For example:

As a Jew, I voted for Hitler because I didn't want him to think he was just the chancellor of the Nazis.

Oh. Well, when you put it that way, it makes SO MUCH more sense!

did Andy Rooney start writing a column for Salon?

What's next? Exploring the fascinating contents of one's wallet or complaining about all the colors used on labels these days?

Hilary's up in the polls again. I must confess to be confounded by this result. Just another case of nobody ever going broke underestimating the American public, I suppose.

Why someone whose idea of discourse is personal attack might actually see merit in limiting the pool of candidates...

When you hit puberty, come and talk with the adults, but for now I think it's past your bedtime. You're getting cranky.

Why not limit the debates to only candidates we here on Salon like?

Jeebuz Christ, I can't believe this point needs to be made here, of all places! Isn't this precisely the point of PRIMARIES?! To vet the candidates-- ALL the candidates and not just the ones we (or any other exclusive audience) finds acceptable?

It's called democracy folks. Maybe we've forgotten what it looks like after two terms under an annointed, secretive dauphin, but there it is. It's an old system, but I still retain enough faith in it to recognize that the people themselves will weed out the crazies and the marginal candidates. We don't need to abdicate that right to other self-annointed leaders or suffer them to believe they even HAVE such a right.

Let's be serious-- the modern political pool is a limited and exclusive one anyway. Does it really need further limitation?

More voices in the forum is a GOOD thing. It's kind of the basis upon which this country was founded. Limit access to diverse voices at your peril, for all too soon ONLY accepted candidates (and accepted by whom? Don't fool yourself into believing that Joe Sixpack or John Q. Public will be the ones doing the choosing) will be allowed a voice. And thus dies our Republic.

If you're going to limit yourself to women who exhibit the most male qualities, why not cut out the middle "man" and just nominate more male candidates in the first place? As someone who believes that possession of the trait of ruthless ambition that drives most candidates (male or female) is the exact reason that most such candidates should be disqualified from running, I'd welcome some cheerful, caring mothers into the field. Devoted fathers too.

You wrote a flip little piece that you viewed as amusing. Unfortunately, what you assumed was an exercise in intellectual drollery was instead quite simply utterly offensive. Not only that, but it mirrors rightwing "talking points" (if you can call outright propaganda a "point" to be talked about and not shouted at those who disagree). Now you find yourself placed in the awkward position of defending your odd bit of Dowd-like character assassination as really just an intelligent, serious study (oh, please) of gender roles in politics.

Right. And the situation in Iraq is improving daily.

Look, just admit you made a mistake, resolve not to repeat it and move on. We'll understand. Or is that too feminine and unmanly for you?

Depends. Was his mouth moving?

After a long day of repressing societal values, regimenting social mores and just generally telling other folks how best to live their lives, nothing helps a godfearing man relax like a good hooker...

These two may have stumbled upon their life's mission. They should be running a home for wayward girls. Specializing in really, really bad teenage virgins who deserve a good spanking on their bare bottoms before being handcuffed to their beds for a stiff dose (yes, pun intended) of healing sexual therapy. Being employed only part time, hubby obviously has the time to devote to the task and LW is clearly motivated to lay on the healing hands... firmly and repeatedly.

That these people know way, way too much about each other? I mean, I've worked with a variety of bosses for decades at a time and wouldn't have the foggiest notion about their sexual proclivities. This gives the term workplace camaraderie an entirely new and kind of creepy meaning....

I hope that this proposal will actually make it to a VOTE before the Democratic leadership once again abandons it's guns (and it's electorate) and declares defeat.

I fear I will be wrong, yet hope for the best.

How very... Nixonian.

Much as I admire Ms. Sheehan's antiwar commitment and wish that my party shared both her zeal and focus, I can think of no more definite way to insure the election of a Republican to Pelosi's seat than by splitting the liberal vote in this manner.

Am I disgusted with the way the Democratic leaders have mishandled their party's opposition to this war? Most assuredly. But I'm also equally convinced that-- for better or worse-- the Democratic Party represents the last, best hope to pull our country back from the brink of the Republican crafted disaster we find ourself in on so many fronts, including but not limited to the war in Iraq.

This is the same Congress that couldn't stop a spending bill because [gasp] the dauphin might VETO it!!!!!!

Impeachment? First, we'll need to hold a seance and conjure up the spirit of Senator Sam Ervin to take possession of Harry Reid and give him some courage.

Even so, we stand a better chance at the latter than at the former....

With my active support of the administration's woodenheaded policies and by placing service to my party before service to my country, 3,500 and some Americans have died for nothing and I'm afraid I won't get reelected unless it looks like I actually tried to do something to stop it.

Well, better late than never...