Doesn't even apply here. Why do people throw around terms they don't understand, just assuming it means what they think it means? "Freedom of speech" does not mean "you are legally and Constitutionally entitled to say what you want, where you want, when you want. The world is your unfettered soapbox." Salon is a privately owned site, and they have the right to set the terms and conditions for being allowed to post here. They're not obligated in any way to allow a free-for-all, any more than you are obligated to allow people to congregate on your private property, shouting things you deem inappropriate.

Anyway, most of the people I'd like to utilize the hoped-for "ignore" button on aren't Anons. They're the ones you know exactly, often word-for-word, what filth they'll be spewing, no matter WHAT the subject... they'll somehow bring their (usually unrelated) personal/psychological agenda into it and make the whole section all about them, every time. Or they have a particular bias against a certain writer, so you know that writer's comments section will be loaded down with tiresome insults from the same person.

But I do agree with the sentiment that Anon posting should be enabled on articles that deal with personal issues. After all, most don't want their identity associated with confessions of threesomes or affairs or drug use or any number of skeletons... but they'd still like to add their experiences to the mix, and advise the posters on their problems. Anon letters in those sections could be edited or deleted for abusive or inappropriate content.

Bloomberg doesn't need anyone to "write the checks." He finances his own campaigns. Mike Bloomberg gives money, he doesn't take it.

Do your homework.

I was replying to a letter by someone comparing this to (*yawn*) Bill Clinton's sex life, I was not suggesting that this issue was just about sex. I spent years complaining about the constant obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life, so I'm not going to turn around and use McCain's against him just because he's a Republican. I have many other legitimate reasons to not trust him... an affair isn't one of them. That's Cindy's problem, not mine. Frankly, I take more issue with him cozying up to Bush in 2004 after what his campaign did to Cindy in 2000. It was obvious then that he didn't much respect his wife, so an affair comes as no big surprise. Especially considering that their marriage was born of infidelity to begin with.

Now, the rest of this thing--like the political influence that this lady allegedly enjoyed as a result of the alleged affair--*is* a problem for me. But that's not what I was addressing/responding to in my first letter.

Hope that made sense.

Oh give me a break. Republicans are falling all over themselves right now to feign righteous indignation at how outrageous it is that McCain's extramarital activities should even be mentioned, let alone considered as a political issue. Oh, woe is us! This is DIRTY POLITICS! To publicly discuss private matters between man and wife, which have no bearing on his candidacy or his ability to do his job... why, it's DISGUSTING!!

For once, we're in agreement. Too bad you didn't feel the same way when you were dragging Bill Clinton through the mud for years on end (well, it hasn't really ended) for something that was between him and his wife, and no one else. Funny how you guys only think it's wrong when it's your own at the wrong end of the slop bucket.

Everyone needs to just stay out of other people's bedrooms... and if you can't manage that, don't act all indignant when it's done right back to you.

It's nice to see someone in the press show some sensitivity and respect when something like this is pointed out. Most of the time, such protestations are laughed off and then ignored.

Thank you again.

A transgender person is not a "cross-dresser." If Rose intends to transition (with or without surgery or hormones) from male to female in her everyday life, she is not a cross-dresser. A cross-dresser is a transvestite... generally someone who dresses as the opposite sex, but has no gender identity issues, i.e. a man who's quite happy being a man, but enjoys dressing up in women's clothing. He doesn't want to BE a woman.

If Rose was born biologically male but feels she is really a woman, as this article suggests, she is transgender. NOT a cross-dresser. Please change the headline. It's insulting.

...is a lot of self-absorbed, immature kids who are swept up in the excitement of their first political experience...and especially when you're dealing with today's youth (they're ENTITLED to get what they want), if they don't get their own way, they feel slighted. And they'll get their revenge by not voting for his "rival." Nah nah nah NAAAAAAH nah!! It's childish and counterproductive, but recognition of that comes with experience.

The bottom line is that any Obama supporter who would vote for McCain--who stands for everything Obama is against--is proving that they don't truly support or believe in Obama's positions on the issues, they merely like the idea of him, and are jumping on the bandwagon. If you'd really vote for a pro-war, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-healthcare conservative, you shouldn't bother calling yourself a Democrat. And you certainly shouldn't be supporting Obama. Because if, as you claim, you're supporting the candidate who best represents your views--and then you choose to put a Republican in the White House--you're a total fraud. You're basically just crushin'.

I support Hillary. But should Obama win the nomination, you'd have to threaten to slaughter my family in order to get me to vote for anyone but him. This isn't a game to me. I'm not going to take my ball and go home if I don't get my own way. I have too much concern for this country and the world to risk putting us all in the hands of another conservative administration.