I just read through all 40-plus pages of comments.

Wow. I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in finding Joan Walsh's latest piece an utter disgrace to Salon.

At this point, I feel like Joan doesn't really care about her readers.

A few things in particular stand out:

• A remarkable number of Salon members (yellow stars next to their names) have said they're going to let their membership expire due to Joan's column

• A universal response is "Did we see the same interview?" I agree. And I encourage people who did not see the interview to watch it (go to Bill Moyers' PBS site -- just type "pbs bill moyers" into a Yahoo search and you'll find it). I also gave the link in an earlier post (click my "other messages" and scroll back 2 messages for that link).

• Walsh usually chimes in and comments in message threads. She is noticeably silent here.

• Even the majority of the usual Clinton supporters aren't defending Walsh's piling-on anymore. That really says something. The only ones left are the holdouts, like the contemptible Cythera, the amazingly racist TexasGal, or the muted AKA Smith who has only written, cryptically, that "the real discussion on race is happening elsewhere, for people who aren't afraid of the truth" (WTF does any of that mean?)

I hope Joan Walsh is reading these comments. I hope she reads mine. If you are reading, Joan, I want to say that I've always wanted to be on your side. I have always wanted to find reasons to like you. You keep making it more difficult. I really don't understand you. You're supposed to be a Power Editor, not a political pundit. I don't care if you have a different opinion, but I do care if your opinion is so poorly reasoned and expressed that it violates the standards of quality that Salon is supposed to represent. What is really going on?

I am not one to promote conspiracies, but in the back of my mind, I am starting to wonder if there's some actual Clinton-Salon connection, in terms of the big-money backers who are behind both the web site and the candidate. One thing we do know is that Salon contributor Sidney Blumenthal was fast-tracked into a Clinton campaign position (a little too fast...he got a high-speed DUI and had to step down).

And speaking of sobriety, many of the premises in Walsh's column are just plain false. Obama's loss in Pennsylvania was hardly "sobering," it was fully expected and in fact it was a win for Obama in terms of his long-term campaign strategy. Obama narrowed the gap considerably in a state that was even more likely to go all-out-for Hillary than Ohio did. In Ohio Clinton was well over 60%; in Pennsylvania she won by less than half as many percentage points. That's not "sobering" for Obama's camp, that's a cause for celebration.

So what's up, Joan Walsh?

It's only yourself you berate.

Reading through the messages in this comments section, one really stands out. It goes like this:

Title: Silent Reader

Ms. Walsh,

I am one of your long-time silent readers. I am far from America and do not have the time to post letters. But I registered today just to tell you that your recent postings, especially after the debate have been disgraceful.

You owe your readers an explanation. You cannot simply discount them as "obamabots" anymore.

-- greetingsfromdhaka

Well said. I think you speak for many of us. I've been on Salon since it began. There is something terribly wrong with Joan Walsh's approach.

Asher Steinberg: "I'll Tell You Who's So Wrong ... PBS for continuing to give Bill Moyers a job."

Bill Moyers has done fine work by me.

Asher Steinberg: "You call that an interview? Where was the AIDS question"

Moyers asked Wright about two of the most incendiary, controversial statements that have been replayed. You're complaining that Moyers didn't also ask about a third one?

Asher: "...or the "why are you endorsing candidates from the pulpit and telling people to vote for Obama simply because his opponents have never been called a ______,""

Now you're just plain lying. He didn't endorse Obama from the pulpit, and that wasn't the context of your quote. It would appear you haven't seen the actual sermon and are pulling things out of your "ash."

Asher: "...or "where did you get the idea that the Middle East is in Africa when it's in Asia"..."

That's not what he said. Do you have simple comprehension problems? He said that students things the Middle East is a continent. He didn't even mention Africa specifically, but clearly he was referring to north African areas represented in the Bible, not to the areas on the other side of the Red Sea. Nothing Wright actually said here was misleading, and you're a nutball for trying to eke out an error where none exists.

Asher: "...the guy doesn't even know what hermeneutic means."

Really? So explain how he used it incorrectly.

Dear Joan: I don't think Jeremiah is wrong. We are a country that believes in a mythology about who we are and we have not been beyond serious faults. I have friends, white, that said they almost would consider joining Wright's church and they were not Christians, due to his sophistication and in the truth he was trying to expose which our history books and especially our politicians don't own up to. Slavery of blacks, genocide of native americans, the war in the Phillipines of course there are many other things to add, but we are not a fully virtuous country and he wasn't saying he was damning America he was saying God would surely damn America for the many sins it has committed. If a man of God doesn't have a right to say that, who does? I could not agree more with him. I question your sophistication? I am disappointed in your stand.

We can't overcome our past until we accept our past and try to move on from there. That was the message of McGovern about the Vietnam War and look what the press and the polticians did to him? But he was right! Why are we so afraid to think we are not as virtuous as we think we are.? We are capable of being a great country but so far we have failed seriously. It is interesting how long we have been unable to face who we really are. "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Designer17