Right after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, there was a spate of stories in the press about 30- and 40-something women having sex dreams and fantasies about Bubba. It turns out that Bill Clinton was an object of sexual desire for many women. This was long before all the stories came out that he was not only a serial cheater, but that he was a genuine abuser of women, using his power to force nonconsensual sexual acts on women.

So when you say Oh My God how could anyone think Palin is hot and maybe vote for her, I think it could be that you just don't remember the early years of the Clinton administration.

As far as the Palin of the day, I've pretty much given up trying to point out to Salon writers that Palin is a distraction and that it's McCain running for president. We're in the middle of a great financial crisis and the media are SILENT on the Keating scandal. McCain took money in exchange for influence. And now he's going to clean up Washington? To me, this is a legitimate line of political attack. But Salon only wants to talk about Palin. Knock yourself out. Myself, I'm tired of it.

700 billion dollar bailout be damned. Salon MUST put Palin on the front page. Nothing else matters.

Actually this article isn't about Governor Palin.

Exactly. So why is Palin's picture illustrating the article? On a weekend when the blogs, the mainstream media, even the international press can talk of nothing else but the bailout, Salon has a cover story that's not about the bailout -- illustrated with a photo of Palin that has nothing to do with the article!

This is Palin Derangement Syndrome. Salon's got a real bad case of it.

Speaking as an anti-neocon independent who does not plan to vote for McCain, my biggest reservation about Obama is that he's weak, easily rolled, and essentially run by Pelosi. Look at FISA for example. The Pelosi/Reid Congress has been a complete disaster. Every Bush war appropriation rubber stamped; zero accountability for executive branch malfeasance; tacit approval of the lying, the spying, the torture.

An Obama presidency would give more power to the spineless Democratic congress. They talk a good game about "caring for the little guy," but they care nothing for the issues that really matter.

Obama may be the slightly lesser of two evils, but an Obama victory would give even more power to a Democratic congress that doesn't deserve it.

Camille Paglia too. I've been reading Salon for years. Lately it's getting to be a bad habit.. I posted a rant about that idiotic dominatrix article when it appeared. Didn't stop Salon's Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Anyway I live in California. Obama's 20 points up in the polls so my vote doesn't count. Sadly, there aren't even any attractive third-party candidates. I'd vote Libertarian but Bob Barr's a terrible candidate and doesn't seem to stand for anything at all.

I truly haven't got a candidate in this race.

A lot of people on the left have it. Something about a woman who hunts, makes babies, and wins elections seems to really uspet a lot of liberals. In my opinion she brings out the hypocrisy of the left. They speak of inclusion, but hate those twho go to church. They preach feminism, but hate female accomplishment unless it's accompanied by the property leftist ideology.

And abortion. That's the key. The pro-choice left simply cannot introspect on this issue. Obama actually spoke a deep truth when he said the question of when life begins is "above my pay grade." Truly none of us know when life begins. The left must begin to come to terms with this, eventually.

None of this should be construed as support for Palin. Clearly she has no second act; her fifteen miutes are up; and she appears dumb as a post.

But none of that explains the left's Palin Derangement Syndrome. The visceral reaction of the write says much more about her own hypocrisy, intolerance, and insecurity than it does about Palin herself.

That's not just me speaking. It's the judgment of most professional economists. Nouriel Roubini, who predicted this mess in detail in 2006 and knows more about it than anyone, wrote a blog post yesterday in which he pointed out that in 42 similar credit crises around the world, having the government buy up the bad paper is the one plan that DID NOT WORK.

This bailout is like having your house on fire and the fire dept shows up with buckets of gasoline. Congress spoke to no economists; they considered no alternatives. This is a bad plan for America and the House Repubs did us all a favor in shooting it down.

Obama is wrong. This is a worse bill than the House version. And how much pork will Pelosi have to lard on in order to get enough House Dems on board?

Is nobody outraged at the way the Federal government throws our money around? This is all on the word of Paulson, who got everything else wrong and whio will be gone in four months.

Now that I don't get. There are a million or so Asians in NYC, maybe more. Half of them are guys, and plenty of them enjoy a nice massage and/or paid sexual services.

Ignoring the issue of why feminists are so opposed to the activities of consenting adults -- you can give it away but not sell it? -- calling the use of Asian models "racially offsensive" is just silly. What, you only want cheesecake photos of white girls in the back of your alt weeklies?

Author, explain please.