750 letters and not a single 'Editors Choice'

Joan Walsh, Salon's Clinton-Apologist-in-Chief, is outraged over the outrage over Hillary's "assassination" remark.

Her blog post is titled: A new low in Clinton bashing.

Criticize Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war, her pandering on the gas tax holiday, her lame remarks about "hardworking Americans, white Americans," her response to Obama's "bitter" remarks, her lackluster campaign strategy coming into 2008. I've criticized all of that, and more. But to argue that she was suggesting she's staying in the race because Obama might be assassinated -- even after both Clinton, and the journalists who interviewed her, said her reference was to RFK's June campaign, not to his heartbreaking murder -- requires either a special kind of paranoia or venal political opportunism.

I understand the fears many people have about Obama's safety; given our country's tragic history, they are real and understandable. Suggesting Clinton was trying to play on such fears is different. Throughout this long campaign the Clintons have been turned into a vile caricature: amoral, power-mad narcissists who are not beyond using racism and even worries about Obama's safety to press their political cause. I've criticized both Clintons repeatedly in the pages of Salon for over 10 years, but it's really time to say: Enough.

At most recent count, more than 750 Salon readers have commented on the post. Most are scathing in their contempt for Walsh's defense of the indefensible.

And out of those, not a single one has been selected for the red-star "Editor's Choice" designation. Wow, what are the odds of that? Must be some really lousy letter writers at Salon this week. Really lousy!