My original post was not a rhetorical question. I got rid of my television 15 years ago, and I have not shopped at a grocery store that sells tabloids for 10 years. So forgive me if I am not up to date on the latest celebrity scandals; my only knowledge of them comes from Broadsheet, and would that there were less of it here.

My point about Michael Jackson was this: he is a gender deviant who is widely considered to be the worst sort of sexual deviant as well - a gay pedophile. Whether this is a fair or accurate assessment of him or not, he is an anomaly. Spears, by contrast, is a very common type with which we are all familiar. If Giuliani is America's Mayor, she is America's Slut. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are male equivalents of the Spears phenomenon, but 1) I genuinely have no idea who they might be, and 2) despite their similar celebrity history, in terms of gender and sexual deviance, even *I* know that Michael Jackson ain't it.

I think a deeper analysis of the Spears phenomenon might compare her (ahem) coverage to coverage of Mike Tyson or O.J. Simpson (America's Bullies?), and might consider public views of people with Borderline Personality Disorder, which I would argue is a distinctly feminine pathology (notice I did not say FEMALE, but feminine) vs. their views of antisocial personality disorder, which is a distinctly masculine pathology (notice again that I did not say MALE pathology). That might actually be interesting and enlightening, instead of just another version of the disgusting/titilating/titillatingly disgusting crotch shot.

Personally, I think the media in general and the tabloid media in particular dehumanizes all of us.

I'm not sure that's totally accurate, but it's definitely true that there has always been tension between feminists caused by this misguided gender-before-race or gender-before-class issue. Honestly, I don't come down on either side. There are contexts in which gender comes to the fore as a source of greater oppression for an individual, contexts in which race does, contexts in which class does. And when I was a poor person, I confess I thought gender was more important. As a member of the middle class now, I see poverty as a more pressing issue than feminism - perhaps because I see that within my class and race, gender is less an issue than it was when I was poor. I am disappointed in Gloria Steinem's recent picking-of-the-gender-race-scab by saying that gender trumps race, as though this were always true, everywhere. It simply isn't. We should all be working together to end institutionalized biases based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Trying to determine definitively which category 'trumps' all the others is a waste of energy.

And as far as the skeletons in respective candidates' closets. The point of scandals to suppress voter turnout. It doesn't matter if negative advertising is obvious, utter lies; its effect is always to make voters feel that the system is bigger than them, and to get them to stay home. So I doubt there's much real difference between Obama and Clinton on that score, once one of them is up against a Republican. That machine always works the same way no matter what, and it's our job to VOTE ANYWAY.

I don't see ads, and I assumed that's because I pay for a sucbscription. But I thought the little green circle with the white star meant you were a "Premium" member (a distinction whose purpose I've never understood the point of making public to readers, but whatever). And I see people with stars complaining about ads. What gives?

I also want to chime in about transcipts! I'm not hearing impaired, but it's clear from many complaints that plenty of readers - READERS - are. Also, people who are at work or whose children are sleeping might not want to play the audio.

CAN ANYONE HEAR ME???????

I love most of your posts, but I think you are taking Carol Lloyd to task about what was essentially a throw-away line - i.e., "what is she smoking?" I know this is an important issue for you, and I usually enjoy reading your take on All Things Marijuana. But can you please forgive her for one little mistake? It was really just a joke.

But it still didn't tell me whose health care plan is better.

George Orwell turns in his grave.

Your cynicism is rare for an Obama supporter. :)

Who-care? Well, obviously you don't have a niece with non-Hodkins lymphoma whose Medicaid card was revoked because she got a job making a whopping $7/hour. Or a mother with chronic health problems who will be unable to retire. Or, on the lighter side, I guess you're not sick of paying high premiums out of pocket, paying high co-pays out of pocket, and then still having payment for some services retroactively denied. I care, and there's hardly anything else I do care about this election. So that 5 percent difference is something I'd like to see fully hashed out before Super Tuesday here on Salon, but apparently it's not going to happen. Damn.

You've made a good effort, but that request is asking too much of the Poster Formerly Known as Obnoxious Anonymous. I do appreciate that he has chosen a handle that won't be deleted, though! The last one he picked was "Immanual Kunt," and apparently the powers that be didn't like it, even though many of us thought is was funny.

Thanks for the morning laugh. I'm not a Juan Williams fan, but that was a nice retort. And I don't want to defend Kristol, but it seems his comment didn't quite come out the way he meant it. I wouldn't make too much out of this cigar. He says plenty of dumb things on purpose.

I'm glad I misinterpreted your first post - but you did characterize your opinion as "who care" in place of "health care." Thanks for clarifying.