Only a deeply ignorant and racist white person would care to make the distinction of "white racism." Joan Walsh is educated, and knows that the institutional aberration that is "racism" does not and cannot occur among populations lacking in political and economic power. What Walsh no doubt considers "black racism" are the numerous complaints, valid and not, which issue from the black community in response to the centuries of oppression and subjugation by bigoted whites who held (and still hold) the political and economic power in this country. She reluctantly admits racism still exists, but denies it in herself, seeing it only in poor uneducated "working class" Americans in the South - which at least proves her bigotry isn't restricted to race but also includes class and geography.

Like most bigots, Joan isn't able to think clearly. She worries that Obama might have a problem with race which will limit his chances in the general election. She also loudly proclaims that Hillary has faced sexism during the campaign, and believes those problems are just as serious and common (if not moreso) than Obama's problems with "white racism."

The problem with most bigots is that they can't put two and two together. They can't seem to realize that their assumptions about race or gender are false generalizations. They are unable to comprehend the error in logic which bigotry demands. Case in point: in Joan's bigoted mind, racism weakens Obama in the general, but she fails to evince such concerns about Clinton and sexism.

Under Joan Walsh's tenure as Salon editor, I've noted the disappearance of black writers from these pages. Where the site once featured regular appearances by authors of various races, these days the bylines seem dominated by white women. Other features have slowly disappeared from Salon as well. Blog Report, which featured a diversity of opinion from the right and left, was nixed (though its editorial overhead was likely smaller than Broadsheet). In spite of her insistence that she wants Salon known for its news and reporting, Salon has come to emphasize editorial/opinion writing and entertainment writing. Very little news, and none which is without obvious editorial bias, is to be found here.

Maybe this is just an accident. Maybe it's just a coincidence that there are no strong black voices at Salon. Maybe it's just happenstance that there once were, but now they've disappeared. (Maybe they're all too busy working for Obama, eh Walsh?) Maybe it's just the luck of the cards that Salon once ran regular news features, but now runs opinion-disguised-as-news features. Maybe this whitewash is not something engineered so Joan can issue her racist diatribes with imagined impunity and not be bothered by another writer arguing against her misguided, bigoted concern-trolling. Maybe that's why Greenwald doesn't include Walsh in his press analysis: he likes his job too much.

You can measure the desperation of the Republicans in Operation Chaos by the inanity and insanity of Shawn's tirades. Don't ban the barometer!

So Joan Walsh is bothered by double-standards. Like spending weeks focusing on Reverend Wright, while refusing to discuss Hillary's "Family" connections? Or like still harping on the "bitter" controversy while ignoring and/or excusing the "snipers in Bosnia" or this recent gaffe?

Ha! Joan Walsh, your hypocrisy and denial are very amusing. As each column appears, you sound more and more like a hysterical Republican, railing about media conspiracies and unfairness, while your favored politician commits a seemingly endless series of mistakes, which you in return blame on the media, opponents, opponents' supporters, sociology, prejudice... the list goes on. You'll get around to blaming the stars in th heavens soon enough, no doubt.

The one thing you can't face is that your preferred candidate is flawed. Having built Hillary Clinton up to be a shining beacon of feminism, you cannot admit to her failings without reminding yourself and everyone of others' failings. Had you even an iota of selflessness about national politics, you would have long ago turned your editorial focus toward uniting Democrats. Instead you continue to promote division and enmity.

You fail to realize that the true source of your ire is not sexist frat boys or zealous Obama supporters. In fact, the true reason for your anger and turmoil is that your preferred candidate, your Blessed Lady of Power, has run a poor campaign and has failed to live up to your expectations, your desires, your needs.

You have been let down, but rather than blame the person who failed you, you blame others and resent their success. What a pitiable and sad creature you have become, Joan Walsh - and in less than eight months!

But trapped in your cocoon of privilege and denial, you'll never realize this. The same could be said of the vast majority of Hillary Clinton's supporters, I believe.

Hillary Clinton appears to have one demographic locked: delusional, hypocritical, bitter, upper-class, middle-aged, racist white women, a political base about as rational and fair-minded as that of George W. Bush.