I've read Rebecca Traister's "story" four times now (which was painful, given the essential idiocy of it), and I cannot for the life of me see what Edwards said that was so offensive or so sexist. So Traister admired Edwards's positions on substantive issues, but now that he dared to respond to a reporter's question about Hillary's staged weep-op, his political stance has been nullified?! I've been increasingly disgusted by Salon's embarrassing HRC-worship, but this reaches new lows.

And commenting on his hair--how adult, how original, how civil. What an utter embarrassment of an "article."

We have no credit card debt, and our mortgage is a) low and b) close to being paid off. On the other hand, my grad school student loan is so enormous that $1200 wouldn't make much of a dent. So I won't be using it to pay down debt.

When the stimulus plan was first discussed, our plan was to send our check to John Edwards. Now I think we'll probably give $100 to Obama and save the rest for a long-planned European trip.

For those not as obsessed with the work of David Simon as I am:

Munch was in the bar at the same time as Lieutenant Mello, who is played by (the real) Jay Landsman, who is the real ex-Baltimore police whom John Munch is based on. How's that for sly references?

...in, say, 2002. It looks dated and irrelevant now. A complete waste of space.

I am so not renewing my Premium subscription.

Harlan, who's been a favorite of mine since I first listened to him when he was with the Timberwolves, is known for his hyperbolic quips, so much so that the Minneapolis paper once sold t-shirts with his top 10 lines. "Oh, baby, what a play!" is probably the one he's best known for, but I always liked "With no regard for human life!" and "I saw man fly!"--another one that he used all the time for KG.

Looks like an interesting read. But that's a big, ugly dangling participle in the subhead, unless you're suggesting that Janelle Brown is an it. Probably not Ms. Traister's doing, but someone at Salon should know better.

The misplaced modifier was corrected shortly after I posted my letter last night.

In skimming the 18 or so pages of this letters thread, I notice a certain similarity among several letters, all asking why the question of "black racism" wasn't addressed in the roundtable discussion. It's beginning to look like a coordinated campaign. Especially when the letters keep appearing in spite of some excellent responses that address the question.

To pretend that it's the same thing when white voters refuse to vote for Obama because he's black as when black voters, after voting for white candidates all their lives, enthusiastically support a viable black candidate is, let's say, disingenuous or willfully ignorant at best.

Bloomberg would get all the Jewish votes? You mean you've asked all of us? Oddly, you seem to have missed me. I'm voting for Obama already, but Bloomberg's presence on the ticket would make me less likely to vote for Obama, not more.

The sooner we can dispense with the idiotic trope about Jews as a monolithic voting bloc, the better. (And another news flash for you: middle-aged white women aren't all Clinton supporters, either.)

As for Mr. Shapiro's inane article, I'd lay odds that this piece wouldn't have been written with the same title or tone had Senator Clinton been the nominee. Breathless anticipation would have been more like it. Salon gets worse every day.

Farhad's article makes a couple of very valid points: that repeating a lie is probably not the best way to get people to start believing it, and that asking people to provide the passwords for their e-mail accounts is a bad idea that makes any Website look less than trustworthy. (There are a number of social networking-type sites that employ this tactic, and they've been heavily criticized and branded as spammers for doing so--and spam isn't even the biggest concern about handing over your e-mail password.)

As an Obama supporter, I am glad to see the senator's campaign not emulating the "ignore it" approach taken by the Kerry campaign, but I think there are better ways to go about addressing the rumors. And as another letter-writer said, I'd very much prefer that Senator Obama not act so outraged about the idea of being a Muslim, because it validates the notion that being Muslim is bad or wrong. Just once, I'd like him to say, "I'm not a Muslim, I'm a practicing Christian, but if I were a Muslim, I would be proud to be one." Yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen.

But I was still pissed off to see this on the Salon homepage. The fault is not with Farhad Manjoo, but with whoever chose the headline and made "What's wrong with Obama's..." the first thing that visitors see when they arrive at the site. That phrasing and positioning lend yet more credence to the idea that Joan Walsh is on an anti-Obama mission, and once again, Salon looks partisan and petty. I can think of 15 different headlines that would have been as descriptive as, and much less inflammatory than, the one that was used.

That headline is worthy of FreeRepublic.com. But far be it from Joan Walsh's Salon to miss an opportunity to get in a dig at Obama.

Ever consider the possibility that Obama's consideration of Gov. Sebelius for veep is completely unrelated to any desire on his part to pander to/insult/pacify you, but has to do instead with her experience, electability, and political compatibility with him?

You haven't considered that possibility? Yeah, didn't think so.