"Clinton Wasn't Vetted, Chet Edwards Was" and "If You Don't Vote For Obama, You're A Racist"

I try to at least browse the offerings on Salon and Slate every day, kind of like some Lefties claim to "monitor" Rush Limbaugh.
It helps innoculate me from getting enthusiastic about anything done, said, typed, or attempted by Republicans, plus their Arts & Entertainment essays are usually top notch.
And even though I know going in that I'll see some political opinions (which shouldn't have survived The Dark Ages) labeled as "Progressive", the trip is usually worth it.

Not today.

Let's start with this somewhat breathless investigation by Alex Koppelman, from Salon.com: "Clinton wasn't vetted, Chet Edwards was".

Let me retype that. "Hillary Clinton, who got almost as many votes in the Democratic primaries as Obama, wasn't seriously considered as a plausible Vice-Presidential candidate but obscure Texas congressman Chet Edwards got to turn in all his documents and answer a lot of questions from the vetting committee and that's not fair."

(Politico's Mike) Allen quotes one unnamed Democratic official as saying that Clinton "was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it." The source also says that Clinton never met with Obama's vetting team. In his article on all this, Allen pointedly contrasts this report with Obama's having frequently said Clinton "would be on anybody's short list."

Responding to the story, a Democrat sympathetic to Clinton told Salon, "If Mike's right, the PUMAs (a delightful acronym that means "Party Unity, My Ass") are going to burn down the Pepsi Center" (where the Democratic convention is being held). Many Democrats have believed, however, that a formal vetting process wasn't really necessary when it came to Clinton, as all the information that would normally be examined is already public.

Once again, can you imagine what questions a vetting committee would have for The Clintons? Click here for my shortlist.

Moving on to Slate.com's crime against logic, someone named Jacob Weisberg has written "IF OBAMA LOSES: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him".

Wow.

I like Obama ok, considering that he's a Democrat from the Chicago machine who has the foreign policy experience of Emily Dickinson. His most significant executive experience was with former terrorist William Ayers, and you're not going to get to see the documents relating to that experience until December. The guy just hasn't done a lot yet. McCain has.

What would happen if we did a reverse "Lincoln Osiris" treatment on Obama, and turned him white? What if we gave him the name Barry O'Reilly? And what if we gave him the identical thin resume? Does anyone believe that generic two-year senator Barry O'Reilly could've beaten The Clintons, much less go up against John McCain?

Mr. Weisberg doesn't understand that Obama's race has helped get him this far, and if he wins the presidency it will be because his race was seen as a positive that outweighed his lack of experience. No white candidate could've defeated the Clintons. Impossible.

As a former Mississippian who grew up in a racist environment, with segregated schools and doctor's offices, I'm glad to see a black man get this far. I think our first black president will do a lot to finish healing the damage. I'd be happier, though, with a first black president named Colin Powell.

The fact that I'm going to vote for Bob Barr instead of Barack Obama doesn't make me a racist.

And someone needs to point out to Jacob Weisberg that they're having a big sale at Clues-R-Us. Maybe he'll get one.