I haven't read any of the letters yet, just wanted to get my thoughts out. I'm feeling a bit like manos today, just sending out a bunch of little quickies. Now I'll get down to business reading your and others' suggestions.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Couldn't resist.

I like your solution, it's nice and pragmatic, except I would add the 50% haircut. My thoughts on MI and FL are that if even both Hillary and Obama said today "go ahead do whatever you want, primary and/or caucus" it would be really difficult to pull off elections. In prior posts I've provided links to various articles demonstrating why. All that gets conveniently ignored when someone wants to blame Hillary or Obama for obstruction. Example: Mail in ballots are illegal in FL. How practical is it to draft and enact leglislation to change that within a reasonable time period?

you have ruined this wonderful, progressive e-magazine, with this twisted, sick Clinton garbage, I am considering wasting my tomorrow writing e-mail, after email, after e-mail to your every advertiser, telling them I will not read Salon until after the 2008 election, if ever again.

Joan and the public affairs staff at Salon have tossed away a decade of carefully built trust. Two months ago I thought it could be rebuilt with one good, self-critical, soul searching, editorial meeting, and a fresh start on this campaign. Six weeks ago, I thought it could be restored in two or three years of conscientious investigation and advocacy. One month ago I thought it might take a decade. Now, it looks as if America's progressive e-zine is a do-over.

We talk sometimes about the "right wing echo chamber." The Salon editorial staff is lost in the Clinton campaign, and top ranking feminists who were sure this was their time, echo chamber. You obviously are not listening at all to what is going on out here among the rest of us. Somehow, you have ignored the preponderance of the feedback. This is very sad to see, and especially sad to see your high aspirations and these precious resources of intelligence and moral strength wasted on a progressive-when-convenient Senator from the Democratic Leadership Council. It is sad for what is being lost here, for America and the planet. Sad for you as people, to witness you cough up your dignity in irrational exercises like Wilentz's here.

This piece is unbelievable. Didn't the Clinton campaign fully understand and sign off on the Democratic primary/caucus system - well in advance? Are Hillary and Bill political neophytes who were caught by surprise because they "didn't understand" how delegates would be apportioned? Did the Clinton campaign not sign a pledge to exclude the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries - because the two states disregarded the DNC rules? Weren't members of the Clinton campaign instrumental in setting up those rules? How is this mess Howard Dean's fault?

If the Democratic primary/caucus season had been the cakewalk that the Clinton campaign thought it would be, we wouldn't be hearing any of this. By the way, Hillary is on record (and YouTube) talking about how the primary would be over by Super Tuesday (because of course she would win handily) and that of course the votes in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count.

Instead, we are seeing the worst possible example of a poor loser and a pathetic display of desperation in the Clinton's crocodile tears over those poor, disenfranchised voters.

I have lost total and complete respect for Hillary - which makes me sad. Her campaign has been a complete and utter disaster - (what kind of decision-maker puts someone like Mark Penn in charge of both messaging and polling?) I'm a middle aged woman who initially was thrilled to support the first viable female candidate for the Presidency. Instead, I'm embarrassed by the Clinton campaign's lack of honesty and integrity.

Sorry, Hillary. You lost. Fair and square.

For all you Salon data counters, put a "plus-one" on Obama for this mail.

But here's a treat: Imagine there was a 20-foot statue of George W. Bush right in Texas, or California, or Ohio, or one of the 8 states starting with "M", or one of the 8 states starting with "N", or any of our other great states. A big, bad-ass bronze thing. And the day after the election, we bring that sucker down with ropes, and dance like idiots around it, behead it and drink booze and howl and party.

That's going to be an extremely wonderful day, and I personally will be telling my kids - "This is as bad as it gets. We go up from here!"

ER

I don't know about anyone else but I've grown tired of the Clinton argument that because she's won larger states, she is somehow therefore more electable. It seems to me that for the logic of this argument to work, you'd have to assume that everyone who voted for Hillary will automatically vote for McCain because they didn't vote for Obama. Democratic turnout in every state is at record highs, especially when compared against the Republicans. I can't for the life of me believe that THAT many Democracts, when faced with the choice between McCain and Obama, would somehow jump ship simply because Obama "isn't Hillary."

I am a blatant Obama supporter, don't get me wrong, and I'll be honest, I've said out loud that if Hillary got the nomination, I'd stay home. But you know what? It's all just talk. If Hillary squeezes out the nomination through whatever trick of the tail she musters, I'll still be there election day... voting for Hillary Clinton. Under no circumstances will I simply roll over and let McCain win.

Wow.

When Salon’s editors ran Ayelet Waldman’s horrifying column, I read it once and then avoided it. When they chose to bring Camille Paglia back to spew her uninteresting thoughts, I assumed they had good reasons (even though I couldn’t think of any). When they stopped giving Cary Tennis any editing at all, I shrugged and started skipping straight to the letters. When their political coverage devolved into lazy blather, I stopped reading it. Same with Joan Walsh’s forgettable punditry.

It took the sheer inexplicable awfulness of Kansas O’Flaherty, stinking there like Karl Rove’s used briefs week after week, to make me see the obvious: Salon just isn’t very good anymore. Good editors would not have run something so bad. Or if by some mischance they did, they would not have treated the audience’s reaction (which was appropriate, and proportional to the unbelievable cruddiness of the strip) with such sneering contempt.

And yet, even after that, I thought Salon had some standards. But now there's this. What a piece of lazy, dishonest, forgettable junk.

There’s still good stuff on Salon, but most of it, from Tom the Dancing Bug to Glenn Greenwald, would exist anyway. As near as I can tell, at this point Salon’s chief function is to provide easy jobs for the staff and their friends. I suppose it’s a nice setup, but the funds for it won’t be coming out of my pocket anymore.