Just sayin'.

That should be a large enuf sample space.

Ayep, apparently Meghan's as annoying as ever.

I guess the problem is just with the whole entire dating world, and not with Meghan.

What's a poor misunderstood daughter of a losing Presidential candidate ever to do? It's not HER fault her father, John McCain, just happened to run for President and lose to the first ever elected non-white President of the US. Why should her dating life be affected by such things?

It's sooooo unfair!

No daughter of a Presidential candidate should EVER have to deal with real-life fallout from her actions during a campaign.

Right?

...represents the phenomenon of the second-generation celebrity, like Lisa Marie Presley, whose fame derives from lineage not accomplishment. Like does MM even have a job? Work would give her something to talk about on a date to steer the conversation away from dear old Dad. Otherwise, she's simply known as John McCain's daughter.

Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins managed to navigate these rocky shoals; MM should be able to do so as well though her chances would be enhanced if she disappeared from public view.

that SOMETHING about them doesn't end up turning them off eventually. What maybe is different here is that because a big personal issue is so public it happens quicker.

The problem, based on the post, seems to be that guys feel a compulsion to talk politics when dating a candidate's daughter. But would someone with who's interested in politics be interested in dating someone who's apathetic? I doubt it. No, just like a normal person, I'm sure she'd like someone she could have a good discussion with, but only when it comes up organically and not in the cotext of "so you're mccain's daughter."

Essentially, this is the same problem that celebrities of all kinds face. You can't have a normal dating life when people come in with all sorts of preconceptions from reports in the media. And it sure would be irritating.

At least with something like being a failed candidate's daughter, the fame factor should die down in a couple of years.

I read Ms. McCain's piece on the Daily Beast yesterday and immediately had the "oh christ, cry me a river" reaction. Then, later on, I read Rachel Sarah's story, Lust and the Lactating Mother here on Salon. I also read the comments posted about Ms. Sarah's piece and realized I had found new feelings about Ms. McCain's piece.

I don't care about Ms. McCain's dating problems, but I commend her for pursuing and honing her chosen career path as a writer. She's writing, and she's being published. Is Ms. McCain being published because of who she is? Maybe, but that's the culture we live in. And even though she's always going to take flak and be discounted by some because of who her father is, at least she is actively trying to find her own voice and make her own way. It's obvious she doesn't want to just be "John McCain's daughter", and given her wealth and privilege, as a twenty-something our culture, that's commendable.

Ms. McCain, like Ms. Sarah, are writers. They write and attempt to publish and earn a living doing so. As readers, we have the choice to read or not to read, but attacking these women for doing their job is beyond cowardly. If readers are upset with the content of the pieces published on Salon, or in any other medium, write the editor and voice your concerns with them. And if that still doesn't satisfy you, try writing something of your own.

She should try to meet a Ron Paul supporter. They're all very lonely. She'll just have to place less importance on personal hygiene and social skills when trying them out.

I am not going to date a woman who is going to go home and blog about me. Not gonna happen.

...than discussing politics with a potential date. Well, except maybe discussing bowel habits. Can't she find a guy with an interesting hobby?

Why hasn't anyone introduced her to Track Palin, the one who's serving in Iraq?

Ms. McCain, like Ms. Sarah, are writers. They write and attempt to publish and earn a living doing so. As readers, we have the choice to read or not to read, but attacking these women for doing their job is beyond cowardly. If readers are upset with the content of the pieces published on Salon, or in any other medium, write the editor and voice your concerns with them. And if that still doesn't satisfy you, try writing something of your own.

if you look at the top of this page, you may notice that you are in fact reading letters to the editor.

i think it's idiotic to say that writers shouldn't have to answer for what they've written. ideally, the whole reason we read what they have to say is because it is compelling.

if it ain't compelling, then we're doing the writer a favor giving her constructive feedback. i also read "lust and the lactating mother" and i can understand the comments that it precipitated: they were not attacks. i do think women should be able to breastfeed when and where they need to. i don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong or gross about nursing.

and not everyone shares the details of their dates with an audience for money on a website. these writers are doing brave things, which are still unexpected and a little unusual. i can understand that they generate a lot of interest and discussion.

i applaud salon for giving them space, but i think it's even more important to give space to the conversations they spawn. you just admitted that the comments on ms. sarah's article gave you new insights into meghan mccain's experience as a writer.

it is not cowardly to speak to them when they speak to you. and i don't think this chivalry has a place on this page. i think sometimes the comments go too far, but so too, do the pieces. you're shortchanging the writers when you say they can't handle the criticism.