This article was critical of Moveon, not Obama.

By the way, moveon was the group founded to fight against the slime hurled at Bill Clinton. Hence the name moveon.

They fight for progressive causes in a way that should be applauded by Democrats, not derided.

Ah, but they were too critical of Mrs. Clinton and for her supporters THAT is an inforgiveable sin that places them on the "enemies list".

Most progressives support Obama because of his opposition to the war. Not because of his last name, his race, his gender, or that it was his turn.

There are no turns for the Presidency and there is no resume that automatically makes anyone more prepared.

Clinton lost. Its time to move on.

Keep alienating progressive subscribers?

I know it must be difficult for Clinton supporters who write for Salon to switch gears. This is Salon's "War Room".

And what are the majority of articles? Articles critical of Moveon and Obama.

The author is tin-eared to the bias in his reporting because moveon was critical of Mrs. Clinton and Obama, well, Obama had the audacity to run against her.

My suggestion; if Salon expects to remain an ongoing concern. Get writers on board who will be a little more critical of the DLC and the Republicans as the are progressives.

It may not be fair and balanced, but how long do you suppose progressives will pay to be annoyed?

Does anyone think progressives subscribe to Salon for the top notch reporting? We may have at one time (when the reporting was good), but anymore its loyalty for a progressive media outlet. Take that away, and exactly WHAT does Salon have going for it? It won't surprise me a bit to find in the near future that Salon will fold. How in the hell will Joan get on Harball then?

Hogue emphasized, 90 percent of donations to the group during its 10-year history have been under the $5,000 limit anyway.

First, is that 90% by dollars or by number of contributions? Those are two very different things. If you're going to give the guy credit for the stat you should at least follow-up with this relevant question.

Second, how is it possible that 10% of donations have been above the "cap" of $5,000 anyway? If it is a real cap shouldn't 100% of donations (by dollars and number) been below $5k? Or by "the group", does he mean the 527?

like the princess who can still feel a pea through twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds.

The responses to Salon from Obamites could not be worse if Salon published articles proclaiming Obama as a baby killing, soldier hating, Muslim terrorist with ties to flesh eating cults, and beats up homeless people, and has at least 24 illegitimate children a year.

This level of blind obedience and loyalty to all Obama reminds me of right wing authoritarian structure with left wing idealogy.

I guess I would rather have at least one devil's advocate viewpoint, because I already know my own.

Anyway, here's a fuller story on this decision: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php

"I seem to recall it being somewhere around 2004. Conveniently the last year this 527 was really operating. Is there really much a 527 does in the in between years?"

Exactly! What's this Koppelman guy gonna say next? That there have been elections held since 2004? In America? What a joke!

No, the money goes to help buy bras and panties for inmates at New York juvenile detention centers!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/06/18/2008-06-18_pols_clerics_rip_state_for_giving_juveni.html

My prediction for Alex Koppelman's post-election day headline.

When the last election was?

I seem to recall it being somewhere around 2004. Conveniently the last year this 527 was really operating. Is there really much a 527 does in the in between years?

In all likelihood, if there was a candidate that wasn't vocally opposed to 527s, they would have started back up to push that candidate in this election.

Closing a 527 4 1/2 months before an election is mostly SYMBOLIC??!! Unbelievable.

Unless it's empty of all cash, the money has to go somewhere. So where does it go? The Mt. Marxist Birkenstock Rainbow Unicorn Rescue Ranch? Or is it transferred in a complex array of opaque transactions to the Obama campaign anyway?

First, you post about the big, bad, ethical "527 monster" hiding under Obama's bed--not to mention your laughable comment that there is nothing comparable on the right, after the swift boat group has already said they're going after Obama with guns blazing--and then when the biggest, baddest 527 on his side announces it'll shut down, you call it "largely symbolic?"

More and more, Salon seems to be bending over backwards to avoid ANY positive coverage of Obama. Here's a little fact you chose not to include in your post: in 2004, MoveOn's 527 pulled in $20 million, more than half of that from donations of $5,000 or more. That's a significant amount of money, and removes a potentially powerful advertising asset for Obama. And that is most certainly not "symbolic."

Since it's well past April Fool's Day, I'm at a loss to understand your horrible reporting on this topic. You used to be better than this.