Give yourself this test: If Hillary Clinton said something this honest, would you be here talking about "pandering" and "gaffe". I'll wait for the answer, which I am guessing starts with "N". I just do not know what has happened to Salon these days. It used to be the place to go for insightful left of center reading. With the exception of Glen Greenwald, Gary Kamiya, and a couple of other hard-hitters, it has become a mecca of privileged feminist navel gazing. And I am a female!

Btw, speaking of pandering, how did you like Clinton's Calamity Jane act?

Joan is "very proud of Salon's coverage of the Democratic primary. We are not pulling for any candidate."

Ahem, ok. So there it is, Joan, in black and white.

It's your "Corkscrew landings to sniper fire in Bosnia" Hillary moment.

It's your "Mission Accomplished" Bush moment.

It's your "So?" Cheney moment.

You've apparently been "covering" politics so long that you've become just as confused about what's true, what's honest, what's fair as the politicians you think you are covering "fairly."

As George Bush would say, "Heckuva good job, Joanie..."

All this hand wringing over Barack Obama's supposed "Bittergate" gaffe seems a

satire on TV news people's preoccupation with trivia and their insistence on telling

viewers what to be concerned about. The president's admission that he supported

"enhanced interrogation" despite his earlier claim that Americans don't torture?

Ignore that news thunderbolt while pondering ad nauseam how Obama's "elitist" use of the words "cling" and "bitter" could derail his drive toward the White House.

To lump TV professionals into a group would be stereotyping. But it's

fair to imagine they don't encounter many so-called blue-collar workers --

even if they commute to work. Having ridden the D.C. and New York subways,

I know relatively few passengers visit with many other people.

It's different on a bus in the Midwest where you see the same people every day. As an editorial writer riding the bus to work for 23 years, I engaged dozens of commuters in conversation. Beset with worries, they typically clung to their hobbies as a way of getting through the week. Hardly any mentioned hunting, but some talked fishing, and a few, including bus drivers, were stock car enthusiasts. Some of those so-called "working class, blue-collar people" considered church activities a big part of their lives. They would not have recoiled at the suggestion that it amounted to "clinging" to something valuable in times of trouble. Nor would they have denied being bitter.

Bitter about what? Only about low pay, long hours, disrespect from employers and the threat of layoff. When politics came up, the typical comment was, "Politicians . . . there's not a nickel's worth of difference between any of them." That was during five presidential administrations -- Carter up to and including Bush II. I imagine the picture was largely the same in Pennsylvania.

Motives in hyping the "elitist Obama" angle seem to vary. I imagine most news

people on the 24/7 networks just want something to talk about (as contrasted with

something to work on) -- a new development in the seven-month horse race. Some, however, seem determined to scuttle Obama's candidacy no matter what. Most impassioned, perhaps, is psychiatrist-turned-columnist Charles Krauthammer. He says the elitism controversy gives prospective voters insight into Obama's character. This from a pundit who saw in George W. Bush "character" enough to

give Republicans decades of dominance.

If uttering the words "cling" and "bitter" amount to a controversy, I can't imagine how

many more speed bumps Obama will hit between now and Nov. 4. All he can do

is be himself -- "frank, feisty and populist," as Joan Walsh puts it -- and tell the truth,

which, after all, is the easiest to remember.

First we have the Editor and the writers. A diverse group of writers brought together by an excellent editor to write analytical and critical articles. An editor with a point of view and courage. Why do we come here, to read writers that are not in the MSM.

Second we have the general reader: We come here to find these voices, to challenge ourselves to get different perspectives. Yes we get angry, yes we get our ideas confirmed, yes we laugh and yes we turn the page.

Third we have the letter writers: In the old days, we would post a comment and move on.

Fourth there is a new breed. The pathological true believer. Who comes here to put down others, to yell, scream, bully and insult the editor and writers.

To those in the fourth level, what are you trying to accomplish? Who are you trying to convince by calling Joan and the writers who don't agree with you, whatever you position, horrible names.

Frankly, you are scary. You right now have no power but you show me if by some chance you get it, you will be as demonic as the people you are trying to get out of office. I don't trust your lot with power over anyone. You are not to be trusted. You have no kindness, no generosity, no reason and no tolerance.

Admit that we were united against Bush administration and its actions, yet now you try to create this idealized "good" that is just as hideous. Just as venomous. Look at the horrid things you say and accuse other people in the name of "home", "unity" "change", do you not see the hypocritical proportions of your venom? Are you to be trusted?

You have demonized Hillary, the Clintons and women to name a few. Now you come here at Salon and you demonize the writers and Joan. You sit in your privileged lives putting down others, yet you behave like the lowest common denominator. You are the mobs of Clockwork Orange, using your keyboards as the boots to kick people in the face.

What did you sacrifice to stop the war? What did you risk to change this country? You put up a poster, you went to a rally, you wrote on a blog and wrote a nasty letter here. Cowards the lot of you.