Another Salon article that jumps right into the same MSM bullshit stance of "predicting" the winners. You all go on about how awful the MSM is and how they twist elections to their own liking, and yet you do EXACTLY the same thing here.

Edwards finished? Says who? Since when does Salon get to decide who is a viable candidate and who isn't? Who died and made you people Deciders Of Everything?

News Flash, Walter: You do not get to decide who is "finished" and who isn't. WE decide that. US. The VOTERS.

Remember us? The people who go to the polls on election day? The ones who cast the ballots? The ones who DECIDE who runs the country? I know it's inconvenient and all, but you are not psychic, and our votes are PRIVATE until they are counted.

So get off you damn high horse and stop trying to play god already. Stop buying into the whole MSM establishment "reality". News reporters, whether online or not, do not get to be kingmakers. Not in a free democracy, they don't.

What a bunch of rank hypocrites you people are.

Good ol' Jerry. What a pity America was never smart enough to elect him to the White House.

"It's a bit like breaking wind in the elevator. Everyone suffers," Peter Martin of the University of Utah's Traffic Lab said in a telephone interview.

I can think of no better metaphor for using a cellphone while talking. Every time I see one of those jerks nattering away with no consideration of the inconvenience or downright danger to which they put the rest of us, I want to commit grievous bodily harm.

Or at the very least, get me one of those cellphone jammers. Living in L.A. as I do, I could have endless fun jamming the calls of all the self-involved Hollywood moguls who think they own the world!

with whom some men have committed relationships

That's "with WHICH". "With whom" implies the object is a person, whereas "with which" presents it as, well, an object. Ironically, your phrasing puts you in the camp that sees those "creepy" dolls as real people. (Me, I think they're hilarious.)

See, this is the advantage of knowing and using correct grammar - you won't make any embarrassing Freudian slips along the way.

But it has now become IMPOSSIBLE to take Salon seriously when it comes to the Democratic race. You obsess on Hillary and Obama, but ignore John Edwards, who is actually the more progressive of the three, and the one who has PROVEN he has the public's interest at heart. Out of the three, he's actually done more in his life to benefit the public, unlike the newbie (Obama) or the turncoat (Hillary).

Salon claims to be a liberal, progressive site, yet still harps on Hillary as she actually was a progressive! It's pathetic.

One more thing, Joe: Hillary didn't lose Iowa because she ran a "cautious" campaign. She lost it because she isn't trustworthy, and the voters know that. She claims to be "different" from the Republicans, yet she has caved to their paranoia and refused to stand up for them on issues that the American people are sick of being railroaded over.

When will Salon writers get it through their thick heads that she is NOT the answer to the dilemma we're in? When she's in office and continues the ugly warmongering policies of the Bush administration?

This is the last time I'm even looking at any article about the 2008 presidential elections on this site. You people are just as bad as the MSM. Feh.

Typo there: Should have read "refused to stand up TO them".

Yeesh.

Privileged, well-paid white women making a careful attempt not to judge the choices of women not like themselves (the vast majority of the women in this world). Not that the attempt succeeds, of course. (They can't quite keep the wiser-than-thou out of their tone, despite all their efforts.)

Whatever next? Giving those women the benefit of the doubt, being as they are adults? Acknowledging that they're capable of making choices that might actually be good for them? Perhaps even - *gasp* - deciding that judging the experiences of people in other cultures might not be their job?

Who knows where this could lead?

Seems to me Reznor's main mistake was offering the WHOLE album in lower-quality .mp3's. A savvy marketer would have offered one or two tracks for free, then the whole album at higher quality for the $5. You don't give away the store like that if you want to make your investment back at the least.

Next time, Trent, get some brains. I mean, come on - who hasn't heard the old adage about buying the cow?

For gods sakes, how many times a month are you people at Broadsheet going to freak out over a headline? Hasn't it occurred to you YET that the writers do not create their own headlines? Why on earth do you keep expecting them to match the actual data in the article?

On second thought, forget it. I don't even know why I bother pointing this kind of thing out.