Clinton would never have gotten this far if she did not act like a stereotypical man.

Clinton has got a set of brass balls. Which is more than I can say for any of her opponents. That much we know for sure.

Frankly, I don't care whose definition of "woman" Clinton fits or doesn't fit. I don't care if her style seems "masculine." She is competent, and for this emotionally-inexpressive, intelligent introvert, she is actually very personable. I was the geek, the nerdy kid with too much knowledge and not enough style in school. I'm still not good at expressing my emotions, even though I certainly have them. So to be frank, I found Clinton's voice cracking to be far more moving than any grand speech popular-kid Obama has given.

One thing I know for certain is that any Democratic president would be a change for the better, but not a significant change. I have no faith in Obama's ability to back up his absurd hope-talk with actions: I have no reason to believe that Obama's version of bipartisanship could possibly look different than Liberman's, or involve anything other than moderates continuing to make concessions to rabid conservatives. Obama would be better than any of the Republicans but I can't understand the absurd and totally unjustified obsession over him.

Clinton is competent. Our most competent presidents have almost never been especially compelling speakers or especially inspiring people to behold. Frankly, I would take Clinton's practicality, which I can rely on, and her strength of character, which she proves at every turn as she endures more criticism than every other candidate combined, over the vague and pretty speech-making of a man who only managed to show in his short political career that he is a slave to industry.

Do you think that Clinton being a polarizing political force is going to stop her from being an effective president? George Bush ran on a platform of being a uniter and not a divider, yet from the get-go he was as divisive and polarizing as he could possibly be. And even against a Democratic congressional majority, he has been practically unstoppable. You're suggesting that the only person who could do well as a president could pander even more to the right-wing than current Democrats are doing?

I suspect Salon keeps Paglia on board because her articles generate a huge number of hits which is good for advertising revenues.

In order to demonstrate that such revenues pale in comparison to the hatred which we hold for Paglia's writing and our sheer astonishment at her continual employment here, I suggest that each one of us take a good look at the ads currently featured and swear not to ever buy their products, and to tell at least one friend how crappy each product is.

Maybe that will convince Salon that when we say we want Paglia gone, we are not actually being ironic/sarcastic/coy/joking in any way.

Of the current 128 letters published in response to this article, at least 92 (that's 71%) either explicitly call for Salon to dump Paglia or express their frustration at the ongoing lack of quality in Paglia's writing and analysis.

A significant portion of the remaining 29% of letters do not address the subject at all, but instead respond to other letter-writers or comment on issues mentioned in the article only.

A very small minority actually seems to approve of Paglia.

ARE YOU READING THESE LETTERS, JOAN? BECAUSE IT SURE AS HELL DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT.

I keep on clicking on the link for the anti-marriage thing and it keeps on bringing me to the index, for which the top two articles remain this thing on healthcare and the quote from Chris Matthews about Clinton.

This man cannot possibly have written a book of scholarly worth.

He describes it as "revisionist history," and as a student of history I can tell you that among learned history scholars that is never intended as anything but an insult. It's unsubtle scholarly code for "sensationalist, money-grabbing crap."

The idea about history is that you don't revise it... you revise the way you look at it. That Mr. Goldberg fails to make the distinction means he is no student of history, just another loud-mouth pundit trying to make easy cash by being the loudest and most controversial voice on this week's bookstand.