That's the point of the article. I still don't get the "why"? Why not just have a cell phone? Why not just have an iPod or mp3 player (if you need the latter; I don't)? Why not wait to use the computer at home (you need maps? you left home without knowing where you were going?)?

The only person I can see using an all-in-one device is a long-distance commuter by public transportation. And don't many people do this on the basis of cost? In which case won't the high price of the iPhone be a deterrent?

You love your kid, don't want him to feel pain, don't want him to disappear. These are good things! What you feel is totally normal.

Plus, what Cary didn't point out, you fill your brain regularly with the subject of disasters. Granted, you're doing it to ferret out the truth and recognize that we don't need to be in the state of anxiety that many in various media want to conjure, but you are still taking all of that in. You're brain is processing it, and I suspect it's coming out when you are dealing with your most sensitive subject: that little, vulnerable boy of yours.

Fortunately, you know what the reality of the situation is. You know how safe he is, and you are. You know how to take precautions in certain circumstances. So don't beat yourself up over the fleeting fears that cross your mind when you say goodbye. I think if you try to fight them, you might well just increase them. Can you say to yourself, "I know things aren't like that, I'm not going to listen to those thoughts anymore today?" And then ignore them? You might find they decrease. Try it. It may help.

Now as I recall the president said, if anybody in his White House were found to have any part in disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame they would be fired.

In fact, he was not found guilty of this at all. Are there no fact checkers at Salon? There was no evidence for him to be charged with that crime. All he can be charged with is (after the Plame's name had already been leaked) having claimed to have heard the information from someone who in fact did not give him the information. In a conversation held after her identity had been revealed. So he's got an obstruction of justice charge to face. Whether he intentionally lied or misremembered is not clear. Let's go ahead and claim he lied (why not? this is Salon). But his is not, repeat, is not charged with leaking Plame's name to either Novak or Miller. Or any other reporter.

So, is Hillary, a lawyer herself, ignorant of the facts of the case? Or does she just see how very well her statement would play?

The only thing Libby was convicted of was having a different memory of his phone conversation with Tim Russert than Russert had. That call came after the Novak story. No attempt to tie Libby to Novak, Judith Miller, or Matthew Cooper ever proved successful. That he leaked any information was never proved, and he was never found guilty of this act. Only his statement under oath about the Russert coversation, when Russert was brought into the trial and gave a different account of the call, lead to a charge of obstruction of justice. It's an incredibly minor point, and the sentence really was ludicrously severe under the circumstances.

In case you care, Richard Armitage is the one who leaked Plame's name. But even then you'd have trouble insisted he get a lengthy conviction because the prosecutor determined that no one had actually committed the crime of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

These are the facts. Wish you'd demonstrate facts that prove your theory, or that Bush "confesses Scooter Libby engaged in a cover-up." Like, a quote might be nice.

Please try to keep these things in mind when writing future articles.

I have been complaining long and loud about Hillary coverage here. Which tends to exalt, excuse and ignore. This article looked the subject square in the eye. Not to spit in that eye, not to glow in the bask. Simply to record and examine. This is what I consider good reporting (for an event of this kind; I realize a State of the Union or policy evalution is a different article). Thanks for restoring my faith, Salon. And thanks in particular to Michael Scherer.

She's quoted as saying

And we will once again be proud to be Americans.

She's really saying she (and implying we) aren't proud to be Americans?