In the Obama piece, the word "sexist" appears where "sexiest" was undoubtedly intended. I don't know if it's Freudian, but that's some kind of slip.

You touched on it oh-so-briefly in this article, but easily the sexiest thing about Obama is his voice. It's deep and resonant but silky at the same time, and very authoritative. He's an attractive guy (the smile is killer) but I don't even have to look at him when he's on the news--often it's better just to close my eyes and soak up that voice. Mmmmmmm.

But where's Rahm? A controversial appointment, but the CoS is also a smoking-hot piece.

Yes yes yes!

Intelligence is my main requisite in a man. This one's got it all. Michelle, you are one lucky woman!

If not, he's not your commander in chief. He's your President-elect, and in a little while will be your President, but he is not and will not be your CIC. Soldiers have commanders, up to and including the CIC. Civilians do not.

I know, this article is a puff piece, and it's probably silly of me to try to make a serious point here. But the common usage of "commander in chief" by civilians -- that casual acceptance of military authority, not only ovr the armed forces, but over the entire country -- chills me to the bone. It's a legacy of the militarism of the Bush years, and that is one of many things we desperately need to get rid of in the new administration.

Marry me Obama. Please. Divorce Michelle and marry me. Yes, yes, I know it all sounds crazy. But we'll run back to Hawaii where it doesn't matter and walk the beach with your skinny legs sticking out of expensive baggie pants.

Oh. Oh. Swoooon. Swooon. Marry me, Obama.

Allow me to quote the only comment worth making on this crap:

Are you in the military?

If not, he's not your commander in chief. He's your President-elect, and in a little while will be your President, but he is not and will not be your CIC. Soldiers have commanders, up to and including the CIC. Civilians do not.

I know, this article is a puff piece, and it's probably silly of me to try to make a serious point here. But the common usage of "commander in chief" by civilians -- that casual acceptance of military authority, not only ovr the armed forces, but over the entire country -- chills me to the bone. It's a legacy of the militarism of the Bush years, and that is one of many things we desperately need to get rid of in the new administration.

I'm a subscriber and a shareholder. I can't believe I'm supporting this garbage.

Glad you liked what I said.

FWIW, I don't think this article (or series of articles) is crap, necessarily. One of the things I've always liked about Salon is its broad definition of what constitutes "news" -- what goes on in the world around us consists of a lot more than politics and business, after all. Many of the more "human interest" pieces, including this one, capture my attention and I don't mind paying for them with my subscription dollars. And, you know, as a guy I'm always interested to know what women find sexy. ;)

I just felt that this particular point had to be made. When right-wing chickenhawks talk about the "commander in chief" (which I bet they'll be doing a lot less after January ...) it's pretty much what I expect; their entire worldview is built on a militarist fantasy. When my fellow liberals do it, then as a veteran and as an American, I feel the need to speak up.

I can't believe Salon made a reference to Barack Obama's "stones":

...we thought John Edwards was the prettiest man, and Hillary Clinton's stones were ... shinier!

This is absolutely unacceptable! How can you reduce this man who has accomplished so much to his shiny black stones!? Men are more than just testicles, you know. We've had a long, hard fight to be respected as more than emotionless, apelike sperm dispensers, and it seems Salon will do whatever it takes to cast us back into those dark times. I call upon men everywhere to immediately begin posting vitriolic rants on their blogs.

Intelligence is sexy. It should be at the top of the list.

PLEASE stop calling the president commander in chief. He is only that to the military, and in time of war. He is not OUR commander. He is our public servant, and he knows this very well as a constitutional scholar. Whatever you call him, though, I am totally smitten!

My favorite photo of Obama, which Salon ran during the primaries I think, was him over pool table replete with a Rat Pack-ish tie. I thought 'Yikes! He's a stud!'

I don't think this article (or series of articles) is crap, necessarily. One of the things I've always liked about Salon is its broad definition of what constitutes "news" -- what goes on in the world around us consists of a lot more than politics and business, after all.

You're right, of course, that "what goes on in the world around us consists of a lot more than politics and business." Only philistines aren't interested in the world beyond politics and business. I read Salon's pieces on film and books with great avidity. It seems painfully obvious, though, that this article doesn't concern "what goes on in the world." At best, it concerns what goes on in the smarmiest IM exchanges among Salon's staff. This isn't just a "puff piece," it's self-titillation masquerading as news.

More importantly, Salon's staff is, at least in my experience, pretty much constitutionally opposed to the "militarist fantasy" of the wingnut right. Their offhand invocation of the wingnut lexicon in referring to Obama offers more than a little insight into what their state of mind must have been in conceiving, writing, and editing this piece. For sheer self-indulgent laziness, it's hard to beat calling a president-elect the "commander in chief" as part of "sexiest man of the year" contest. To be clear, I'm not in any way against frivolous entertainment, but frivolousness must meet a higher standard, since it is by definition unworthy of serious attention. Good frivolousness needs to scintillate.

What I'm opposed to is self-indulgent, sanctimonious, frivolous crap which is dull. This isn't Dr. Seuss-like whimsy we're talking about here; it's People Magazine-like almost-porn. And further, this is irresponsible, dull, almost-porn, which unthinkingly repeats some of the most pernicious wingnut talking points.

Self-indulgent, lazy, dull, and irresponsible. Salon can do better.