Look, after what we've been through, in 2000 and in 2004, I'm not going to quibble about counting these votes a thousand times, every which way.

It's not about who won or lost - ffs, Kucinich never had a prayer in any contest. It's about the process, stupid. Not the outcome. Because a lousy process ensures a lousy outcome.

Sheesh. Seems a smart nerd like you could figure that one out.

Saying it - however many times - don't make it so.

Surely all us salon.com readers aren't all confused or somehow all misinterpreting all this commentary all the time.

I dunno; if you guys need to get THIS defensive about it, I'd say there's a duck there, looking and quacking just like a duck.

Although I can see from the letters here that the premise of this article is very flawed, I'll add my voice here to say that SSRIs aren't only used for depression but also help OCD sufferers to break through the overwhelming perseverations that prevent them from leading full and productive lives.

But, having said that, I think this article is designed specifically to generate lots of letters, which is to say: to generate page hits for Salon to woo advertisers with. This subject has been beaten to death for years; we all know that too many Big Pharma drugs are over-prescribed, we all know that people make fun of people who take SSRIs, we all know the arguments put forward to damn the people who take SSRIs (bootstraps, creativity, addicts: they're all covered here, and to what end? erm, page hits? Generating heat and not light?).

If someone can tell me why this article, and why now, I'd surely appreciate it. What did anyone learn from this article? (It's the page hits, stupid.)

I've noticed this trend in Salon's editorial choices over time. I think it stinks. But, if you call Joan Walsh on it, she bans your username.

I think this get-the-page-hits trend is pretty craven and worthy of contempt. Not that that makes a bit of difference: It's the page hits, stupid.

Hasn't this issue been hashed out to death, from about 1993 on?

Multiple choice:

Why is this an important article to print at this point in time?

A. Because it raises really new and meaningful issues that nobody's ever considered before and is sure to provide new information on something that is crucial to today's news.

B. Because Salon.com needs page hits, so they print an article that covers no new ground, but concerns a contentious issue that is sure to draw the lurkers out of the woodwork to do a whole choreographed moot-point dance designed to get page hits for Salon's advertisers.

It's still the page hits, stupid.

When are we gonna learn? No one's listening; they're just counting. Page hits. Stupid.

The dizzying spiral downward of Salon.com continues apace.

Enough with the cutsie breaking the fourth wall by the fourth estate. Grow up.

Both Bill & Hill are known to engage in a smidge of "unscrupulous demogoguery" from time to time.... to time, to time, to time. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad hominem.

The difference between these two candidates' health care plans is that Billary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to pass ANY health care package, whereas Obama DOES.

So, sure: vote for Billary. IF McCain doesn't bring out the anti-Billary voters (an enormous "if"), do you want really four more years of the most bitter, most partisan, dig-in-their-heels fighting over Billary's "health care plan", among other things? Because she has a "mandate" in a plan she's already been scourged on, oh, a few terms ago?

Spare me. Spare us. Please.

Paul, I love you, usually. But enough already with your nitpicking. Remember that very few campaign promises survive unscathed after elections, and that Billary doesn't have a chance at getting anyone really working with her on health care reform, whereas I believe Obama does.

YES WE CAN.

Go Obama.

A Billary nominee/candidate/co-presidency would have us re-livng the never-ending Kenneth Starr/Right-Wing Conspiracy nightmare. Billary are so polarizing it's beyond question, and it's not too far out there to think that if they are the Democratic candidate, that that old 50% + 1% would swing McCain's way. Even if she DID gain the White House, do you really think she'll do what it takes to get the insurance and Big Pharma industries to bow to health care reform, and risk losing their lobby dollars? It's pretty to think so, but it ain't gonna happen. My sense is that Obama has a much better chance of positive negotiation and reasonable compromise.

Billary keeps nattering on about "fighting" and, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail. Well, sometimes you need a screwdriver so you don't strip the threads, or a steady hand on a very fine saw to get those mitre dovetail joints just right. And so on. Capisce?

The Clintons had their chance, and they blew it, bigtime. Time to move on.