Each week brings us a new low point for Salon... and today we get a two-fer! Or even a three-fer!

First, we get Walter Shapiro's blathering, but probably professionally and personally appropriate tribute to Tim Russert. Whatever.

Then, the bulk of the letters section contained responses, equally appropriately, to correct the public record and rightfully shape a more truthful perception of this man and his career (much like was necessary following the death of Ronald Reagan, who was basically eulogized as though he was some sort of saint... because he was "popular."). This was all fine until an indignant, morally-righteous few decided that the respondents to Mr. Shapiro's drivel were disrespectful by doing so, and not respecting some sort of "timetable" in regards to Mr. Russert. Again, whatever.

Then, we get to the editor's choices, which was what actually prompted me to write. One was from Mr. Shapiro explaining the "delay" in the story to begin with. A non-issue, but whatever. Two were moralistic chastising (tsk, tsk... shut up you angry liberals!) One was fairly ambivalent. And one... (one!) from the overwhelming majority of numerous dissenters... and this was a mere paragraph.

What is it with this constant "F-U" attitude that Salon has developed toward its "base" of readers and/or subscribers? Of independent thinkers and (dare I say) discriminating "consumers" of information? As long as we're doing away with so-called "touchy-feely" liberalism and giving away the store, you can count me among the bitter. Reducing everything to "he said/she said" and/or giving "equal weight" to these issues is completely inappropriate.

We were right, and they were wrong. About EVERYTHING concerning this administration and its enablers in the media. And if you don't like us pointing it out... about whomever... that 's your F-N problem. You go deal with it. We've never received any accolades. Apologies. Concessions. Flowering eulogies.

So, in turn. F-U Salon... and the uptight, status-quo horse you're riding in on. And if you can't deal with that constructive criticism... well, whatever.

As a Ralph Nader supporter, I still feel it necessary to defend Barack Obama against what seems to be a pathetic attempt to equate this dicey transgression on the same level as that of John McCain?!?

Am I reading Alex Koppelman, or Farhad Manjoo here?

John McCain has sold out every principal that has supposedly defined (or I should say "reinvented") him since his involvement in the Keating Five savings and loan scandals. He saw how George Bush "won" his "elections" and has/will do and/or say anything to get elected. Including being against public financing (while dishonestly leveraging it) before he was for it.

If Mr. Koppelman has ever been in a relationship, I'm sure he understand maneuvers like Senator Obama's are more complicated than he reveals here. I agree that Senator Obama should have probably described the situation differently, but this issue is fairly insignificant compared to what Senator McCain is getting a free pass on.

Or it could be that Mr. Koppelman is being dishonest and/or disingenuous himself, going so far as to quote "former Salon reporter" Jake Tapper. This total sell-out lost his cajones as he straddled the line between independent and mainstream journalism. A search on the Media Matters website will reveal that Mr. Tapper is about as much "straight talk" as Senator McCain is these days.

Perhaps Mr. Koppelman wants to be Jake Tapper considering his weird kabuki dances with the truth in recent weeks.

The whole rotten system is broken, and it's much bigger than just campaign finance reform.

We're headed for 1929 in a much worse way, and I'd rather have Senator Obama at the helm than what Camille Paglia terms as "weird old coot" McCain. At least the former has his finger on the pulse of America, and not on the button to obliterate Iran. Who would really be more prepared to lead the country through what portends to be the worst crisis in our history? Maybe neither. But I doubt it.

On a final note, I would argue that as one of the more populist candidates in modern times, Senator Obama could be perceived as opting "into" public funding. The broken system has devolved into a free-for-all... it would seem that the more people who contribute to his campaign are repudiating the business-as-usual politics advanced by Senator McCain. Of course I more cynically don't believe that as entirely true, especially as one who follows Mr. Nader... But I'm nuanced enough to at least consider the possibility as part of a larger picture.

Ralph Nader is not losing it, just like he he didn't "lose" the election for Al Gore in 2000. He speaks to truth rather than power, just like he has concerning Barack Obama.

We as a nation are "losing it" both literally and figuratively... as an empire in decline. And every time we start to deal with the issues as such, the "media" defaults to the status quo as though the system as it is rigged is miraculously going to save us.

While I agree with the crux of what Ms. Walsh is conveying here, we absolutely need voices like Mr. Nader's to sway the narrative to deal with the crucial issues that confront us more desperately every day. The system is broken. And while I believe that Senator Obama is the only candidate to properly serve in this capacity during the decline, I'll be supporting Mr. Nader in his candidacy in every way possible... financially, and with my vote... basically because I have the luxury of doing so.

Ralph Nader.

Any problem with that? Go tell it to someone else. I don't have to defend this vote... especially after today.