Do you kiss your own mother with that ugly gutter mouth?

Are you the trailer trash queen of the whole wide south?

Me gustan sus letras. Me gustaria mucho leer mas de los mismos.

OT, una novela que es una favorita fue escrito de Willa Cather, "Death Comes for the Archbishop." La novela describe la historia del Oeste, pero mas temprano que la historia de Los Estados Unidos. Tambien, la describe con eloquencia una historia y un pais que hemos olvidado.

Does Salon block this kind of thing? Or what? Wait till she gets to the end of the cycle?

but, no, it is very unlikely that any of the comments in this thread will be deleted, or that there will be any other consequences.

Unless, that is, you count the effects they may have on the ongoing public discourse, and thus on the election, as consequences.

If it's any comfort to you... this occurs in many Salon threads, not just on Joan's blog. It does seem more personal here, though.

So much for this being a "salon."

Proceed...

I do not understand all this negativity towards Jesse Jackson. I always liked him. He is one of my favorite politicians ever. In fact, I like him much better than I do Hillary or Obama. He is clever and charming man and a fabulous orator.

My point was never that there might not be black people supporting Obama for significant good reasons. Please go back and read my post. A side issue that I have is that Obama supporters do not accept that women may support Hillary Clinton for significant good reasons.

However, I amazes me that no one really chose to address my actual point. I did not ask people to praise Obama. God knows, we get enough of that.

Here is my point:

If it is wrong to support Hillary Clinton significantly for her sex and not her record or her character or her policies, then it is also wrong to support Barack Obama significantly for his race and not his record or his character or his policies. Try to apply simple logic to understand the equivalency.

Moreover, if it is acceptable to support Barack Obama in part because of his race, then it is acceptable to supporter Hillary Clinton in part because of her sex. Again, basic logic applies.

What is so hard and confusing that people cannot admit this? Either the Obama supporters who have answered me ...

1. Have problems with reading comprehension.

2. Disagree with me and need to provide reasons why they do or else concede that I am correct.

3. Are hypocrites.

4. Are probably all of the above.

Maybe that's the problem. Too many Obama supporters can only hear an argument from the position of pathos. Logos and ethos escapes them.

Joan, why wish for the introduction of female genitalia into the attributes of Presidential qualification? Mike Dukakis was a pussy. Was that good? Advancement will come when having male only anatomical references are no longer complimentary to female candidates but have been relegated to the junk heap of past condescending remarks like, "He's a credit to his race".

I despise Hillary Clinton (and Bill) but if I were to reach for a compliment, I would say she has relentless determination. I would say she understands what it takes to win an election. I would say she has an organization with a tenacled operation that rivals Vito Corleone; but, I despise the Clintons. They have a power base legacy that is global. They have a recognizable face of power that, if truly used to revitalize this country and reconstruct the mytique of the United States around the world, could recruit the best and brightest among us to be their faithful allies, and sweat and sacrifice and cogitate to an honorable and proud end.

But these are the Clintons. They aspire to government 'of the Clintons, by the Clintons, for the Clintons'. Bill's legacy is to be the only President to be disbarred. One of only two to be impeached. And why? For lying under oath in order to obstruct justice. Hillary has picked up the family torch by re-remembering her flowers on the tarmac waltz as a sniper dodging, sprint to her appointment with the Bosnian state. If you insist on sexual organ adjectives, they can be had. Hillary has some set of balls to stand in defiance of any loyalty to party or history. Obama is a juvenile who suffers from late dropping tesicles. Slick Willie is a spayed cat, moraly and ethicaly bankrupt and constantly on the prowl for any stray who wanders past his alley.

BTW, Bill O'Reilly is a lightweight. He is a poor interviewer and has no Balls. Sitting through an O'Reilly interrogation is easier than Hillary's typical 'I wont come unless I get the questions ahead of time'-Chris Matthews', softball lobs.

What do you mean nobody responded to your post? I sent you a 1000 word answer (which I had to line edit to make shorter) in direct response to your question, and as far as I know you did not reply.

There are some editors reading content in real time. That's how the 'red stars' are assigned, though Joan personally does not do that in her articles. I think Salon is pretty liberal with it's content policy, which suits me. In any political ecosystem I see the need for bottom feeders. I general, I find censorship more offensive than vileness. What does happen here, is that certain posters disappear.

I agree that lately this place more resembles a Yosemite Sam Saloon than a Henry James Salon. I've come to realize that not everybody comes here for the same reason. Quite a few come here to taunt, rant, and spar. An actual exchange of views and underlying rationale is low on their list of fun activities. Ignoring these people tends to work out fine, though it requires restraint at times. The best punishment is to deny them what they want. 95% of the time, that is attention.

Every once in awhile, the rest of us semi-rational folks cross the line, and I think it's fair to expect a rebuke in that case.

I would also agree, that it would be smart for us to come together as a team so we can win in the fall, and civility is a part of that, but that process has to happen organically. I don't think it can be imposed from without.