First, let's get some basics straight, so we can attempt to straighten out at least part of your convoluted post.

Newsflash: I'm a woman.

Never hid it, never pretended I wasn't.

Sorry...there goes your theory...

My disdain for the work of Joan Walsh has nothing to do with misogyny or sexism or any of your usual canards -- it has everything to do with the fact that Joan Walsh is not up to the challenge of her job.

So...Is that a shock? I'm a woman -- and a card-carrying ACLU member, union member, liberal progressive Democrat, NOW/NARAL/Emily's List member, east coast, urban feminist one at that. Worked on women's candidates' campaigns since I was a teenager. I've got two ovaries and a uterus. Lots of girlfriends, and a lovely husband. I've birthed a daughter, adopted a son, been a bridesmaid too many times to count, faced sexual harassment on the job, can cook a mean roast beef, done post-grad work, send money to Planned Parenthood and women's microbusinesses in Central America, watch Sex in the City AND Hardball, I do needlepoint, and I'm just a couple of years younger than Joan.

So, your quixotic battle with the forces of male domination are misdirected, AKASmith.

I realize it's convenient to assume that anyone who didn't or doesn't revere Hillary Clinton or Joan Walsh is some sort of neanderthal man with issues about women.

But me being a woman -- well, it sort of blows a big hole in your whole argument.

I know it's difficult for you to understand that a woman in my shoes could possibly have opposed Hillary Clinton on a basis other than sexism, but there you have it. I did not feel she was presidential material based on her many bad decisions, and in particular, the indefensible and unforgiveable war authorization and Kyl-Lieberman. Nothing sexist about it. That is one politician, no matter what gender, who made a boatload of bad decisions.

Again, big hole in your argument.

I also realize that it's difficult for you to understand that a woman in my shoes would find Joan Walsh's passive-aggressive Hillary-worship and Obama-bashing to be loathsome, but there it is.

But that's the beautify of feminism, in all its glory. We women have the right to make decisions based on the reality and facts of the situation, and not just framed by, or through the lens of sexism, feminism, or whether someone is or isn't a woman or man.

You are one of Joan's strongest and most sycophantic supporters And I know Joan adores you for it, and that's lovely for you both.

But there are many of us women readers of Salon who do not find Joan coy or confessional. We find her calculating and disingenuous. But make no mistake -- if Joan was named John, I'd have the same things to say.

America is facing a crucial election. Right now, we are looking at a choice between McCain and Obama. There are times to be purists, and to be nitpicky, and to dissect everything, but this is not one of them. We have lost several elections, we have lost America's direction, and its reputation, and right now, we need to close ranks, and do what we can to elect a Democrat. And our candidate is flawed, yes. But then, EVERY candidate is flawed, and every single candidate in the primary, had they made it to this point, would be flawed.

As for your comparing Greenwald and Joan, I don't know why you chose a response to me to point it out. I'm not particularly gungho about Greenwald. I think sometimes he does a great job, sometimes he becomes nearly an idiot savant in his singleminded pursuit of arcane topics. I barely even post in his threads (and often can't even get through and keep straight his lengthy, quote after quote, update after update posts) so frankly, I don't really have an opinion on him one way or the other, except that I think he tries to be honest and upfront about how he feels about things. That is not Joan's strong suit.

As for bullies, attacking me and telling me to f--- off, simply because I dare to criticize Joan, well, exactly who is the bully here? Who is trying to stifle discussion?

I think before you go off on a tirade, the next time maybe at least get a sense of who you're arguing with.

Because that "you're a male bully, and a misogynist, and you can't handle women with opinions" schtick may be a popular and convenient one for you (you do employ it rather frequently and tiresomely), but it falls utterly flat when you're lobbing it a progressive, liberal feminist.

Seems to me that you've found a formula. Criticism of Hillary = Criticism of Joan = Criticism of Women = Misogyny

Too bad it doesn't add up.

Thank you.

(FWIW, some people do assume that I'm a man, but I think it's the genderless moniker -- yet somehow, people think "Ancient Assyrian" and they have this idea of King Sargon or Ashurbanipal...)

LOL. Thanks for your concern. But pay no mind to AKA's blustering.

Whatever she/he/?* is, she/he/? has a right to speak up. C'est la vie, right?

(*Is AKA perhaps an alternate identity for Joan herself? They seem to be of such a like mind that they are nearly indistinguishable!)

Gotta love it...

The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right's Dirty Work?

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355/

Alternet clearly has Joan's number...

Alternet has said it better than I can...to explain why I find Joan's editorial focus at Salon so counterproductive.

"The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right's Dirty Work?"

A quote:

...progressive and independent media -- perhaps because we imagine that our readers are different than normal people -- frequently undermine progressive messages, or more likely reinforce conservative messages

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355/