Many choose to only examine her comments on Israel. That's fine. But there was MORE to what she was saying.

She said we'd form a nuclear "umnrella around our allies in the region." That means Saudi Arabia and probably Iraq too. So now we would go to war with Iran not just over Israel, but over Saudia Arabia and Iraq, too. Are you willing to nuke Iran for the sake of Saudi Arabia? Cause I'm not.

If that's not the case than she needs to explain what a nuclear umbrella around our allies is. Cause her husband sure had a record of supporting Saudi Arabia at every turn, and she's running on his record.

Also you Clinton supporters are conveniently choosing to ignore her Kyl-Lieberman vote, where she essentially called the major component of their military a terrorist organization, green-lighting the way for a future war with them. Even under the current Bush Administration.

No she has an abysmal record when it comes to Iran, and she needs to explain it.

The saying is "Speak softly and carry a big stick" for a reason not shout like a petulant little child and carry a big stick. If you have real power, this is not the way to go about things and, if a glance of what foreign policy would be under her, a frightening glimpse of disaster.

You two are right. She's clearly just trying to swing the big stick and make us think she's tougher than McCain. Everyone can clearly see through it. So you're right there's no point going on about it.

Carol gets my vote for best letter too. That's how you deal with Joan.

What was the question again? I've seen responses about Jesse Jackson and Malcolm X (no clue what they have to do with anything), a comment on Obamaboys (the worst article ever written universally agreed by basically all here) and something Amy Poehler said about fart jokes.

Yawn.

Christopher Hitchens said women aren't funny. He also still says the Iraq War is justified, a great idea, going swimmingly and the thing he is most proud of advocating. And, oh, that God could not possibly exist in any universe ever under any circumstances.

So who cares he's a moron.

Anyone with a sense of humor or better yet common sense would have either a) chosen to ignored him or b) laughed at the fact that he's a sad excuse for a human being and probably hasn't been laid in at least 3 years.

So again why should we care?

Are women funny? Of course. If you're bothering to ask this question you're either stupid or lack a sense of humor yourself.

Something tells me this article has more to do with Rebecca Traister's attempts to prove herself the super-duper feminist and thus ingrain herself even further with Joan Walsh.

Obamaboys, Vaginadome and now this. Yawn. Wake me up if it ever gets good.

Joan you really are approaching new levels of hypocrisy.

If you're working the refs for Hillary then you're picking a side and essentially endorsing a candiate. This is what we've been telling you for months. The fact that you're also trying to help "women everywhere" along with it, doesn't change the fact you're actively setting out to try to help Hillary.

Do what we've been asking Salon to do for a while now: just endorse and get it over with.

Quit splitting hairs and trying to chop this bias (even you admit you have) into ever more slender pieces. You're quickly losing whatever journalistic credibility you have left.

If you want to still be considered a journalist, at this point, you need to just endorse and get it over with.

It's not a big deal. All major newspapers across the country do it. People still read them. In fact oftentimes more people read them. And people still rely on them, first thing in the morning, for all the important news including political.

Joan needs to do this for several reasons:

1) Her bias towards Hillary Clinton shows. I'm sure she's doing her best to disguise it and try to be fair, but even a journalist as good as her is long past the point of being able to do that.

2) As a journalist she has a duty, at that point to do so.

3) The magazine itself would regain a great deal of credibility by stating, in a simple and straight-forward forward manner, that its editor prefers Hillary Clinton. No biggie.

4) It be honest.

Now I understand Joan likes Obama a lot. That's great. And that their are many things in both him and his campaign she admires. That's even greater.

But at this point it's clear she's picked a candidate. So either the magazine needs to make an honest attempt to report far less biased news or they just need to endorse and get it over with.

The problem could be that certain people aren't being completely intellectually honest with themselves about which candidate they prefer and are, instead, dealing with the detractors one at a time thereby avoiding confronting the larger issue: you clearly prefer Hillary.

Teddy Roosevelt was right. There's a reason this is the approach and not "run around like a madman/woman/person yelling and screaming."

People tend to take you less seriously. So all you're doing, with stupid, saber-rattling declarations like this, is assuring that the other side is going to either a) ignore you or b) ratchet up the response. It's called Bush Diplomacy and it's a bad idea.

Israel has nukes of its own. Yeah that matters.

It's pretty much ASSUMED that we would defend our allies at any cost (as a country we have a pretty good record of this). So why go around stating it? Unless it's an attempt to make yourself mindlessly look tougher than your opponents and garner more votes.