As a gay man I've often read Paglia as a woman who harbors a certain animus towards men. I'm glad she took advantage of this news opportunity to pile on both Clintons. I hope she was able to work out her feelings on some of her issues.

Is Paglia a qualified psychiatrist or is she just freelancing here? Does she feel the same way about John Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, other philandering Presidents, or is her bile flavored Clintonian only. Or is the difference here Bill Clinton's having taken advantage of "poor white" girls?

This article is really strange. I'm hoping Paglia riffs on this theme again. I think she does an excellent job of presenting evidence for a new mental malady.

You have to wonder why Paglia is so concerned about Hillary Clinton not having taken her advice to divorce Bill.

I think this article is an excellent example of what most Salon contributors have been denouncing of late.

I would suggest that Dr. Paglia write a paper on this new and frightening psychiatric malady associated with Clinton obsession. Perhaps, she might name it Pagliatonia.

Dear Joan,

I'm also an avid reader of the NYT (and the Washington Post). I've been restricting my intake of TV news for about a decade, but did used to watch CNN from time to time. I could stomach the banality, the anchors' seeming inability to ask a meaningful follow-up question, the reporters' seeming inability to accurately restate anybody's position on any issue, and the 24 hour coverage of every fire and flood originating anywhere in the US.

What I couldn't take was the rightward march of CNN (and unfortunately, the Times and the Post) at the same time the American people clearly are coming to identify themselves with the Democratic party and issues associated with the Left). What is up with that?

I don't get it. I'm not looking for a liberal alternative to Fox News. I'd just like to get the news without an obvious right wing political spin presented with, if not intelligence, at least, with some indication that the reporters have done their homework. I find it pathetic that reporters seem to have such little regard for their profession these days that they often appear to be completely unprepared (informationally speaking) to report on events, let alone, provide commentary on them.

So why are the media moving in the direction of partisan newcasts? Why is it so easy to detect reporters' political leanings? Why do the media think that we want to watch or read catty (and mean-spirited attacks on politicians)? And finally, and most importantly, what is behind the obvious move to the right? Is it Murdoch? Are most reporters and editorialists Republicans? Has media control so drastically changed? Does the ugliness of the whole frontal assault on Hillary Clinton relate to this as well? I'd really just like to understand this strange counter-intutive moment in journalism.

I'm excited that Hillary won and won big among Latinos. What bothers me is the general tone of the comments that Obama supporters have been making for the last week or so. It's pretty clear to me that there is a subset of Obama supporters who simply will not support Hillary in a general election. It's a shame that these Obama Democrats seem to be itching to play the role of the Naderites in 2000.

I also do not understand the negativity of so many Obama supporters. They sound like their not only mad at Hillary and her supporters, but just mad at the world. The statements are very extreme (maybe, a little unbalanced). I hope these people grow up. It's so "I'm 15 and I hate my Mom."

Next thing you know Obama supporters are going to start attacking Hillary for voting for Goldwater in 1964. (Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that?)

I should have said "supported."

Thanks for the correction.

Tread lightly?

Huckabee seems like a pleasant enough fellow, but his world view is skewed in dangerous ways. These words, for certain Christian traditions, aren't just a way of expressing a generic idea. These words are code that relates to their eschatology. Whether Huckabee views the problem of violence in the Middle East in the context of a belief that such violence might some day signal the end times (and this is a good thing), I think, is unknown(?)

We may think of a war in the Middle East as something horrible, potentially cataclysmic, something to be avoided at almost any cost, but there are Christian communities that view such a conflagration as the beginning of something better, something beautiful, something that was prophesied long ago. Some communities would like to see this happen sooner rather than later. The Rapture is the signal event. Maranatha! The Lord is Coming!

Actually, there's really not a whole lot of difference between the eschatalogy of the Hidden Imam of the Twelver Shia and many Christian churches that expect the eschaton to appear shortly. This is not necessarily good theology, but it does seem to motivate people to act in certain ways that sometimes lead to violence (there may recently have been a case of this in Iraq - at least as I understood the reports).

And don't even get me started on the Dominionists.

I'm a Clinton supporter, and I don't have a problem with this. I'm not a Christian, and I don't have a problem with this. I think the aims are completely different. I think it's fair to mention this, analyze it, and then leave it, which I feel pretty sure Obama will do.

Let's be real, Obama has to deal with an American public that isn't all that open to people who have "Hussein" as a middle name. If you put this in the context of SC, you're probably looking at the one state in the union where this is absolutely essential (I mean we're talking SC!)

Apologies to anyone who may have been offended by anything I wrote (including correspondents from SC).