"but there's a rumour that Mr. Matthews" i.e relating to wobbly legs.

"but there's a rumour that Mr. Matthews" i.e relating to wobbly legs.

Thank you for this piece.

What amazes me is that the Obama devotees have their blinders on and will not allow any criticism of the Chosen One. The ONLY way Axelrod knew Obama could win was by prying ALL AA support away from Hillary and they did it by labeling the Clintons as racist.

We aren't making this up--remember there was a 4-page memo from the Obama campaign right after NH on how to do it. I will never vote for Obama--he's a Chicago thug with no core principles. The REAL PROGRESSIVE, Sen Clinton, was pushed out of this race in an unprecedented way. I have given up on the Democratic Party. And don't call me an over-the-hill angry woman--I'm an over-the-hill ticked off Democrat!

No, Clinton's not a racist--just someone who freely uses "subtle" racist demagogy (see Sister Souljah, Ricky Lee Rector, Lani Guinier, Dr. Elders, Fr. Aristide et. al. plus his 2007-2008 performances) whenever he thinks it will help him. So no surprise that Obama is glad to give him speaking time.

No, the real question, yet to be raised on Salon, is whether Obama will give great offense to the Zionist lobby by offering President Carter a place in the broadcast segment (or indeed any speaking time at all). Based on his consistent performance to date, I'd need good odds to bet on it.

Hillary wins Nevada and Texas but Obama gets more delegates in both states.

According to the rules the last state to vote gets an additional 2 delegates just for being last. Oh why not? It's not like this is a democracy or anything.

These rules are a travesty and have corrupted any chance of an honest result. I don't care when they were agreed upon or by who. They are an insult to the voters of this country and we should not reward the Democrats for doing so.

Hillary Clinton's was an historic candidacy, just as was Barack Obama's. As such, each bore a special burden to respect the significance of the other's candidacy in that context.

The Clintons -- and Bill Clinton in particular -- deserve credit for their contribution to American politics and to the liberal political dynamic that has been so starved since the 1960s. They deserve credit for their contribution to opening opportunity for all Americans -- regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation and other fault lines historically used as bases for exclusion -- at the social and economic table enjoyed by the preferred classes. I think there is some doubt they deserve the same level of credit as do the Kennedy brothers and Lyndon Johnson, but they clearly were generally on the right side of the issues and often were in the right place when decisions were being taken.

All that said, however, the notion that they deserve a pass for the conduct of the 2008 Democratic primary -- either because of their historic role in liberal politics or because the Obama campaign "did it too" -- simply won't wash.

When HRC's campaign found itself in trouble -- much to their surprise after Iowa -- they chose to attack what they thought was Obama's vulnerability and they chose to attempt to marginalize him as the "black" candidate. This is simply undeniable, and whatever one thinks of it as a political strategy, history should be unforgivingly critical. It wasn't right; it was desperate; and there was no excuse for it.

Nor is this justified by blithely suggesting the Obama campaign did the same thing. Obama was consistently respectful -- indeed often deferential -- of HRC. The fact that other people, including the press, were not is not his cross to bear and suggesting otherwise is simply wrong and unfair. Let's get real, here.

to see Hillary Clinton elected in 2012, ex-Leonardo tells us.

But really, ex-Leonardo, what price are you personally going to pay?

We all know you're not going to be paying for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and the gradual bankrupting of our country. That will your grandkids, and their kids.

And somehow I doubt that you'll be one of the ones dying in Iraq because John McCain will keep fighting until we "win."

Before you decide to sit this election out, go sit in a McDonald's in Killeen, TX or someplace like it. Watch the soldiers from Fort Hood eat their Big Macs and play with their toddlers.

Then ask yourself, "which of these young people should die because I'm mad that I didn't get my way? Which of these kids should be orphaned so Hillary can win in 2012?"

Clinton was thinking of who had won the SC primary big. Naturally, he thought of Jesse Jackson. Other winners include John Edwards and himself. Edwards didn't win it big, although Clinton did. He could have also referenced himself, but then people would have said he was egotistical.

The remark, incidentally, was made on the day of the SC primary, hardly the best time for a dogwhistle--which, as Clinton himself surely knows, wouldn't have worked anyway. This is the Democratic Party. You don't get votes by dogwhistling to whites. You might get them by dogwhistling to blacks, which James Clyburn then did.

What's racist about stating a simple fact, i.e. that two black candidates score very well in South Carolina, which is not surprising considering that half the Dem Party in SC is black?

Bill Clinton's not a racist. While it's fact that some perceived his statements as racist, that doesn't make him one. But the Clintons -- with Bill as surrogate -- were rampant opportunists, willing to diminish Obama in every way, in order to win.

Joan, you're not a racist either. I don't believe you like Obama, respect him, "get" what he's trying to do. But I don't believe it's because he's black. I don't feel you've been operating in good faith in your coverage, but you are confident that you are, that's clear. (And resolving that cognitive dissonance is a job for your therapist, and your letter writers.) Your opposition to Obama, though -- it's not racist.

I wonder, however, why you keep conflating yourself with the Clintons. Maybe someday we'll understand what drives that perplexing fusion, as it comes up often in your blog posts...

"I, Joan Walsh, am being marginalized as a middle-aged white woman -- Hillary is/was marginalized as a middle-aged white woman"

"I, Joan Walsh, am not a racist -- Bill Clinton is not a racist"

XHutman speaks the truth to you -- but, you ignore and denigrate detractors, and opposition entrenches your further. That may be your conflict management style, but it's time to listen, Joan, not just dig in and ignore criticism. If there ever was a time in your life when you are facing a call to action, it's now.

YOU are the editor of a progressive liberal website/magazine, one that plays a visible role in media coverage of the election. Can we assume you still consider yourself a member of the Democratic party -- before any loyalties to Hillary Clinton? If so, then YOU have a role to play. You have a responsibility.

Is your responsibility to write controversial pieces and say things that are designed to stir up "liberal progressives" and inflame some of your readers/viewers, and generate traffic and letters and page views for Salon? If that's what it's about, so be it, but at least be honest with Salon readers and TV viewers, so we know it's about business, and not America's future.

Is your responsibility to personally carry the torch for the Clintons -- arguing for Hillary as the nominee, bemoaning her defeat, crying foul against Obama and all "sexist" opponents, and now looking for her to be VP, getting Bill on the convention agenda? Again, if this is about your love for the Clintons, fine, but at least be honest with us that Clintons trump all in your book.

Or, if you simply despise Obama -- he reminds you of your first boyfriend, you hate Rev. Wright, you think he's fluffy, etc. whatever -- but you don't like him, never have, never will, and don't really want to support him, fine, but at least be honest with your Salon readers.

I don't know how you actually view your responsibility. Perhaps you don't feel you have responsibility as editor, other than to say exactly what comes to your mind, and make your Board happy. But we are at a crucial point in history, Joan. You know that. You can and should be doing so much more!

Most Democrats -- except for the noxious PUMAS, fake Dems, and the wingnut "not going to elect a black man" racists -- are committed to pulling together behind Obama. We are going to vote in Nov. as if our lives depended on it, because they do!!

Are you committed to pulling together?

If so, please consider stopping the divisive rhetoric, and refocusing on constructive coverage of the campaign, convention and election. What you are doing, individually and as a magazine (except for Greenwald) is not constructive, and deep in your heart, you know it.

Please consider no longer offering up controversial, unproven opinions as if they were facts. Yes, it's satisfying to have the bully pulpit of the Salon front page in which to share your own opinions -- the ones you'd otherwise be sharing, like the rest of us, with friends on the deck over mojitos or on the internet. But with that pulpit comes responsibility, and reciting controversial, unproven opinions as fact is irresponsible.

For example, there is no constructive reason to say things like the following: "Obama surrogates [found] it necessary to label our last Democratic president a racist..." "I'm not sure demonizing the Clintons as racist was necessary to elect Barack Obama," "[There] are also rational Democrats still shaking their heads over how the civil-rights-championing Clintons were turned into racist white scapegoats." Enough already, Joan!!!!

You wrote "it's worth some Democrats on both sides who got involved in stone-throwing to examine what happened, and how destructive some of it was." As someone who has been throwing more than your fair share of stones, and being destructive yourself, don't you realize that it's time for you to examine it, and to stop?!

With the convention, followed by 2 months of campaigning, coming up, this is your last chance to show us that you are what you say you are, what you believe yourself to be.

Either you're a MSM pundit, parroting the same-old schtick in order to troll up page views and get yourself on TV, or you're a progressive liberal, who wants to see an end to the Bush administration's reign of terror.

Either you're a disgruntled woman who really doesn't care who gets elected because you're still pissed about Hillary, or you're a citizen of the United States who recognizes what incredible damage George Bush has done to America, and how McCain will only worsen that damage, making even more of it irreversible.

Either you spend the next 3 months whinging and pontificating about Hillary, sexism, racism, and Obama -- without adding anything relevant or constructive to the dialogue -- or you figure out what you can do as Salon's editor to influence America in the right direction, and you do it.

You're either a leader, or a follower, Joan.

So which is it?