I'll grant you Wiig's style is understated, which is certainly not the norm on SNL, but I think she's clearly the most inventive and funniest person on the show at the moment -- and was even before the departure of the somewhat overrated Poehler, whose limited comedic range seems to matter less to some (including Broadsheet) than her admittedly commendable politics. For my money, Wiig may be the most brilliant impressionist and character comedian on SNL since Chris Guest left twenty years ago. I find that very exciting, if quietly so.

Look, I loved reading Pauline Kael in the New Yorker -- I hardly ever agreed with her opinion, but I loved reading what she had to say. And I respect the whole "Stephanie Zacherek is Pauline Kael's anointed torch-bearer" schtick.

But the fact is, Stephanie Zacherek writes googledy nonsense. I defy anyone to read this review and make heads or tails of it. I have no idea what the hell she's talking about, and, as a result, I have no idea whether I might like this movie.

I don't need to agree with what Salon's movie reviewer says. I just need it to be logical and comprehensible on some basic level. If SZ can't clear that low bar, why does she have this job?

She's pretty awesome, a good actress, a visible Democrat, and a Latina to boot. Don't be a jerk, Alex.

I'm surprised at all the bitching; are you people still hung over? I think that this piece is a lot of fun, and that, as usual, Rebecca Traister's casual, playful-yet-intellectual tone is more delicious than chocolate fudge ice cream. Maybe it's just me. (Or , granted, maybe I still can't get the fetching, "fresh from the pool" wet-look Traister video from July out of my head. I would be less than honest if I denied this possibility. I strive to be more than honest, so I won't.)

But still: I'm smiling, and I wasn't before I read this. So sue me.

Rock on with your bad self, Traister.

"Instead, she's doing the equivalent of a stay-at-home mom trying to reenter the workforce by calling the CEO of her desired company, casually suggesting to him or her that she might like a top executive berth, and reminding them that her family's name is on the door of the building and that her uncle was a founding partner."

I'd go further than that. The position Kennedy's asking for is almost impossibly elite -- there are only 100 of them in the whole country. It's far more audacious (and not in that neato, Obamariffic sense) than just expecting a corner office in Dad's firm -- it's expecting one of a relative handful of the most powerful and important jobs in the world to be handed to her -- and for her to work for it not at all, to give up exactly nothing in return -- simply and solely on the basis of family connections.

The very notion of the legacy candidate is offensive at this moment (thanks, Bushes!). It almost certainly hurt Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and she, as Traister points out, actually had a pretty damn good resume of her own. I, probably like a lot of liberals, was initially ready to cheer Caroline Kennedy, until it became clear that she had no intention of stooping to actually earn our support. Even so, I might swallow my gall and back her anyway, if she seemed at all likely to gain re-election. Based on the latest polls, however, that is hardly looking like a sure thing.

P.S. "...forest moon of Endor"? Nice. :-)

I'd been previously informed by recent letter writers that Rebecca Traister is a glib, shallow, castrating, oversexed, puff-piece-writing, spliff-sucking, man-hating lightweight. Having now read this piece, I confess to searching in vain for a Salon writer by that name fitting that description -- or for letters to that effect regarding this article.

Odd, that.

Clearly, no good deed goes unpunished.

Who cares if their "intentions are pure", or if they are "friendly young men trying to do a nice thing"? Why let a little thing like goodwill get in the way of questioning whether that goodwill is acceptable or even insidiously sexist in some subconscious way?

IMHO, anyone who has gotten to the point where they can fully acknowledge the sincerity of an act of basic human decency on the one hand -- and nonetheless see no hypocrisy in raising page hits by attempting to gin up an argument over whether said act might nonetheless be offensive and sexist on the other hand -- has basically left the Rational Building.

"Watered-down street harassment"? Give me a fucking break. You're better than this, Broadsheet. (And if not, you need to do some serious self-evaluation.)

It occurs to me -- and I sincerely hope it's true -- that these two guys conceived this thing entirely as a sort of performance art, the purpose of which is to provoke exactly the sort of paranoid suspicion (followed hard upon, one hopes, by introspection) on display in this write-up.

Now THAT, I could get behind in a big way. :-)