Joan - if you're reading this email, know that I watched your "debate" on Chris Matthew's show this evening. Your views on world affairs are naive and your love of the Clintons is insane! Hillary Clinton knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy and the best she could muster during the campaign for experience was a half-truth/lie. The Obama team is made up of left-wing lunatics who will end up destroying our nation. Obama himself has no experience at all - zero! Talk about the blind leading the blind.

I'd love the chance to debate Joan - maybe she could flop around like a fish trying to make a half-witted point!

~

I hope there are no cat and dog fights here.

I just wish that @ 3:00 AM the air is not cold.

I plea. Beg for a Siamese cat with 2- blue eyes.

The half-smile friendly grin with eyes to smile?

The cat and a dachshund dog would fetch a log?

The cat, or a mongrel, could carry a slit oak log?

The wood stove must burn throughout the night.

The wood stove burns out. If I blog, it is a forgetful eve.

The forgetful day and night is all the time. Pets fetch oak logs?

I realize Joan's article is about impressive diversity. Ya! Excellence.

It's a serious National Security Issue? You freeze at 3:00 AM? Agree?

Joan--I am a long time reader of Salon, but never comment. I am breaking this tradition to commend you on the way you handled Hitchens. He seems more and more irrational each time I see him/read his pieces. He was quite rude and when asked direct questions did not really bother to respond. While everyone has the right to hold an opinion, he should be careful what he says since he enjoys public forums (mystifying me no end). I have no idea if Hillary Clinton will be a bad, fair, good or great Secretary of State, but I do believe she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

I actually agree with Hitchens that Susan Rice would've been a better choice for Secretary of State, as would have Richard Holbrooke or John Kerry, but Hitchen's idiotic comments that Hillary is totally unsuited for State are nonsense. The man is so blinded by his hatred of anything Clinton that he makes an ass of himself each time he discusses them.

when Hitchens wrote for The Nation that he was a corporate hack hired to confuse every issue with false accusations and misplaced emphasis. You called him on the cherry picking very nicely. The only thing I would have done differently is congratulate him for being able to read minds, and know that Hillary cares only for herself.

You did good, Joan. Keep up the excellent job of rebuttal and presenting your points in these venues. By the way, whatever you pay Glenn Greenwald, you need to double it. That man is incredible by any standard.

Good for you for "stepping around the rubble" that Hitchens's mouth flings everywhere.

You were great especially at the 10:00 mark- Hitchens snittily reprimanded you for saying "Chris", when in fact you were referring to Matthews. Cool you let him know! But then he mangles your name as "Welsh". On purpose? And your letting viewers know you've had dinner with him at his house, made him look a fool.

All I know is that his sad, glowering hulk, that grim nasty face,- why is this man on TV?

Verbally, he's bullying, throwing a confetti of outdated nonsense. He wants to talk about Mark Rich? Uh, we all want to get FAR beyond 8 years ago Mr. Hitchens- we don't care about it, or your irrational Clinton hatred. It'd be great if he spent half his energy on the tragic malfeasance of the Bush administration.. but talk about silence and tumbleweeds there.

Joan, you were excellent, especially up against that bully, with his fake-lordly booming voice.

He's a theatrical Englishman who upgraded his working-class accent long ago and uses it to intimidate. But his points and ideas are hugely petty and unhelpful. I'm quite done with Hitchens. Wrong about everything.

There is something deeply unpleasant about watching someone vent what appears to be personal spleen in such a public way.

Quite frankly, who cares if Chris(topher) Hitchens hates all things Clinton? He also believes women are not funny, as I recall. As someone who lives outside the US (Australia), I think "Ms Walsh" (it is condescending) is on the money when she says non-Americans simply don't get the visceral hatred of someone who looked like a fairly good President from this distance and whose wife is an exciting and inspiring breaker of molds.

Ordinarily, I quite like Hitchens but feel he let himself down badly in this debate - it felt as if he simply could not rise above his personal animosity and look at the big picture.

Clinton's appointment is exciting - she's the first Secretary of State those of us outside the US have heard of before getting the job that I can remember, and that in itself makes the job and America's attitude to the rest of the world seem newly significant.

Dear Joan,

Loved you on Hardball today, but agree that you let Hitchens off easy (I was yelling at the television). Chris ( Matthews, in case the name's a problem) allowed Hitchens to level such unquestioned charges that he deserves some of the scorn. Both seemed blinded by their biases. I hope they both can get used to the concept of "Access Denied" for any media access to Clinton (unless forgiveness goes THAT far) All the best, Gary Burke.

We can't afford to police the world any longer. Nor should we if we didn't have massive deficits.

We have military bases from The Netherlands, to Germany and Japan.

This is nothing but military welfare which breeds dependency.

Let those nations guard their own borders.

"The foreign policy differences between them are very small, and were exaggerated for political effect during the primary"

In other words, Obama's campaign lied about Clinton's qualifications, attacking her unfairly, even as he claimed to be taking the high road while she unfairly attacked him as too inexperienced to be President. Of course, this can and will be defended as "just politics" by the same people who promoted Obama as above political machinations.