In Joan's blog post, she says:

"I think it's a fair question, to ask why I'm more disturbed by Obama's more vicious supporters than Clinton's. I'll give it some more thought."

Then, in a response in the letters section, she answers herself when she says:

"clearly nasty Clinton supporters...don't get under my skin as much as the nasty Obama zealots (aside from the reason that's obvious to the nasty Obama zealots, which is that I support Clinton!)"

Maybe she thought she was being snarky or sarcastic, but clearly, here, unlike in her blog post about how impartial she is, she's actually telling the truth.

Glenn Greenwald is awesome. I can't understand what he is doing on this website.

The only reason I come here is to read Glenn's articles, but I keep getting sucked in to reading others, just out of curiosity.

No longer!

If I wanted to keep reading completely biased hog-wash I could just go to HRC's web-site. Or Karl Rove's if he has one.

I never say never but after I read this HRC propaganda I get so depressed. The feminist comments supporting JW are even more repulsive. What Lies!

Ms Walsh stated: "Plus it was overly angry and defensive, when his early remarks were feisty but apologetic and graceful."

I disagree. I found his initial response disingenuous and (again) condescending rather than "apologetic and graceful". He said that he had stated those bitter small town folks "VOTED on gun issues ... " etc.

That is NOT what he said in the original address in San Francisco. He said "they cling to guns, religion, ...” not that they vote on those issues. There is a real difference in those two statements, and, as he has so eloquently told us, they are not "just words". The words this well educated, "words-trained" legal mind chooses mean what they mean, not what he might WISH they mean when disclaiming them later on.

It is okay to have an unacknowledged Hillary bias if you are merely writing as an op-ed columnist, but to do so as an editor risks harming the credibility of your publication.

Judging from reader's increasingly negative responses to your articles perceived meritless attacks on Obama, this seems the case.

Your focus on Obama's misconstrued and ackward statement, and your attempt to elevate it to a momentum changing gaffe, ignores the reality of voters opinions. Your latest hitpiece on Obama ignores the fact, that 6 out of 10 Americans polled view Hillary Clinton as untrust worthy, and that like the Rev. Wright controversy, Obama's support seems to have no ill affects in the polls. Rather he leads Hilllary Clinton by 10% among Democrats nationwide.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has gone down, must you allow it to take Salon along with it?

they cannont win this time around so they are trying to bury Obama. If he loses it will not be because of his supporters but his distractors in the media and the dirty work Hillary did for the GOP.

Joan you know the reason Hillary's campaign is losing is because of her own ineptness. If Bill had not made his comments,Mark Penn had not suppossedly snuck behind her back, if she had not gave 5 million dollars to her own campaign,if she had not lied (you call it misspoke) about her trip to Bosnia and if she had said early on that her Iraq vote was a mistake she would be winning.

Understand it was not the people that caused Barack to get the momemtum in Iowa it was her vote. Iowans were against the war and when she decided to stubbornly (like Bush) not say that her vote was a mistake the people went with Barack.

While Barack has made what you call gaffs, Hillary has made fundamental mistakes. Mistakes that have cost lives and resources. She also has made mistakes that question her honesty.

There is no comparison and you know it. This bitter thing was a media driven story.On the otherhand Hillary and Bill were the ones driving the sniper incident. It was over until Bill tried to come back and lie again. You and other Hillary supports are such liers that you attempt to bail out a woman who admitted to not telling the story right on at least three different occassions.

Now you are lying again. Joan you like Hillary know that it was not the Republicans ability to paint Kerry and Gore as elitist that lost them the election. It was the Supreme Court in Florida and voter fraud in Ohio that stole those elections.

You know that the reason Albetor Gonzales fired many of those attorney generals was because they were investigating voter fraud case.

Well I know I am preaching to the choir. The irony is that you blame sexism for the bad press Hillary is getting when in fact it is you who are the sexist. You want to see a woman get the nomination at all cost. It does not matter that she cannot run her own campaign. I understand it is payback time. It is funny because many racist have a fear that if a black man/woman gets into power he/she will seek revenge or reparations. There hate of black people make them vote for people that continuelly give them the same results while they rob the country blind. It is like the store clerk that follows the innnocent little black boy around the store only to find out the white girl has stoled from the cash register.

Hillary is going to give this country more of the same if she is elected and we will have her friends in the media store like Joan who monitored the black boys every move to thank.

I agree. What's frustrating, and revealing, is to compare Salon's almost complete avoidence of the Bosnia incident, and then to let Hillary off the hook completely ("I don't think she actually lied...she remembered she misremembered" to quote Walsh) vs. the treatment accorded Obama on this issue. Bringing it up repeatedly, giving it the name "Bittergate," not taking a stand on what Obama actually meant. The whole slant is very obvious, and, as you point out, most readers are acknowledging that.