Actually, my friend, my "I assume you're talking about Bill Clinton" comment was simply a joke, not an obssession. Damn, the man hasn't been president in seven years, and liberals still can't laugh about his little fling. Sad, actually, that Salon readers like yourself are so humorless.

It amazes me how Joan always manages to work Giuliani's extramarital affairs into each article she writes about him -- and with such venom. And yet when people of her political persuasion refer to Bill Clinton's many trysts, they simply shrug and say "It was just sex."

Talk about dripping with hypocrisy. You're pathetic, Joan.

Yes, after all the years she's spent on the Billy-Bimbo watch, I'm sure she's learned to conserve what energy she has left.

then Laura Bush should be the Republican nominee.

Yes, Joan, now they risk keeping the pitiful number of readers they have left.

I assume, Joan, that you're talking about the $40 million cost of the independent counsel's investigation of Bill Clinton's little tryst. But what in the world has he to do with this?

it's called a joke. Does no one have a sense of humor here?

it's called a joke. Does no one have a sense of humor here?

Back off? Oh, pah-leeze. I just spit my Diet Coke all over my desk I'm laughing so hard. Lighten up. You'll live longer.

I think I pulled a hamstring.

I wouldn't quite say he was effeminate, but I know what you mean. I think it's more like he was the tattle tale in school who used to get beat up all the time. You know, like Martin Prince, the Simpson's character.

It took fourteen pages -- 13 of those geared towards Franklin' Foer's attempt to keep his job -- but here's the punchline:

"When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."

Pathetic.

I hear they're hiring over at the Bulls**t Gazzette.

Quoting Franklin Foer, yesterday:

"In light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his (Beauchamp's) pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."

Pathetic.

Oh, my God, Joan! We're all doomed!

Gee, Joan, I dunno, maybe they learned it by living and breathing it everyday under the corrupt Saddam Hussein regime. But, I guess when you're a charter member of the Blame-America-First Club, you wouldn't see it that way, would you?

I think we're both a tad guilty of playing our favorite notes.

No hate here, my friend. Just observation and thoughtful reply. In Joan's world, the answer to corruption in Iraq could never be Baksheesh. It had to be America's fault. Or more precisely -- the fault of Bush and Cheney. It's so predictable, it's borong.

Talk about always hitting the same note. Ahhhooooo!

I meant boring -- not borong -- in my previous post.

One of the things I've always admired about Salon was that they were tolerant of opposing points of view -- which I, for one, think is essential in having any kind of meaningful exchange. I was warned once here, but not banned. And I think it was for profane language or being off topic or something like that -- but NOT for my opinion. This is a far cry from the way things work at The Democratic Underground. Over there, all posts are constantly being scrutinized by a team of "Big Brother" types. If you dare present an opposing point of view -- no matter how well-crafted or respectful -- your post is deleted before your eyes and you are banished from ever posting again. It's amazingly neo-Stalinist. I was surprised I wasn't sent to a re-education camp.

As far as my having "done much worse here" at Joan's than you ever did at Glenn's, I think that's a stretch when compared to some of the uninspired, often unintelligible rants I so often read here. Of course, I AM often guilty of being acerbic, but never a raving lunatic. And I always try to avoid profanity. I think it just puts people off.

Hope they'll consider reinstating you.