I read the editorial this morning and lamented, again, at the absolute uselessness of the Washington Post editorial board. Even worse, they have repeatedly proven themselves useful tools for right-wing propaganda - surely they can't write that editorial without being aware of how it will be used to undermine independent oversight of factual claims about Iranian weapons capability.

So, given the absolute failure of the policies they supported in Iraq, and faced with a combination of their own anger at being wrong and unwillingness to acknowledge the consequences, they resort to the worst kind of editorializing - where they piously criticize those who were right when the opportunity presents itself and while simultaneously refusing to comment on the policies they've enabled, or in any way acknowledge they're continuing to enable them!

It's obviously an editorial board that has lost all credibility, and it's abdication of responsibility is shameful. Don't think the paper's own newsroom doesn't know it, too. So what can we do about it? I have posted comments to the site or sent letters too many times to count.

"It might be easier to kvetch, as Reynolds does, about how Pollitt's personal admissions hurt the movement she's spent her life strengthening, making leftist politics look 'like a series of silly cocktail parties' and her convictions look 'like efforts to impress men.'"

As always, criticism says a lot more about the critic than it does about the subject. Reynolds suggests Pollitt is the one trying to impress men...when Reynolds clearly thinks all in the literary, academic or political sphere (let's just call it the "serious" world, to steal a phrase from Glenn Greenwald) should live as though intellectual discourse is never tainted by feelings, emotional detail, sex, or even humdrum routine, presumably for fear of being perceived of as too girly or unserious by, well, men? (Or in this case, exceedingly judgmental peers?) Who's really the one trying to impress men here?

I like that Katha Pollitt feels comfortable revealing both sides...that she doesn't feel like today's pundits or academics or whomever have to be towers of intellectual virtue, unpolluted by actual humanity, little Howard Roarks of the written word...that we as a society are capable of moving beyond the original framework set out for us in defining gender roles, that we might not need to set such black and white standards on subjects so complex...and that maybe, just maybe, the things that we perceive of as weaknesses are actually strengths, and at the same time those things that we avoid so strenuously - because we're so strong, natch - might qualify as weaknesses.

I mean, I play the drums, is it okay to wear a dress? I've been to Iraq, would a somewhat confessional letter on this site make me less qualified to return in the future? These seem like silly examples, but they're really only natural outgrowths of what Pollitt's critics are suggesting.

Has anyone acknowledged that most of Pakistan hated Bhutto when she was in power? I've no wish to speak ill of the dead, but only to remind of the reality - no matter how it's portrayed in the media in the U.S., relatively few in Pakistan are mourning her passing, and she was most certainly not beloved.

The west has its favorite dissidents, like Ahmad Chalabi, the ones who say all the right things. But while the U.S. (and apparently, Bill Richardson) idly speculate about who should "lead" foreign countries, it's the people who live in those countries who actually give their leaders political legitimacy. Bhutto never had any legitimacy, no matter how much we wish to pretend otherwise.

So the U.S. sending her to Pakistan so she and Musharraf could play good cop/bad cop while more of the same continued indefinitely should be taken for exactly what it was - a meaningless PR gesture. As such, it seems doubtful to me this event will have much impact.

I love the blog, Joan, but the letters posted here are often so hard to read...if I wanted to read flame wars I would be posting on Free Republic. I come to Salon for thoughtful articles, and hopefully good discussion.

I am an Obama supporter, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm anti-Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards. No need for the reflexive Hillary defense that is automatically a bit polarizing, though admittedly through no fault of her own. But the storylines of the media, based on some truth but always taking on a life of their own that can dwarf the big picture, are hard to shake.

Big picture: I think democrats want unity, but (unlike the needless compromises of the current congress) a principled unity. Clear opposition to the Iraq war and Bush's foreign policy doctrine. A re-affirmation of civil liberties. A positive vision for the future. I like Clinton and Edwards, but they don't offer that. When you are in the trees of covering or following closely a campaign - the million little flame wars of the people in their little camps - it would take tremendous effort to see that big picture.

Of course, thousands of disaffected Democrats, independents, and I'm betting even libertarians and some Republicans can see it.