Howard Dean: that's it in two words: the reason that I think you are still flirting with the mainstream media trends. Like with the back-and-forth on Clinton, you bought into the 'scream' mania whole hog; I expected better from you. It is easy to bad-mouth Bush, being the closest thing to an evil dictator that this country has ever had; since Bush is just handing it to you on a platter, all you have to do is dish it out. That doesn't make this news organisation cutting edge.

You weren't all that supportive of Al Gore. Then, you fell for the milque-toast John Kerry, who is exactly the straw man that the Democratic Machine wanted you to pick. Now, a lot of deaths and some mind-numbingly horrible legislation later, this is where we are: in the middle of Bush's America.

I wish you had not knee-jerkingly followed the Democratic Party machine who helped to crush Howard Dean. He would have made a fine president, on or off the dreaded microphone.

So, yes, Salon writers and editors, please do help yourself to a generous serving of crow.

The reference to Allan Barra reminded me how much I hated his sports columns. King Kaufman is far more entertaining.

At least I waited until Monkeybone came out on video.

Come now. If you are going to come clean, come clean. The whole Tom White and Enron debacle written by Jason Leopold was retracted by Salon and has to be your most famous misstep. While the veracity of Jason's story was never disproven, Salon's failure to confirm the information adequately made the New York friggin Times.

Um, I recall Salon being quite supportive of Howard Dean. In fact, it seemed at the time that only Salon was supportive of the poor guy. I agree that he'd've made a fine president if elected, but would he have beaten Bush?

The most distressing Salon moment for me came when Salon decided that the fact that Bush's suit puckered when he hunched over the podium during 2004's first presidential debate was actually indicative of a communications device, and made it the lead story -- picture and all.

I remember a couple weeks later at a state-level legislative hearing thinking that every single man in the audience must also be having info relayed through a similar device. It was the most embarrassing moment for me, as a Salon reader. It was the moment I wondered if Salon had become nothing but a blog. I also wondered if anyone at the magazine's offices had ever worn a suit.

The Hyde expose was one of Salon's best calls.

I think that the 2004 articles predicting Kerry's win are actually representative of a lot of the writing on Salon. Too many articles on politics try to predict the unraveling of the Republican coalition and really just amount to a lot of wishful thinking. I have to admit, since the Kerry debacle of 2004, in which I let myself become convinced that he could win, I have a hard time taking any such predictions seriously, not just from Salon but most commentators. Even now, as story after story tells me that Bush is in trouble and the Republicans are in retreat, I don't really buy it. We'll see in 2008.

Never has a publication so consistently steered me wrong in movie reviews. The Salon reviewers are so horrible that I now do the opposite of whatever they claim -- Charles or Stepanie says it's "great," I stay away, knowing it's a bomb. They say it "stinks," I'm first in line. I haven't been disappointed yet.

I recall an article earlier this year after Chappelle left his show that basically blamed his departure on a drug problem and argued that it made his drug humor somehow less funny. It provided no evidence that Chappelle actually has a drug problem and, while there is still alot of speculation about why he left, it seems unlikely that drugs pushed him over the edge. I found that article to be very unfair.

I also agree that Salon movie reviews are remarkably unreliable, and usually quite negative and smug.

Salon's movie and TV reviews have completely turned me off. I love reading movie reviews, and I once thought Stephanie Zacharek was the best reviewer, if not writer, I had ever read. No more. She's gotten so snide and dismissive that she's just not interesting. Don't get me started on Heather Havrilesky. The end for me came when she was writing about "Rock Star: INXS" this summer and dismissed INXS as a "crappy band." I'm not defending INXS, but I just expect a little more smart humor and real wit in my entertainment journalism. My 12-year-old nephew uses more creativity when telling me what he likes and doesn't like. Anyway, I'm letting my Premium subscription expire. You can get great political and entertainment coverage elsewhere, without the 5th-grade, playground-level writing.

That said, I'll keep checking back to read Patrick Smith!

I have to say it--blaming Nader supporters for not voting the Party Line remains a classic moment in the history of liberal denial. A little honest reflection on "what went wrong?" might have been a bit more constructive at the time.

Oh, and all those essays agonizing over whether it's worth agonizing over the agony of being a feminist agonizing over body image. Those are good, too.

Maybe you just forgot about that pathetic moment in history when you gave a forum for the absurd, illogical, rantings of David Horowitz? One of your best calls was taking him out of your lineup, but any one of his columns could be selected as one of Salon's most embarassing moments.

How can you publish an article about Salon's worst judgment calls that never mentions the words "Judy," "Miller" and "martyr"?

I'll feel much better about my membership and support of Salon when you officially apologize for that steaming pile of baseless logorrhea by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It's little wonder no other network or periodical would touch it. Five subsequent corrections to the original publication - is that a Salon record?

Please get a science editor or someone willing to fact-check. And reconsider your attitude towards celebrity journalists.