how anyone with even a marginally functioning brain could misunderstand it is beyond me.

Was Hillary's letter demanding that Shuster be fired? On the plain meaning of the relevant passage, it was not:

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.

What is Hillary claiming here, in fact? Let's do the logic. It says two things, in fact: 1) a temporary suspension was not sufficient 2) a half-hearted apology was likewise not sufficient.

Can one conclude from this statement that a "permanent suspension" -- i.e., Shuster's being fired, would have been sufficient? To begin with, there's nothing in the statement that requires that interpretation. All it says is that a temporary suspension is NOT sufficient. But there's a further obvious problem with Marshall's interpretation, that it's really calling for Shuster to be fired. Namely, if it were correct, one should every bit as well conclude from Hillary's statement that a truly sincere apology would have been sufficient. The two statements are exactly parallel. And this likewise shows how mindless is Marshall's emphasis on the importance of the word "temporary". The statement also talks about the "half-hearted" apology. Why not, again, take this statement as a demand for a genuine apology? Why claim bizarrely that the one and only thing it's demanding is that Shuster be fired?

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with or remarkable about what Hillary is saying here. She's basically saying that the temporary suspension does not satisfy her (she obviously considers it too cheap a price, by itself). She's also saying that the half-hearted apology does not satisfy her (again, too cheap a price). Those were the two things MSNBC has done, and, from her point of view, neither one of them sufficed. How else is she to put that reasonable point, without confusing the likes of Josh Marshall?

In fact, there is nothing in this particular paragraph that entails logically ANYTHING about what would, in fact, be sufficient to satisfy her. Perhaps even firing Shuster wouldn't suffice, or a sincere apology, or both. That is consistent with the logical meaning of the statement.

And that is one reason that it's reasonable to interpret the real demand of this letter -- the real thing regarded as sufficient redress -- as being in the very next paragraph, namely,
   

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

The conclusion that what this statement is "really" demanding is the firing of Shuster is simply the product of Marshall's biased and confused mind. Marshall is just once again letting his closet Clinton-hatred drive his "thinking".

And Marshall's bias is only the half of it. As far as I'm concerned, you could take the two quoted paragraphs from Hillary's letter, put it in the SAT Reading comprehension selection, and ask the question, Is this passage demanding that the man be fired? All the smart students would say NO. The Josh Marshalls would say YES. It's that cut and dry.

His lies about HRC demanding that Shuster be fired, coupled with the ugly picture he chose to go with those lies are indicative of his desire to portray HRC as a castrating woman.

Marshall is not a real Democrat or he wouldn't be making up lies and slandering a Democratic Presidential Candidate, giving ammunition to the Republicans. Because she just may be the nominee.

Instead of criticizing TPM's journalistic credentials, why not exercise your own and consider that a campaign which (1) uses this language and then (2) claims that it never called for Schuster's firing isn't playing straight but is instead simply attempting to keep this story alive as a distraction to yesterday's clean sweep by Obama?  

Your comments that "in what journalistic world is it accurate to write HIS interpretation of the letter as the... desire of Hillary Clinton?" and that a "REAL journalist would... pick up the phone and ask?" sounds like you're closer to the Tim Russert school of journalism than to I.F. Stone's.