xufapemu, I used to believe that. I don't any more. The allegedly sullen Clintons were THE story today on cable news. I'm really not bringing anything up that isn't already up. And hey, I was a history major; this stuff is going to be around for a while; the sooner we get a jump on digesting it and understanding it, the better. This was epic. It still divides and haunts the party. Please don't blame me.

John Anderson, you're entitled to think that. But maybe "people" should think about where we are before they "vent" all over again. Politics takes discipline, along with honesty. It's not for the self-indulgent. I wrote this because I thought it was time to write it. If people continue to demonize the Clintons, Obama will lose. And I say that as someone who will vote for him, no matter what people do to the Clintons. But I know an awful lot of people who won't, and their numbers aren't shrinking the way I expected them to. Sure, blame me, it's apparently hella fun. I wish I wasn't right about this, but I am.

because cable news WANTS them to be the story.

I wonder how the Republicans would have handled George HW Bush had McCain won a hard fought primary?

But I don't remember George HW being as involved in his son's primary fight as President Clinton was this year. I had wished that he would have tried to stay above the fray as much as possible, for his and his wife's sake.

There's hurt feelings all around, and I wonder how the Clintons would be treating Obama had he lost. What would they make of Obama wanting his name placed at convention.

Cable news have their priorities and liberals, Democrats and progressives have theirs. Our priority should be to get Obama elected. Period.

And its one thing to comment on the topics on these news programs; another thing entirely to buy into them.

There is little to say other than Perfect.

All my respect for this one and the courage it took to write it.

Joan, if you re-read your article it appears like you're venting.

It seem you think the Clintons are still in the driver's seat. Hillary isn't on the ballot. And while it may be damaging to Obama's campaign to continue criticizing the Clintons, it most certainly is damaging to Obama's chances to keep attacking him for the primaries.

The Clintons are in the news because they are making public their hurt feelings. They feel that they aren't being treated fairly.

In my mind, they are again hurting themselves with what seems petty tantrums and are ceding the "high road" to the Obama campaign on their role at the convention.

xufapemu, thanks for your thoughts.

while I might disagree with you on your continued support of Hillary over Obama, I never doubt your intelligence or integrity. If I hear you're going to be on Hard Ball, I always make sure I watch it or record it.

I just don't want you to think that you're hated or not appreciated.

This seems to me subjective at best. The outrage over Clinton being smeared as a racist strikes me as similar to McCain and Rick Davis complaining that Obama was "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck" after Obama's self depreciating laugh line.

Neither Clinton or McCain are racists. I find them both to have been divisive and cynical. Rovian in McCain's case and Penn-ian in the Clintons' case.

It's so tiring and so not helpful.

And what's this about PUMA "catharsis?" Good Lord, what are we in group therapy? This is the single most imporant election in my lifetime and I feel like I'm stuck in Groundhog Day 2 - Silly Season.

That word is "Bravo!"

I am glad you at least responded, albeit in the most teeth-grittingly patronizing manner possible. That's more than you usually grant, so credit is due.

You accuse me of lacking nuance or compassion. I'll grant that I was harsh, but so what? I will see your "lacking nuance" and raise you to "lacking self-reflection." You are pathologically unable to see the contradictions in your own stances, and in my humble opinion it has been a stain on your credibility and on the entire Salon web site.

It also comes and goes. In one column you seem to have become reasonable and level-headed. Then you swing violently back to this bizarre, barely-concealed chip on your shoulder diatribe, that starts off with the soft-edged, thoughtful tone and rolls like a snowball down a mountain into this psychologically self-contorted boulder.

You present yourself as fact, then you spew fiction. You're a walking contradiction.

Let's have a look:

Joan Walsh: "I didn't equate those slurs; I went out of my way to say white people's reaction is a result of their having been sheltered from such exclusion."

You went out of your way to couch your statement, but the statement is still ultimately one of equivalence. The fact remains that racial slurs such as "nigger" or "kike" have a cultural and historical background of dehumanization, while "racist" doesn't even approach them. Yet you placed them side by side and claimed that being called one gave you empathy for the other. That's equivalence, bubba.

Joan Walsh: "When you reply to my posts, it's always one-note and tone-deaf, in my humble opinion."

You really like the term "tone deaf" and I notice you use it in response to just about anybody who disagrees with you. I admit that my responses are often oppositional. Not "always" but often, and you conveniently forget the many posts I've written agreeing with or expressing gratitude for something you've discussed.

But the fact is, sometimes your columns piss me off, and here's why: I don't think you have good faith. I don't think you play straight with readers. I don't think you respect us. Seriously. And I find that offensive. Maybe it's only a part-time problem for you, but plainly you do not listen to what people have to say, and the more people react negatively to you, the less you listen to them. The end result is you end up pushed into a corner with a chip on your shoulder, and you should have evolved past this long ago. I thought the primaries ending and your summer vacation would help, and it seemed to at first. Now you're right back in the miasma. Do you even know what you're doing? Your column starts as a "point with prase" for Bill Clinton appearing at the convent. Graf by graf, it descends into a reiteration of every perceived slight against the Hillary CLinton side that we've gone over, and over, and over -- for months. And it just keeps repeating the same half-truths, which never seem to go away no matter how often they're questioned or rebutted. (For example, you continue to say Obama surrogates were calling the Clintons racists, but you never name names or cite incidents -- it is now taken on faith that this occurred, but many people find the statement inaccurate and contentious to say the least, and you have no business as a professional journalist repeating this claim without citation.)

Joan Walsh: "The great thing about being called a racist so often this year is that there's not much more that can bother me."

I agree that it is wrong to go around calling people racists without just cause. I would only ask that people not do the same with the term "sexist," which is part of the point I was trying to make. You say you found the over-use of racist charges offensive, but you were very free-dealing with charges of sexism. Salon featured major stories about sexism in the Obama camp at the same time you consistently downplayed any and all charges of racism from the Clinton side (including, but not limited to, the Ferraro statements.) Many people used a double-standard in this regard, and apparently it has a shelf life of Twinkie proportions, because here you are, doing it again. You say that an Obama "surrogate" called the Clintons racists, but where is the evidence? How are you defining surrogate?

Joan Walsh: " I am not sure what's happened to you. You used to be open to a little bit more complexity. I hope you're well."

Oh, Joan. So patronizing. What happened to me is I can't stand patronizing, willfully illogical garbage from somebody who ought to know better.