Obviously Rebecca included Bill Clinton in her survey, so she can't be blamed for omitting him. Editors didn't communicate clearly enough with the art department on this piece, for which we apologize. Because I'm sure there is consensus on one point: the graphic would have been MUCH cooler with Bill Clinton in it.

While I was here, I deleted some over-nasty, under-smart letters, FYI.

Thanks, Silenced! That made me smile.

Yes, this is a recent interview, which is why it's so disturbing. I also made the connection to when he cried talking about Jeb losing the FL race. Bush Sr. is an emotional guy, but he doesn't seem to be choking up randomly. He's got a lot to cry about lately.

Garry Owen, we will be keeping the joint open on weekends more as the campaign heats up, but with a relatively small edit staff, it's not an option right now beyond wire stories and some blogs. But I agree we could be empowering our readers more, and we'll be coming up with tools to do that in the weeks and months to come. I will keep you posted.

Likewise, salonmarte, we are looking at some of the suggestions you propose for increasing communication among letter writers. But in the meantime, since you're a Premium member (thank you!) have you joined Table Talk? That's our venerable Salon reader community where people can discuss topics of the day in greater depth.

Until we get more of our reader tools developed, I appreciate people using my blog comments for good ideas and story ideas. Thanks!

And finally, I know I've gotten a little one-note about torture, but that's how much it matters to me. Head over to Digby's place to read her take on the former President Bush tearing up on Fox News as he described how we treated Iraqi soldiers with dignity during the first Gulf War. Why is this man crying? Because his son has destroyed his legacy in every sense of the word. That's how much the waterboarding issue means.

Mikes Pace, torture violates the Geneva Conventions, and there is no scenario in which I'd say it's justified. It's morally wrong, it violates international law and it's been shown to be of dubious effectiveness anyway. Throwing in the effectiveness issue might make me seem like a moral relativist -- the first two are good enough for me, but when you add the third, I simply can't believe we're having this debate in the United States, or the pages of Salon. I've been listening to Springsteen's "Long Walk Home" twice a day to keep my bearings.

Guitar girl, yes, that was me at Springsteen in Oakland -- apparently there's video of my section of the pit on YouTube. You should have said hello! Great show, great crowd.

Bill Keller, I've been traveling and will try to find time today to listen to the NPR segment you've mentioned. Thanks.

DLF, thanks for the note. The lack of a letters link to Ruben Bolling's latest cartoon is a glitch with our publishing system we're trying to understand -- it was in no way intentional. I think, in fact, I try to use this blog to let you know about format changes, changes to our letters policy, features we've dropped (I too still miss "The Fix," we're working on another kind of aggregator, stay tuned). If you disagree, let me know. And for general comments you can still send email to letters "at" salon dot com. We still read them!

Thanks, conryw. Fixed the link. To Pyrian and calcareous I'd say: Stewart and Colbert are hilarious, and we may be able to count them as liberals -- partly because, as Colbert says, reality has a well-known liberal bias. But they are both entertainers first, and however liberal they seem, they are not at all ideologues, whereas Limbaugh and Coulter are first and formost ideologues who are also (to some people) entertainers. Or so I think, anyway;I really don't have any idea what either of them truly believes.

Ktwdawg, that's a good story idea. I did a post on Obama and the bill this afternoon which I'd started yesterday. But we'll follow up on Clinton; while Obama at least has said he'll oppose the bill (though he hasn't taken a position on Dodd's filibuster) she is so far silent. We'll stay on it, thanks.

Sorry John Singer Sargent, that was my coding error, it should be fixed now.

I'm sorry, Garry, I absolutely shouldn't have said that, I was just frustrated to have a four year old book review used as proof I'm in the tank for Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy. And Ktwdawg, I shouldn't have misspelled your name!

Ktdawg, do you really think it's fair to use something I wrote in 2003, in a book review, which was meant as a partial mea culpa for some of the nasty things I'd written and said about Hillary Clinton, as though it's some kind of endorsement of her presidential candidacy? I frankly think that's both unfair and kind of silly. Everyone at Salon went bonkers over Obama in Boston in 2004 as well; that doesn't mean we support him, either. People can wear themselves out finding "evidence" I "support" Hillary Clinton, but I haven't chosen a primary candidate yet, and it seems like a better use of energy to work for your chosen Democrat instead.

And Garry, I've never seen you cave like that!

tommydsz, I was the first person I knew of to criticize Hillary Clinton for her Iran vote, the day she cast it -- I talked about it on Hardball before the Dartmouth debate, as well as after, if memory serves. And I criticized it on this blog.

I'm not rooting for her, I'm just reflecting reality: the longer the Republicans dither like this, while she's the Democratic frontrunner, the better off her candidacy is. It's not a statement about whether she deserves to win. I'm still making up my mind, like most other voters I know.