This is classic manufactured outrage over a straw-man (or straw-woman) bull excrement masquerading as some sort of serious discussion.

These people represent no one, are not opinion leaders and do not represent anything more than a couple of people spouting off.

Tom Green has an internet talk show with all kinds of weirdoes appearing on regular basis. Why not highlight one of those pieces of work as representing a real movement or someone with something worthwhile to say? Better yet, local cabal access has some old lady that seems to think that woman who are on their period are possessed by demons. You should do a piece on her and imply that it is a serious topic that needs wider discussion.

And to make matters worse, you position it on the home page as a real story??!!!!

There are a lot of important issues that have relevance to most people. The next time you give up on finding one of those stories I suggest you take an online pole of your readers and find out what they want to hear about. Issues or bull crap.

what, me proof read something.

Reminds me of mean dog that used to roam the neighborhood. Stand up to thing and it runs away with its tail between its legs, let it intimidate you and it owns you.

McCain is doing exactly that to the press (and lets be honest, for the most part they are either working for the repuglicans through Faux or Clear Channel or are complete hacks and pussies.... sorry guys and gals, you are... please prove me wrong).

A real journalist would bristle right back at the old curmudgeon for ducking a legit question by threatening to throw a temper tantrum.

I'm starting to think Joan is taking pointers from Chris Mathews.

WTF. Salon used to be one of the best. Now, not so much.

"Times slams Obama on ethanol"

implies that the criticism of Obama by the Times was accurate, had merit and relevance.

As you pointed out in your article the Times piece had little or no accuracy or relevance:

("Truth be told, Rohter didn't actually show that much in the way of a connection between Obama and the ethanol industry")

Your headline repeats the inaccuracy of the Times article by implying that there was merit in the Times article. A more appropriate and accurate headline would be"

"Times attacks Obama on ethanol"

or even more accurate"

"Times wrongly attempts to paint Obama as 'in the pocket' of ethanol companies"

Let's try it out....

Ok, first you type in the rhetoric:

"R o v e : 'O b a m a c o o l l y a r r o g a n t'"

Hit the return button and presto! here it is in plain english:

"pasty fat guy: 'Obama smart and not easily rattled' "

Rove is attempting to portray Obama as the quintessential repuglican.

It just shows how decrepit and hated the repulican party has become that the worse slur turdblossom (the quintessential repuglican) can come up with is calling the Democratic nominee a repuglican.

I freak'n love it.

The character didn't strike me as lazy or overly self absorbed (no more than most of us I guess.)

I don't mean to say that you are wrong in any way with your assessment.... It just has me thinking how much of our opinions on the character are formed by our feelings about the "war on drugs" and such and how many people feel like me, you or different all together.

to force congress into allowing oil drilling off the California and Florida coastlines and the timing of the McCain comments and flipflops on the subject show the coordination of those political arms of the repuglican party.

Rove's so called "hiring" by faux is so he can better coordinate the political activities of the RNC, Fuax, Bushies, and the McCain campaign.

Every thing he will spew on faux will be with the purpose of setting up the McCain campaign's strategy in some way. So far, its not working so great.

"Let this be said for Hillary Clinton: During the primary's final three months her grit and determination earned her the right to serious consideration, perhaps first consideration. Yes, there were comments by her, her husband or her advisors that created tensions with Obama's campaign and his supporters. (Notably among these was her tendency not to congratulate Obama when he won states, and her thinly-veiled implications that he was unprepared to be commander in chief.)

But overall, Clinton forced Obama to work harder and be more policy-specific than he was during his whirlwind run through the January and February contests. Nonetheless, and despite her strong appeal to the half of the Democratic coalition Obama struggled to impress -- women, seniors, working-class whites and Hispanics -- the risks of picking Clinton outweigh the possible benefits."

--Thomas F. Schaller

I would like to respectfully disagree with this common notion you have repeated in your article.

When it became clear that Hillary Clinton was going to lose and Obama was going to be the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary went negative with her "kitchen sink" strategy, why not, she had nothing to lose. These were not policy issues she was throwing his way but were every kind of smear and innuendo you could think of. Because Obama was going to win he had everything to lose and could not afford to fight back because doing so might alienate many of Hillary's supporters.

The result was Clinton had a free shots to damage Obama when he had his hands tied behind his back. That will not be the case in the general election where Obama has already shown he can and will fight back against smears. All Hillary did was help McCain, not Obama, herself or any other candidate.