The freezeframe once again tells the tale: Joan feigns high-minded concern while lecturing us about how Obama might have issues in the general election.

Enough! You've been beating the same damned drum for weeks now and it's not sounding any sweeter. Take your lectures and your false concern and shove 'em. Failing that, try diversifying: Express your concern for gaffes like Hillary's RFK remark without making it obvious that you're covering for her. Express concern over racists like Rebecca Traister addressing her opponents as "Obama boys". Express concern over the fact that Salon is a financial failure, kept afloat by people who will never see a profit, whose motivation is to finance a propaganda organ.

New schtick, Walsh. Find it.

I see a lot of letters to this column from people who self-identify as artists and writers. Almost without exception, the LW then reveals what they really are: A self-centered jerk.

A recent example: http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/05/09/monster/index.html

Is it that Cary is also a pretentious jerk who continually swoons over how writerly and artistic he is? Do LWs with similar personality disorders believe that he will be a sympathetic audience and pander to their need for validation?

This LW is no different. She doesn't need warm fuzzies, she needs a bucket of ice water in the face. Fortunately, some of the respondents here are supplying it.

In my previous response to this letter, I noted that many of the people who write to Cary for advice identify as artists, but are actually jerks. I surmised that like attracts like -- Cary's pretensions attract other pretentious people who have lost control of their lives.

In the same way, I can see that this letter has attracted other self-centered women who think they still come first even when a child is on the scene. I know Salon attracts the feminacentric sexists and the man-haters like flies to rotting tripe, but letters like this are the nastiest bit of tripe, the bit that draws all the maggots.

LW: Parenting is hard and you're a sniveling idiot. Stop living in a fantasy world and start acting responsibly.

Sexist respondents: Ditto.

To summarize: You texted a guy for a hookup. He obliged. He took this as license to do the same to you. This was bad of him and revealed his shallowness. You scrambled to recover your snooty bona fides by writing a letter.

At the literal level, your narrative is worse than worthless. It is dull and pointless. It is not even well-written. Others have pointed out your usage errors, but even without those, the piece fails; it is leaden and dull.

Its subtext is amusing, however. You put the responsibility for this allegedly shameful interaction on "Scott", who did not initiate it. You are desperate to advertise yourself as a woman with standards who can afford to reject men, even on irrational grounds.

In short, you're a passive-aggressive snob who isn't nearly as smart as she thinks she is.

Taking responsibility for your own actions is t3h h0tn3ss. You're not hot and never will be. "Scott" is better off without you. He'd also be well-advised to avoid all of the whiny Salon sisterhood who responded to your article with childish expressions of approval. He can do better.

How odd that you comment on the prudishness of some of the respondents -- to be more precise, some of the male respondents -- but not upon Sarah Hepola's after-the-fact prudishness? You don't see anything odd about texting for a hookup and then whining about being texted for another hookup by the same person?

Apparently, in your world, behavioral standards are for men only and cheapshit backshots are for women only. You're a sexist.

(That's "For The Win", for those of you who think it's cute not to know forumspeak. It means softdog said something brilliant and correct.)

softdog, you win this thread. You hit it on the head. If Hepola wasn't such a self-righteous sanctimonious hypocrite, she wouldn't be getting all this criticism.

Amanda Marcotte, another sanctimonious jerk, saw nothing wrong with what Hepola said. This tells us all we need to know about the both of them.

Hillary went too negative on Obama when she was fighting for the nomination; putting her in the VP slot destroys whatever shred of credibility she still has, and she attracts all of her enemies to the Democratic ticket.

The petition is a dumb idea. Hillary can be made to supply a forced endorsement for a much smaller price than the Vice-Presidency. She has alienated the Democratic Party machine with her antics; if she wants to keep that machine working for her in future, she'll have to do whatever they say, and do it with a smile. Her days of self-centered destructive antics are over.

Those who urged her to continue her hopeless fight at such enormous cost to the Democratic Party are going to find themselves on the outside looking in as well. You backed the wrong horse, and you may well have doomed Obama in the general election. If he wins, his people will get their payback on you at their leisure; if he loses, every Democrat will hate you for what you did.

Enjoy it, gang. You earned it.

And Hillary has been stupidly destructive of the Democratic Party's chances in 2008.

If this is the kind of excuse Hillary's supporters are going to make, it shows that nobody intelligent favored her in the first place.

Furthermore, if this is really how Hillary thinks, it's good she will never be president. An inability to yield to reality and reason is a fatal weakness in a president, even if you have a bigoted preference in favor of her gender.