dangeous = dangerous

Speaking of reality denial, you'll remember Rove's prediction: permanent Republican majority. The idea is now utterly laughable. But perhaps Mr. Morris has not overcome the delusion.

As for undecideds breaking to McCain, why would they suddenly do so? Obama's lead has been totally consistent for all of October. No, McCain's only hope is terribly bad weather on Voting Day keeping newly registered voters home.

I assume when you sleep at night these days you dream only of Palin.

Done. I will not be visiting Salon until at least Nov. 2.

WHEN is Salon going to stop obsessing about Sarah Palin? Seriously. It's insane. I'm not visiting the site for a week. And if after a week I log in see another damn lead headline about this woman I won't visit until after the election.

"For the entire rest of the show I tried my damnedest to keep my arousal in check, but every glance I took at the cetaceans in the pool below induced a surge of hormones from my perspiring testicles."

Cary, you've likely encountered contests in magazines or on websites where readers are invited to make up a neologism for certain everyday situations. The Atlantic, for instance, has a "Word Fugitives" section on its last page where people write in with invented words.

I would suggest that something like that could be useful here. Let's come up with a whole new adjective to describe the sentence I quote above. The word would need to encompass the preposterousness and stupidity of the sentence, but also its audacity and the grudging admiration we are all feeling towards the LW. I suggest that the sentence is "bergaffling." Yes, I am bergaffled. There is no other way to put it.

Your sense of humour will be missed along with your tech knowledge. Good luck!

Rebecca, you have provided a fine eulogy indeed for HRC indeed. Your candour regarding your own vote is especially appreciated.

But there's something I don't get. It's been nagging at me throughout the Clinton coverage (which I agree has not been favourable). History has already been changed: by Angela Merkel, by Indira Gandhi, by Margaret Thatcher, by Golda Meir. Sheesh, history was changed more than four centuries ago by Elizabeth the first. We've had female leadership. World-changing female leadership. Perhaps I missed it, but even on Salon I failed to find the article that considered HRC's run in these terms with a view to history in the true, global sense.

Most emphatically, I am not doubting Hillary's achievement or suggesting that American women shouldn't take pride in what she's done. From Japan to Saudi Arabia there are still places where a female head of state is basically unthinkable, and it's great when any door gets knocked down.

But (perhaps because I'm Canadian) I'm puzzled and sort of saddened that even liberal and progressive Americans persist in this bias. Assuming that their country is autochthonous, springing from the ground out of nothing. Assuming that "if it hasn't happened here, it hasn't really happened." Well, it has happened: there's something like two dozen female heads of state in the world right now. If you want to take a little feminist pride in something, the unremarkability of America finally getting around to electing a woman might be it.

Thank you, King, for finally covering some hockey (and not just pasting it to the end of a longer post). I've been reading a lot lately that Americans are more interested in everything from mudwrestling to ballet. But if nobody covers hockey, that becomes self-fulfilling.

May the march of the Penguins continue.

As I type this, the lead article on Salon is "Finale wrap-up: 'American Idol'. America finally gets it right, and the best man wins!"

This is not, speaking plainly, a subject I give a shit about. It's not a link I followed because I don't come to Salon for pop culture. But obviously some people are going to follow it or your site wouldn't be leadng with it at this moment.

So they're talking about munchies on the new WSJ women's section? I can imagine worse sins. Let's paraphrase the adage on book covers: "do not judge a site by all of its links." There will always be some cruft in the mix, even on a good site.

Judging the headlines as a whole, the new WSJ page looks serious and thoughtful. The piece on flexibility is short but information-rich. Perhaps you won't love, hate, or love to hate it, but come to see it as a valuable link targetting women that happens to be more conservative than Broadsheet.

Yes, it would be nice if news orgs saw no need for tacit gender segregation in their presentation. But practically it's going to remain this way for the forseeable future (until male and female spending patterns miraculously converge, for instance). In the meantime, there's no reason to see the WSJ's site as a bad thing. Let a thousand flowers bloom.