The only place you'll find Emily Gould under discussion is among the blogs discussing Emily Gould (and bloggish pieces posing as journalism or analysis).

This is more of the same blithering blather from members of the media, who are far more interested in discussing themselves and their problems than looking out into the world and discovering new people and new problems.

Like many here, I'd never heard of Emily Gould before Salon's women writers started complaining about her. To me, this Traister piece exemplifies it: Traister touches on some very interesting points, but she fails to analyze them deeply. Why? She prefers to tell us how she, Rebecca Traister, feels about Emily Gould. It's sad that Traister chose the easy path, because somewhere inside her she's got an intelligent analysis and insightful comments regarding the portrayal of women in 21st century media. (Rebecca, the next Backlash could be yours!)

It's just another media circle-jerk (IJAMCJ). It's just more of the media eating itself. You can see a lot of it at Salon these days. Without a doubt, it is all a by-product of the narcissist-in-chief, the permanently navel-gazing, concern-trolling Joan Walsh.

...there is no relationship between how candidates perform among any particular group of voters in primaries and how they do with that segment in the general election.

But that doesn't stop the Clinton campaign, Clinton supporters, and biased reality-challenged editors like Joan Walsh from continuing to create a false correlation between primary votes and the general election. In their denial of facts, history, and reason, the Clinton campaign and its supporters act more and more like radical Republicans every day.

For every man who buys a "Perfect Woman" or other "realistic" simulacra, that's one less Real Woman who has to suffer from the Real Abuse of Really Dating this Real Cretin.

Hillary Clinton is immensely qualified to be President. Not only is her knowledge of the law and our political system excellent, she also has proven to have the will of Joseph Stalin and the perseverance of Susan Lucci. Certainly that her husband was once President is of some assistance to her notoriety, but that is a blade which happens to cut both ways. As much as one can say that Bill Clinton aids her, to be fair one must also admit that her high negatives have as much to do with her partner as her personality.

She has run a bad campaign for the nomination, and engaged in behavior that ought to be beneath her in order to guarantee a secure place with any future administration for herself and her constituents. Women seeking political office should look to her as an example of what - and what not - to do as a either candidate and a leader. I hope none are discouraged by her arc, because we need more women in all three branches of our government. Personally, I won't be happy until the Congressional portrait is 50% female and much more colorful.

Axelrod is a propagandist. The kindest word you could use for what he does is "marketing." But it's really propaganda: for corporations, for lobbyists, for politicians.

In practice, there is a big difference between propaganda and lobbying. One occurs in the full light of day and is open to examination and rebuttal, while the other does in fact go on behind closed doors and offers little opportunity for engagement by outside parties.

In effect, both propaganda and lobbying serve to undermine the relatively few democratic elements of our system of government. They are, perhaps, both distasteful but necessary parts of the republic as it stands. If Americans truly want to rid themselves of lobbyists and propagandists, then they better roll up their goddam sleeves and get to work, because it's going to take a lot of time, and it ain't gonna be pretty, and we'll all have to put our shoulders to the wheel.

There is not one person in the Salon letters forum who opposes Obama and actually supports Clinton.

KateTex, lolcait, ShawnWM, Karen22 - they are all Republicans. There are many other here as well, but these are the biggest loudmouth liars around here.

The biggest clue is: they rarely, if ever, actually have words of support or defense for Clinton. They are unable to describe or defend her positions, and consistently ignore or reject calls for them to do so. Their explication of their "position" usually amounts to the simplified GOP talking point of "Count every vote." Or reminding us that, while they are not racists, they insist a black man is unelectable. Their arguments are sometimes lifted, cut-n-paste style, from "talking points" which can be found across the web on GOP sites (Google whole phrases with surrounding quotes and you'll see what I mean).

These bad citizens are shills, sad and lonely people of little repute, who tragically believe themselves to be doing good by demeaning Democrats. Their hatred for Democrats (and their dislike of the black guy) unites them and identifies them. Their disgust with America and all its freedoms gives them more in common with our enemies than our history or our selves.

The evidence for their chicanery is not only in front of you and available by reading their previous letters, but it is also on the web: if you Google their monikers and search long enough, you'll find they parrot the same points in other forums.

Sad, sad people who spend their personal time working hard to divide Americans and promote discord. You could call these dishonest Republican voters treasonous, but then again that's probably their line.