing and wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game. Say what you want about Obama, but he followed the agreed upon rules. And for that he is antidemocratic? Not transformative?

Given Obama's superior organization and fundraising ability, his team would have figured out the realities of a winner take all primary system, adapted their strategy, and he most likely would still be winning.

This is obvious. Any other conclusion is the stuff of Clinton reality distortion Jedi mind tricks. Enough already.

The second silly Obama piece in as many days. I've been a loyal Salon reader since the 90s. I'm amazed at how this election has exposed Salon's core tone as one of outdated liberal dread.

Cynicism is not the only requirement for good non-fiction writing.

I'm confident this election will relegate the Clintons to their rightful place in late 20th century history -- it was a great place, don't get me wrong -- but a new paradigm is required for the anxious hour that is 2008.

Please, stay relevant, Salon.

Give me a break. The slippery characters in the Clinton life story dwarf Rezko 50 times over. What is the point of this exactly? Between Joan Walsh talking about the race issue that barely exists and Joe Conason's thinly veiled Clinton fundamentalism, I hope you're at least getting some money from the Clintonistas for all this effort on their behalf. Why don't you get Sydney Blumenthal back to write some "unbiased analysis."