Salon really starting to piss me off

Yet another article in Salon today that assumes that real Dems can't possibly support someone other than Dean. I am getting more and more irritated with Salon's Dean-biased coverage (see my post last week on Huffington's column there). If one more article in Salon tells me that since I don't support Dean, I must be a spineless, old-school, appeaser from inside the beltway with no vision for the future of the Democratic party, I'm just going to have to stop reading it for the duration.

Today's offender: The Media vs. Howard Dean

My letter to the Editor:

------

I've been a Salon reader since the beginning, and usually very impressed with your coverage of politics. But I'm very disappointed in your coverage of the 2002 Democratic Presidential Nomination race. Salon appears to believe that those who support candidates other than Howard Dean are not real Democrats or have been fed a pack of lies by the right-leaning mass media. Last week's example was Arianna Huffington's column in which she implied that the only people who aren't Dean supporters are "Democratic Honchos" from "inside the beltway". Today's example: The lead sentence on the most recent article "the Media vs. Howard Dean" is "Democrats haven't voted yet, but reporters have got the story: The former Vermont governor is angry, gaffe-prone and unelectable. How do they know? Republicans, and anonymous Democrats, told them so".

I am neither a Republican nor an anonymous Democrat. I do not support Howard Dean for President, and it's not simply because I find him angry, gaffe-prone, and unelectable. I also believe we need a President with strong credentials in the international community, not, as Dean admits he has, a little hole in his resume there. I support Wesley Clark for President, and I think Salon needs to spend a little less time obsessing about Dean, and a little more time researching why perfectly good Democrats might support someone else.