For the same reason, I guess, that other people who dislike [fill in the blank: Debra Dickerson, Tom Tomorrow, you name it] don't just skip the articles/cartoons by these artists.

I really liked this piece, as I do most of Debra Dickerson's writing, and as a freelance writer I was particularly moved by it (also envious -- I'm longing for a similarly nurturing agent, accountant). But, much as I keep swearing off reading the letters in response to pieces that I enjoy, I can't seem to resist. In this case, they seem particularly filled with bile sexism. I guess it's the car wreck phenomenon: I just can't help looking on, and being disgusted by both the sight and myself for looking.

Keep up the good work, Debra. And I hope you're a better woman than I am when it comes to resisting reading hateful letters.

The WSJ's editorial page and its news coverage, that is.

Sorry, folks, but those familiar with the WSJ -- and that must not include Tim Grieve, whose work I usually admire - should be aware that the paper has run a lot of hard-hitting stories about the ineffective way the Iraq war has been conducted, among other things. I don't see how pointing out that Barack Obama referred a friend to a social service agency reflects negatively on the candidate -- so I can't see how this could be seen as hatchet journalism (which the WSJ news section doesn't practice anyway...).

... Michael Scherer. You made my day. I rarely laugh out loud at anything having to do with contemporary politics in general and the Republication "debates" in particular but you accomplished the near impossible. I especially liked the Tom Tancredo motif -- it tied the piece together with a kind of vampire theme. Well done!

... but close to it. I found the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Michael Scherer's article baffling. I thought the analysis of gender roles on the campaign trail were interesting, and the reductionist "you're calling Obama a girl" reactions over-the-top. I do think it's sexist to proclaim that an analysis of how Obama is breaking down stereotypes of maleness is somehow impugning his character. With the exception of College Student and Jen Gaboury, no one seems to get this piece. Don't blame Salon for your inability to read what the author is actually saying.

Looking back over the letters, I see there are several others, including Michael Hayward, who probably posted simultaneously with me, who showed some understanding of the piece. I though Hayward's analysis was interesting, but I don't think that we can expect writers to write with the notion of how their words will be used and misinterpreted by the right wing in mind. I do think they can expect that their audience -- in this case Salon readers -- will understand what they're getting at. Guess Scherer overestimated their intelligence and lack of sexism (but I kind of knew that from the way that so many of the attacks are gendered).

As an editor turned writer, I loved this piece. I especially liked the reference early on to the writer who came away from the editing process feeling like it was better than sex. I have fantasies of getting thoroughly and satisfyingly edited like that. Alas, it has never happened.

In an ideal world, editors and writers would work both sides of the desk, preferably starting out as writers. Editors become all-powerful in the minds of writers, who are constantly trying to read the tea leaves of their responses (or lack therof). I regret now that I wasn't more nurturing as an editor; I assumed that writers who were good knew it -- after all, I gave them more work -- and that I didn't have to praise them. It was not until I encountered my own nurturing editor that I realized the error of my ways. I don't know if she really improved my prose (as a former editor, I can't help but polish everything I write to the nth degree) but I do know that she nourished my soul and made what could have been a very mundane assignment, a travel guidebook, a complete joy.

You've got it right. The level of discourse of the several of the men responding to this article is pitiful -- though not pitiable. They've got too much self-pity going already.

I guess the fact that Huckabee thinks that evolution is just a theory is less peculiar to Bartlett than his name. Or perhaps he thinks the rest of America will care less about his scientific notions, or lack thereof, than about his monicker. Sadly, Bartlett might be right.

To my chagrin, I found myself in the same predicament as Rebecca, who expressed it very eloquently. I don't have time to go through the entire letters thread, so pardon me if someone has already posted this, but this is the link (sent by NOW this a.m.) that finally convinced me to go with my gut and vote for Hillary:

www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

Thanks for raising the level of the discourse here. I've been very discouraged about the vituperation on both sides.

One thing I don't think Obama supporters realize: We Clinton supporters are just as emotionally attached to our candidate as you are. I would be happy to vote for Obama should he be the candidate, but I don't like to be portrayed as either robotic or Republican lite as a result of my support of the Clinton campaign. Both candidates have their strengths and weakness but as a woman I take the piling on by the media -- and the insults of Obama supporters -- personally.

Right. You were otherwise planning to vote for Clinton but she's so consummately evil that you can't be "convinced."

As I said, she has her faults and I don't agree with all her positions. Ditto with Obama. All I'm saying it's as much a question of an emotional connection with Clinton supporters as it is with Obama supporters.