I read the whole interview looking for an idea, and what I got was opinion pushed agressively. Hey!I'm right was behind everything O'Beirne said. And I recall the groupie behaviour on Capitol Gang with O'Beirne shaking her head no at any idea different from hers. O'Beirne is clearly incapable of reasoned discourse (or clever enough to know it doesn't sell), and she probably knows the book market well enough that her kind of rant will find an audience and make her money. But is such an interview with a big mouth really what Salon should be about?

Am I the only one that thinks Salon is very defensive about anything said about Hilary Clinton. C'mon she is a politician and Hilary touting her experience when in fact it mainly is as a former first lady deserves some criticism.

Of course Reagan changed the trajectory of politics, and the Dems have never had any real ideas in contrast. Just remember the campaigns of Mondale and Dukakis. Now I would also add that is when the US took the wrong turn. Clinton simply had shopping lists of things to do for State of the Union speeches, triangulated shamelessly, and had no core beliefs except to get elected. He even saw to the execution of a retarded convict to up his standing with the right in the 1992 election.

Mark Sheilds said some time ago that the Clinton camp had decided to brand Obama as the Black candidate. But isn't this just the pattern of the Clintons right back to Bill as governor of Arkansas allowing the execution of a retarded man to go forward just to appear tough on crime

I am a far left Democrat who lived for twenty-seven years in South Carolina. I have since moved to Canada but before Gore won. I always supported Bill Clinton, and one reason was the quality of his opposition. If there had ever been a proper alternative in the Democratic Party to the Clintons, I would have voted for that. To return to the Clinton years with Hilary is indeed dispiriting. But then I have the luxury of living in Canada.

Great job, and I check it several times a day. I'll miss your voice.

Credit card companies are much like drug dealers. They try to hook us early, right out of high school, with deals aimed at youth. Even Sears gave a credit card to my son at eighteen with no credit check. Then when a Republican congress passed a new tougher bankruptcy law, the Republicans resited all efforts to restrict the giving of credit to the vulnerable.

I guess Krugman sees little problem with Bill's behavior in South Carolina, even though Jim Clyburn told Bill to cool it. As did Ted Kennedy. I support Obama, and I think for good reason I fear the Clinton machine and its potential influence on the super delegates. The Clintons suffer from hybris, and they are not noted for playing fair, e.g. the pathetic attempt to get the vote in Florida and Michigan counted.

Now what can be said about the coverage of John Edwards, who was pilloried over his hair, and on MSNBC by more than one talking head? No covenient attack like sexism? Hillary is a politician, has used her sad marriage to build a power base, and anything said about her is said because she is a flawed human like the rest of us, not because she is female. Women just need to get over this convenient defense.

Hillary is where is she because she stuck with a serial philanderer. Self-respecting women would have dumped a husband like Bill unless they thought they had something to gain by staying. And when I see the two Clintons smooching and holding hands for the camera I want to retch. So let's get over the notion that Hillary speaks for women. She is simply part of a machine that she never could have created alone.

HC is simply the wrong woman to use as an example of sexism. She has risen through her philadering husband, and she took the nomination as her right. I would have more respect for HR if she had dumped Bill and then fought for a Senate seat. As to Olberman over the top in his comment about Ferraro, Walsh is as blind to what Ferraro said as she claims people like me are to the sexism claims of HR supporters.

Yet another whinny tiresome article in Salon about how Hillary is being picked on. How obvious can it be? Hillary has used a man to get where she is, would do or say anything to get elected, and her dofuss husband is now working against her.

I could support Hillary if she had dumped Bill years ago as any self-respecting spouse would have and then fought for her Senate seat on her own. Hillary is simply the wrong woman to use to argue for sexual discrimination.

Let's not forget how Billary is only for themselves. The male side lost Congress in 94, sold out on welfare, dumped the BTU tax, and then disgraced himself with the pardons on his way out. And don't forget the terrible 96 campaign and the shopping lists State of the Union speeches. Hill has used Bill to get where she us, plays as a Republican in her attacks, and shamelessly panders to the right wing.

Yes a real leader needs to step up and tell Billary to get lost. Olbermann and Fineman are right.

And Joan Walsh has convinced me to unsubscribe from Salon.

Joan Walsh's repeated shilling for Billary is why I shall not resubscribe to Salon, once a great analytical paper which is now reduced to a political rag. Enough is enough.

Maybe McClellan should have advertised for Viagra instead, and he wouldn't need hair dye as Dole did.

Can someone rid Salon of Joan Walsh?