Should be your question. Could they be any more biased? Fortunately anyone that thought they might not have been in the tank for Hillary Clinton by now can simply read the articles and tell.

Yes, we know. She's young, she's at least somewhat concerned about how she looks, and she doesn't support Hillary so she's automatically the enemy. This is getting really old. Did it ever strike you that maybe Meghan McCain can be intelligent without the overwhelming need to beat people over the head with that intelligence ala Hillary Clinton.

Sorry ladies everyone can't be Hillary and Chelsea. That's just the way it is. Unfortunately for you that does not mean they're dumb. And some of them are blonde, like Meghan McCain. I would say running a blog attempting to show the real side of campaigning and attempting to support her parent's campaign is a useful job for a 23-year old. Obviously she'll be torn to pieces for this as many of us predicted months ago. However, let Chelsea get out there and do essentially the same thing, campaigning for one of her parents, and she is a saint.

Will it ever end? Now you're down to attacking 23-year old young women who are intelligent and care about their appearance as long as they're not named Chelsea.

"I am proud of my curves and have always loved my fuller figure, as should every woman who is not a size "0". I want to be a positive role model for my little sister and all of the other young women who read my blog and help perpetuate a more positive image for women, regardless of their body size. I feel empowered to tell everyone that it's important to maintain a healthy weight that works for them - not everyone is going to be model thin, nor should they expect to be. To every young girl reading this blog, it is inner beauty and happiness that makes a person beautiful, not a number on a scale."

Ummm. . . I'm sorry but isn't this exactly the message feminists and health experts have been trying to get out there for years? I really don't get this. It's like whoever wrote this article for Salon didn't bother to actually read the GQ interview but just wrote this piece based on what they thought it would say.

I'm sorry but Meghan McCain's doing as much, if not more, than any other presidential offspring I've seen out there. Again so she's blonde, wears lipstick and uses the word "like".

No one's calling her a genius "savant", we're just saying to dismiss her as stupid based on her appearance and an article you clearly didn't read is lazy, sloppy journalism.

They repeat all the harshest and most untrue things about someone. They report the most negative story possibly imaginable. They summarize every detail of it for four to five paragraph. Then in the last two sentences they go, "But of course we don't agree with that." Yeah, right.

Thank goodness dozens of posters finally called Joan on this with that absurd Michelle Obama story they kept running all week. They all said the same thing as I am. You can't run a story listing an endless litany of negative attributes of someone, dig up all their worst quotes, go on for three quarters of a page and then toss in two sentences saying you disagree but never explaining why. It's a subtle form of attack and one we're all onto. I don't care about that. But if you want to attack someon have the guts to do so and don't bury it in other people's opinions then disengenuously claim you disagree with it. That's cowardly.

Respectfully has anyone actually read the GQ piece on Meghan McCain? Because I have and it's clear the author of this piece didn't, they simply read a summary somewhere.

The sheer irony of such an idea has led several posters here to respond with sarcasm. That's a good response because the article is so inane and poorly researched as to merit it.

We have given you several examples of her intelligence. The ability to write a coherent blog based on the campaign. The fact that Meghan McCain understands that being a size 0 is absurd. The fact that campaigning for her father is an act almost all political offspring do and she does not make apologies for it.

Those who criticize her have yet to give us one substantial reason why they think she is dumb other than that she is blonde and cares about her appearance. These are not reasons. Sorry but they're not. I would like to think all sane people, regardless of gender, would recognize that being blonde and caring how you look does not make you dumb.

As for the barbecue, watch the tape she behaved better than her father, her mother, and the assembled press reporters of major publications all of whom were at least 10-20 years older than her. Not that it matters but that also does not make her dumb.

I'm a Barack Obama supporter, but I'd be equally impressed if either one let alone both of his daughters grew up to be as mature, self-effacing, erudite, observant and, most importantly, as intelligent as Meghan McCain. Sorry but I would.

No one needs to apologize to anyone they simply need to offer actual proof that Meghan McCain is stupid before they charge her with being so, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. She's quite smart and she's blonde. She's working both angles. Get over it.