do you see the hypocritical proportions of your venom? Are you to be trusted? You have demonized the writers of Salon in the scariest way - Perhaps you should not watch Clockwork Orange too often it makes you using your keyboard as a boot to kick people in the face.

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.

It's change we can believe in.

HHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSS.

:)

"hERE WE GO AGAIN. sAME OL' SH*T, DOG, JUST A DIFFERANT DAY."

Why do you believe Obama doesn't know ducks aren't hunted with six guns? I interpreted the remark as a jibe at Hilary, asserting that she is so intoxicated with her new gun-toting identity, and so hobbled by her real remoteness from that identity that SHE wouldn't know the difference.

'reality" is back.

Quoting Joan Walsh " ...he's still mostly the candidate of coastal liberals, lefty intellectuals, Ivy League check-writers and African-Americans, and he isn't doing enough to reach the...."

Cliche after cliche, stereotype after stereotype. What "gate?"

Joan, you reveal your own shallowness in this pseudo-debate.

Full disclosure here. I admit he's my candidate. No one is remotely close.

Dear Joan,

Please don't hear this as being shrill, or trying to get attention, or fanatical. But I was thinking this morning as I rode the train to work, "Should I just send Joan Walsh an email? I wonder if she reads her personal emails?" Because something important (to me) has happened over these months and I want to let you know about it, because I truly think you'll feel it IS important to you and to Salon. Here it is:

I used to consider Salon.com my NUMBER ONE, go-to Web site for political news and insight. In other words, the site to which I go FIRST THING each day when I want to see what's up. For several YEARS this has been the case. Honest to God.

But after so many, many pro-Clinton and pro-Clinton-but-nuanced and under-the-radar-pro-Clinton articles... I feel that Salon under your leadership has LOST ITS OBJECTIVITY. As a result, I no longer make Salon my first daily news stop. Other sites have taken its place. Sure, I still try to visit Salon each day but it no longer holds its high ranking as the first place I go to get good, solid, alternative journalism.

All right, I've said my piece. I hope it is not lost on you. In the spirit of what a "salon" is, I have come here to share what's on my mind. Thanks for listening.

While Clinton's defense of guns didn't entirely ring true, Obama's confusing a six-shooter with a hunting rifle worsened his trouble with the gun crowd (or so I've read; I'm not going to pretend I knew the difference).

Has it actually? I read his comment as being intentionally sarcastic — only someone who "didn't know guns" would bring an Annie Get Your Gun Wild-West style pistol on a hunting trip. Trying to explain it any other way seems like a reach.

But that just illustrates the one aspect of the current flap that Joan Walsh doesn't really address — or rather she starts to, but on which she doesn't completely follow through.

... gaffes have staying power when they seem to represent not merely a poor choice of words, but an unsettling underlying truth about the speaker.

There's certainly some truth to this, but it also works the other way — by controlling the political narrative it becomes possible to, essentially, control the very course of events. For instance, John McCain can lie like a rug — like lying is going out of style — but in a sense it "doesn't happen," because the press won't acknowledge it. So compelling is this narrative, in fact, that John Judis can say with a straight face that McCain's chief inherent liability is ... his age.

Obama on the other hand can speak an essential (if badly phrased) truth about class and American society — or Hillary Clinton can exaggerate for dramatic effect a story which, by and large, did otherwise actually happen the way she told it — and suddenly the candidates are impaled on the skewer of supposed liberal insincerity.

Sorry, I don't buy that those are "underlying truths." It's underlying, all right, but it's not truth — and the liberal political establishment, whatever else its faults, didn't put it there.

I guess we got to take the small amount of good with the giant steaming pile of poop.

At least she asmits a small part of reality, clinton playing politics, old style politics. Gop games, right next to them.

A six shooter, rather than hunting rifle? Really joan. The gun crowd is going to turn on him over that? hahahahahha. Do you really believe that? Come on. One line gotcha and gaffes. It would be funny if not so transparent and pathetic. "She has to do this". Sounds like, "The gop is going to this or that".

Anything to justify. I expect nothing less from clinton campaign propoganda headquarters, here at salon. Now I can't wait to read the bush/clinton lawyers defence and arguements. I need a laugh today.

"I'd like to say I'm politically savvy enough to have predicted the continuing firestorm over Obama's remarks when it broke last week"

My Bay Area coworkers and I call each other elitists now on a lark, I suppose you could describe us as bitter because we make jokes about "elitist" being a bad word. The only political firestorm I can still see is being tiredly propagated over and over again by Republican pundits, Hillary Clinton (pseudo Republican) and Joan Walsh (politically savvy feministic, yet perennially whiney columnist at Salon.com in San Francisco). “Bitter-gate” is really starting to sound like a great title for your blog Joan. “Bitter-woman-gate” would be even more apropos but that’s “sex-elitist”. Now I just need to stick racism, some kind of Judeo Christian slur and an insult to San Francisco, fuse it into “sex-elitist” and I’ll have created the ultimate slur and grounds for victimization pity party cocktail!