It took me a really long time to understand why Joan is always calling out, and thereby calling attention to, the very nastiest anti-Clinton people and anti-Clinton posts. I have a tendency to do it myself, just on the off chance that some totally un-self-aware idiot will actually get a clue. But I am not a powerful, high-profile editor and I don't write editorial after editorial on the subject.

Here's the thing, though, guys. Did you notice that "high-profile" part? Joan has to distance herself over and over again from these freaks who just refuse to get it. People will come to this site and associate Joan with the very worst possible anti-Clinton remarks. She wants to stand up and say very clearly that she's not down with that garbage. Yesterday on Carpetbagger, Steve Benen pointed out that Freeper had to close down its comments section on Ted Kennedy because the comments were so nasty. And, right on cue, some part of my mind thought, "Yeah, those asshole freepers are always saying over-the-top and crazily inappropriate things! Can't stand them!" Then I thought about the comments section here at Salon, and how I always thought the idea that people would judge Salon by the comments section was not only misguided but also silly. Oops. Maybe not.

Joan, I would like to make two requests that I think will do more for this particular cause of yours than all the face-bluing statements about "Obama supporters" put together:

1. No more calling anti-Clinton statements or anti-Clinton people "pro-Obama" or "Obama supporters." Your "alleged Obama supporters" was a good line, but why not just "anti-Clinton trolls" or "anti-Clinton posters"?

2. Please, please stop with the tabloid-style headlines and commentary. A few now and then are good for a laugh, but this has become a disturbing pandemic on Salon. The more outrageous and biased the headlines and commentary are, the more outrageous and biased the comments will be. When Salon sets a different tone, I expect sensationalists who are attracted by the tabloid style - as opposed to the fuddy duddy loyalists like myself - will stop reading and, even better, stop running their ugly mouths.

Yes, but not when they were 5.

And most of them were homeschooled anyway. The mark of privilege back then.

One big change has been that full-day kindergarten is now standard. And I do mean FULL DAY. As in, long periods of worksheets and other seat work for 5-year-olds. If you have a boy, you are now discouraged from sending him to kindergarten until he is 6. Why? Because what they used to call 1st grade is what goes on in kindergarten now, and the old kindergarten is now preschool.

Everyone can learn to sit still and do seat work eventually - but the expectations are higher and higher for younger and younger kids.

Seriously, I am totally floored by this number. But how is he going to use this up in the next three weeks? Can any of it be applied to GE campaigning?

We've got a real classy bunch of commentators in the War Room tonight!

You people are unbelievable.

I too am tired, oh so tired, of trying to explain to certain people why voicing your complaints about Hillary Clinton in a gender-coded way is a bad idea. The resistance to this idea, apparently within our own progressive ranks, is truly incredible. I guess I live a sheltered life here in Vermont, but I moved here for that very purpose.

That said, I am also getting oh so tired of hearing what "Obama supporters" do and don't do. The vast majority of us on these boards do not fit the misogynist stereotypes, so I have been disappointed every time I read feminists I otherwise respect (you and Joan Walsh, mainly) using categorical statements about what Obama supporters are like. Of course, every time Joan so much as sneezes, a bunch of anti-Clinton folks come out of the woodwork to criticize her for it, starting the whole cycle again. Sigh.

But I actually think this conversation has reached a far more productive point tonight. And that's to your credit, AKA. You are a master of Socratic method - though occasionally as frustrating as the original. :)

Good night, all.

and I believe that much is due to you, I believe you are the one who brought up Obama when you said "Why have Obama's black supporters not be[en] criticized for giving him an overwhelming advantage?"

Regardless of who brought it up, it is difficult to talk about double standards if you don't discuss both standards.

Speaking of which "It is the damned double standard and pure phoniness that pisses me off. Yes! Pisses me off!" too!

My position against personal attacks, especially through a categorical identity filter, has been consistent - from the time I was an Edwards supporter, throughout my decision process between Clinton and Obama, and during the relatively short period of time that I've been willing to call myself an Obama supporter instead of just an Obama voter.

So I take offense at the idea that you think I am "complaining about racism among the 'hillbillies'." I believe that word was introduced to Salon this morning by a Clinton supporter with enough clout to be given a forum at Salon. I would never use that word, and I have consistently warned people against accusations of racism - especially when they have been framed as classist attacks about inbreeding, dental hygiene and illiteracy. There is hardly anything that makes me more angry than attacks like that. Except, of course, attacks framed as sexist ones about people's voices or racist ones about people's patriotism.

But that's a small point. We are in complete agreement about the double standard.