Everything you need to know is displayed by the Attitude of the authors - I refer to it in the plural because all Ms. Hepola is really doing here amounts to channeling Ms. Dargas.

To wit, Anything which has a number of female lead roles ("Sex and the City," "American Doll," "Mama Mia") is dismissed. The strong presence of women in some male-oriented action films (Ms. Paltrow in "Iron Man") is ignored or similarly dismissed as not significant. The important but non-lead roles of the films in question is not even analyzed.

The disparity between male and female roles in cinema can be fairly examined. The policies and practices of Hollywood studios in their selection and promotion of properties could be easily studied. Vast archives of both celluloid and print materials are available to researchers. An honest critic could likely create a singularly important analysis of trends and practices which result in the films we see and the roles - male and female - presented to us by cinema. An honest critic would of course form her own opinions after examining all available data, rather than simply regurgitate the work of another critic (treading that thin line between sycophancy and plagiariasm) or engaged in hoary cliches and unproven allegations.

In short, this article presents what's known as "cherry-picking" the evidence to fit your argument. It is dishonest, unprofessional, and exactly what I expect from Salon these days. While Ms. Hepola may deserve brickbats for her obtuse critical faculties, she deserves high-praise for toeing the line drawn by her editor, Joan Walsh.

If the average middle-aged American woman looks like Hillary Clinton... who does the average middle-aged American man look like?

Bill Clinton. Before the heart surgery. You know: soft, pale, tubby.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until she changes her wardrobe or her policies.

lolcait = why "they" hate America

...and not in a good way.

You know, it's one thing for a stand-up comic to mock Barbara Walters' distinctive manner of speaking.

But for an ostensibly professional critic to mock a person's speech impediment in the course of a review of that person's autobiography - well, that's just tasteless.

I stopped reading right there. Certainly I can find another review where the critic actually has respect for not only the subject matter of the review, but also the form itself.

A comedian going for cheap laughs is part of the job. A critic going for cheap laughs is a writer who has little of consequence to say. "Tawdry" is the word which springs to mind.

What the hell has happened to Salon? Every day it's more and more like a bastardly combination of Drudge and the E! channel.

Joan Walsh has bad blogger ethics? That's certainly a fact, and is the least of her ethical weaknesses. She lacks even a smidgen of journalistic ethics, from which blogger ethics are somewhat informally derived.

Walsh's post is time-stamped: "Wednesday May 7, 2008 22:33 EDT." Numerous responses point out an error in the transcript ("grumpy" not "wealthy"). These people discovered the error by watching the exchange in question. Joan Walsh claims to have also watched the exchange. Yet she either didn't catch the error, or has chosen to let it remain in her version of the transcript. Though other respondents have pointed out the link to a video clip of the exchange, Joan has not added this to her post as she stated she would do. She has also not linked to the full transcript, of which she acknowledges her awareness. Her inaccurate "paraphrasing" of Brazile's recorded remarks remains in place. (No doubt Joan will opine that the presence of these items in the letters section is good enough for her.)

This is, at best, misleading by accident. At best, it demonstrates a lack of concern for accuracy in reporting. Considering Walsh's recent track record of exhibited partisan bias, even these best-cases assumptions suggest a person whose lack of concern for accuracy and ethical editing is motivated by her personal desire for a particular political outcome.

Tell us: Why is it okay in your mind that Clinton broke the rules regarding Florida and Michigan? Should all rule-breakers be allowed to benefit in spite of their violations? Of what need are rules, if they are simply going to be tossed away when they become inconvenient?

Tell us: As you admit, there is no Constitutional right to vote in the primaries. Obama's statements regarding voting rights have nothing to do with primary votes. Meanwhile, his position regarding Michigan and Florida is unchanged (and in accordance with all party rules). How do you see his consistent stance as "hypocrisy?"

Tell us: Since you're so concerned with Obama's "hypocrisy," why you elide Clinton's flip-flop on the Florida/Michigan primary dates? First she agrees, then when she needs the votes she changes her mind. That's okay with you?

Tell us: If your only concern is "fairness," why do you keep using this issue as an attempt to tar Obama?

I wonder if there is even one Clinton supporter who has the class, personal dignity, and grasp of reality to stand up and say, "We fought hard, but we didn't prevail." Is there not one Clinton supporter who wishes to maintain a minimum level of dignity, decency and decorum?

There's not much worse than a sore loser, and little that is more pathetic than weeping over spilled milk.