Okay, I get it. Salon loves Clinton, Broadsheet loves Clinton, bla bla bla. But posting a picture of Edwards next to a friggin orc? Saying that, oh, Edwards has been the women's candidate on the substance, but this one comment nullifies it all? Come on.

What exactly did Edwards say? "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business."

What part of that is not true? What was he supposed to say, "Ooh, Clinton, you poor thing, have a tissue." Clinton can stand on her own merits. This whole article seems to imply that she should be held to some special womanly emotional standard and that a criticism that would be perfectly in line if it were of a man is out of line because it's of Clinton. Objecting to his response, or praising Obama's, is perfectly in line. But this kind of character assassination is totally uncalled for. For shame, for shame.

Do the Salon blogs have no editors? If not, this really demonstrates the need for them. (Although judging from most of Glenn Greenwald's prolific output, I wonder if Salon even pays attention to what its bloggers are writing).

Having a picture of Edwards next to an orc at the top of the Broadsheet blog may be protected political speech, but it is morally libelous and utterly beyond the pale in a publication like Salon that should know better. This is just an utterly disgusting attack on an upstanding, progressive candidate that should not be allowed to remain. The other commenters here are right on the money.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, please review Broadsheet. She has no business writing anything for Salon except until she writes an apology. I have yet to hear any response from Salon about publishing that disgusting smear attack right before the New Hampshire primary.

Joan,

I am a longtime Salon reader and for several years a premium subscriber, and I am concerned about some extreme trends lately at Salon.

Most pressingly, I am referring to Rebecca Traister's infamous Edwards/orc post at http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/01/07/john_edwards/

Reader reaction was overwhelmingly and rightfully indignant, outraged, and profuse. An inflammatory, over-the-top ad hominem attack post was on Salon's front page, with a picture of Edwards next to an orc. Right before the New Hampshire primary, and over a comment made by Edwards that was at worst ill-considered, and in the eyes of many readers, including many feminist Broadsheet women, perfectly legitimate.

Yet there has been no response from Salon or Traister. The post remains unedited on the front of Broadsheet. Traister continues to write front-page articles.

I am not arguing that Salon should practice "censorship" or only allow particular viewpoints--on the contrary I am merely asking that Salon engage in responsible journalism and editing, and to keep discourse from its paid staff within the bounds of legitimate commentary.

By paying for and publishing this kind of content, Salon is engaging in the very worst kind of rhetoric and suppressive attacks that are criticized in right-wing media outlets like Fox. Salon's silence and inaction in this matter cannot be ignored.

Sincerely,

A concerned reader

I have to say that Americans have it good with their potable tap water. The idea of bathing and crapping in perfectly good drinking water took a while to get used to.

The real boondoggle of bottled water is its excessive convenience when on the go. You don't have to think, plan, or pack, it's just there and cold. One thing I would like to add is that we need to lobby for more public drinking fountains. Also for building codes requiring them in public areas similarly to public restrooms (which are also in short supply in many urban areas).

Avoiding bottled water on the go just requires some planning. And drinking it at home is just profligate. Especially if your tap water is perfectly fine. Federal regulations require your provider to send customers an annual report on water quality. Read it. Almost all areas in America have very, very good water, and almost everyone has perfectly safe water.

I went to college in Philly and though people complained for some reason, the water there was great. And now living in NYC, the water is just perfect. (Right now the Croton reservoir is offline, perhaps when it comes back on it will degrade, but that remains to be seen.) Drinking anything but tap water is insane when you have truly bottled-quality water coming right out of your tap. And it is much better regulated and tested than bottled water.

Filtering is also environmentally wasteful if your tap water is perfectly good. All those plastic filters don't use much mass compared to other household waste or bottles, but it's just not necessary. Unless you live in some parts of America where tap water really is nasty. For instance having travelled to the armpit of America (Atlanta, Georgia), the water there was so sulfurous and nasty that you couldn't even make coffee with it. So filter it. It's still safe.

To the earlier poster who wrote about distilled water; the real problem with distilled water isn't that it has no minerals per se, but that it is completely hypotonic and draws the water out of your body's cells. This can be solved by simply adding some cheap minerals to the water to harden it a bit. But distilling takes a lot of energy, unless you have a really dangerous water supply simple carbon filtration is a better option. If you do have really bad water, reverse osmosis is a better option than distilling.