I think you're missing the point, Ms. Walsh. The problem isn't that Salon seems to be promoting one candidate over another--not really. It's the cumulative effect of arrogance and ineptitude that characterizes Salon's current approach that people are ultimately reacting to.

How does it feel to be held publicly accountable for a change?

Bloggers are supposed to be independent and free from any constraints on what they can or cannot write. Putting a blogger on the payroll of a political campaign destroys whatever independence (not to mention credibility) they might have had. Can you imagine Bill O'Reilly as blog master for a political campaign? In the wild, bloggers can write whatever they want, whatever they feel or think or discover. Toeing an ideological line dictated to them by a political party or organization makes them spin doctors, cogs in the PR machine. The same would be true of putting a journalist on a campaign staff. The only difference between the paid bloggers and the more traditional obfuscation artists is a trendier wardrobe and some basic HTML skills.

Bottom line: You wanna be independent? Don't draw a salary.

I am sorry, but this defense of yourself and Salon is a bit too weak and much too transparent, in an unpleasantly grandiose and self-congratulatory manner.

...because that's what we need to make our choices in the primaries.

However, I hope Salon will learn to stop caring so much what the bloggers and the netroots have to say (or shout, rather). The bloggers and the netroots are NOT the same as the Democrats. They are not even the same as Democratic activists. Their numbers are small and their influence on actual voters runs from nil to negative.

The polls prove this. The netroots are mostly against Hillary Clinton, while Hillary Clinton leads in most polls. The netroots were all against Joe Lieberman, yet Joe Lieberman was reelected Senator. The netroots are a very limited set of people.

Instead of catering to the airless and tired netroots, Salon needs to write for the vast number of real voters out there who aren't part of any blogging clique. Millions of people in this country are hungry for real information that actually impacts their lives. They want to hear about new and effective directions for the country. They are NOT interested in what the lefty or rightie blogger line of the month is or whether Salon is against it or for it. They just don't care if the left blogosphere ever beats the right blogosphere or not. Most people have never heard of the Edwards blogger brouhaha and couldn't be made to understand why they should care about it.

Salon's future has to lie outside of the netroots. This is where your growth has to come from. Catering to the limited netroots is never going to increase your readership or move the country in a better direction.

I know that much of the alarm about our piece on Obama's tough congressional race against Rep. Bobby Rush centered on an early draft of a coverline that used the word "uppity" to describe the brash young Harvard grad. As we explained in our correction, an editor here used the word ironically without registering how racially charged it was; others decided it was too loaded and changed it -- in every field of our publishing system, except the cover.

If the editor didn't consider the racial baggage of "uppity", how was it supposed to be ironic? Isn't it *only* ironic because of the racial baggage coupled with Obama being black? Is there irony in "Joan Walsh is uppity"? I don't see it.

Now I don't think Salon meant uppity as a racist slur, even an unintended one. I would chalk up to sloppiness and incompetence.

The funny thing is, you could easily have run a column like "Barak Obama - Uppity Negro or Not Even Black?" as a satire on the moronic coverage surrounding him. Isn't that what the coverage so far has been about? He either isn't black enough, or he's an uppity black - you decide!

--

You comments about the bloggers are spot on. The entire affair was stupid.

A blogger employed by a candidate is not a blogger - they are a PR person. Writing a blog for a particular candidate is simple astroturfing. Corporate blogs are just advertisments and candidate blogs would amount to the same.

Its hard to fathom what either side was thinking.

But if you say Marcotte is not being honest about her firing, than I certainly hope you have no plans to ask her back.

Honesty and transparency were what was to differentiate the liberal blogosphere from the traditional media and the pundits.

If she doesn't bring honesty and transparency to the table, well we certainly don't need her "sense of humor."

I must applaud you for engaging the blogosphere directly in this piece. Even if Salon is not necessarily "mainstream", it feels established enough to warrant kudos for recognizing that the blogs are an equitable partner in the field of alternatives outside the mainstream.

As for the defenses and criticisms in your article I must say that I largely agree with your analysis. My political awareness was conceived on 9/11, and my partisan convictions were formed on dailykos in the run up to the Iraq war when I was looking for someone to confirm to me that I wasn't crazy for thinking it was complete horseshit. I became and remain a pragmaticly partisan Democrat due to the influence of sites like DailyKos and MyDD.

As I have found my party identifcation, though, I have been starkly aware of the dangers of blind partisanship as exhibited by the current republican party. I don't see it as something that could manifest itself fully within the Democratic party to any large degree, but from time to time it will rear it's ugly head as is the case with the Edwards and Obama dustups in your article.

What I and many like me have seen over the last several years is the true danger of a party that refuses to accept reality. I believe that the liberal blogosphere, while prone to the occasional emotional outburst and flame war, is acutely aware of the need for honest criticism even when it is pointed at one of its own. Transparency and criticism will be this country's only way out of the mess the GOP has made of this government, and the lefty blogs damn well better get behind those concepts regardless of party affiliateion

One more thing, please don't forget that the blogosphere is composed of lurkers like me. While this is one of my more substantial comments, I would say that I've probably only made one comment or post my own blog for every 500 other blog pages that I've read. The only time I jump into the discussion is in situation like these when I just haven't seen enough people echoing the same sentiments I hold, which in this case is that Salon has been as fair and as forthcoming as I think anyone could reasonably expect. Your pieces on Obama, while a bit contrarian in that they seem to be reaching in order to find honest criticisms of the man, have been fair. The negative comments I've seen from readers here and elsewhere all strike me of people who read the articles in a very superficial manner.

P.S. Thanks so much for picking up Glenn Greenwald. I like knowing my subscription's value has increased ten fold.