yes, I do believe that makes perfect sense.

the "5 books" reference was not about the CAPS commenter himself, but about Paglia's predictable self-aggrandizing narratives . . . as in . . . "blah, blah, blah, I'm a pompous pseudo intellectual who's penned 5 books nobody has ever read outside my publisher's office . . . blah, blah, blah, and I teach at a prestigious little university nobody has ever heard of and very few have ever attended . . . and blah, blah, blah, blah, I just love Sarah Palin because she's hot and I'm bisexual and she's authentically unconventional and teh stupid just like me and . . . blah, blah, blah . . . what was I talking about . . . oh yeah, blah, blah, blah Bono rocks and he makes me feel all funny in my loins 'cause, you know, I'm all bisexual and stuff."

See how easy it easy to do what Paglia does. Of course I could sprinkle in some big fancy words so that undiscriminating readers like the commenter before you can refer to her prose as "crushingly witty". But it doesn't change the reality that topically she's rudderless, incoherent, and really quite bad . . . despite the inane opinions of her equally confused barely literate right wing Drudge reading Limbaugh listening followers who see her as the "sane bisexual centrist liberal." Did I mention she's bisexual?

*Not that I care that she's bisexual or care about anyone's sexuality generally unless it's in the context of the fight for LGBT equality of civil rights--which it never is with Ms. Paglia. So why is she always going on about it--it isn't the slightest bit relevant or interesting. Like most of the pieces by Mr. Keillor. What's next a piece on potato salad? Oh yeah Keillor already covered that.

"With the possible exception of Cary Tennis' column, this, maybe, could just be the most craptacular part of this site."

Hey, hey, hey--you forgot about the ineffable "Ask a Wingnut" feature, no? ;)

The vitriol spewed at Paglia is unbelievable. Wipe the foam from your lips and calm down!

I like her columns. She has a unique take on things. If I agree with her or not IS BESIDE THE POINT.

I really, really respect you, but you need to stop with this revisionist nonsense about Palin "cleaning Biden's clock" in the VP debate. Here are some choice statistics from right after the debate occurred:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.poll/

51% Biden did the best job, compared to Palin's 36%.

52% Biden was better at expressing his views, compared to Palin's 36%.

87% Biden is qualified to be VP, compared to Palin's amazing, sub-majority 42%.

Now, the polling also indicates that Palin exceeded rock-bottom expectations (84% felt she did), but they also indicate that Biden exceeded expectations as well (64% felt this way). Being that the McCain camp took every opportunity it could to lower expectations for Palin and raise them for Biden, this speaks volumes. It was assumed from the outset by many that Biden would be victorious, yet he somehow still managed to exceed the expectations of 64% of those polled.

The only category one could even come close to imagining Palin "won" is on likability. Palin was viewed as likable by 54%, while Biden only garnered 36%. 70% thought Biden was more of a typical politician. But honestly, Biden is a more typical politician, being that he's been one for decades. It would be very difficult for Palin to appear to be a typical politician after only a partial term as governor of Alaska. And whereas there's a long record to examine for Biden, Palin was still essentially an unknown at the time of the debate. So it's not clear by any means what this category of the poll really reflects about Biden or Palin.

Anyway, Biden was the clear victor in that debate, by every metric other than "Camille Paglia's individual, highly subjective opinion." So why do you insist on spreading this revisionist nonsense about Palin "cleaning his clock"? It reeks not of the truth, but rather of an unfulfilled dream. Face it, you speculated early on that Palin was more dangerous and significant a figure than she seemed to the naked eye. Eventually, she was proven to be as empty as she seemed all along. Why do you insist on sticking so stubbornly to your initial analysis? She is the dictionary definition of an empty suit.

... is evident in every column. Her politics seem to be informed entirely by her sexual desire (witness her gushing over Sarah Palin) and her need for abusive daddy-figures (witness the way she leaps to defend the bile spewing from right-wing talk radio, particularly the loathsome Rush Limbaugh).

The vitriol spewed at Paglia is not because readers disagree with her. It's because she is spectacularly, astonishingly factually wrong; wildly inconsistent in the logical bases for her arguments; and affects a "tell it like it is" objective outsider persona that claims to be skewering the "elite" while at the same time touting her own creds as a pretentious, card-carrying elitist!

Leave it to you, Camille, to blithely assert that the male gaze makes everything hotter. Wake up, all you post-feminists out there. If the male gaze is hot, it's because you have, like generations before you, eroticized it. How do you think patriarchy maintains its power?

Hey, anyone notice the name-calling by the delectable Camille on the eastern media. Isn't that rather juvenile at best?

Also, the hate crime comments...as one writer said...these laws were made so a group of individuals would not be intimidated. Duh?

Blaming the victim for his death...great and well-used strategy. Good going, Camille.

So you like girly girls. Go figure! Not butch for you.

You are one twisted sister!

Spoken like a true sycophant: "the fans are shut out!" Aren't you a fan? You have a platform in the so called liberal Salon.com. Not quite being shut out, is it?

However, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the media: " [...] on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags."

Where you looking in the mirror when you wrote that? I mean you did see a cackling witch, a twisted cynic and a pompous windbag.

I'm just wondering which one of those you saw first?