So here it is again: As Editor-in-Chief and as a "feminist" -- how do you reconcile Salon's blatant misogyny against Sarah Palin in articles like these:

Gary Kamiya depicts Palin as a dominatrix here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/09/09/mistress_palin/

Cintra Wilson calls Palin a fuckable Christian Stepford wife here:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/feature

Tracy Clark-Flory on the Salon "broadsheet” posts "Sneak Peek: The Palin Porno" here:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2008/10/20/palin_porn/index.html

Thoughts? Or are you really Salon's Missogynist-in-Chief?

Good night. Thanks for listening.

That is terrible about your brother-in-law. I'm sorry. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the context.

I am going to return to the sidelines with regard to your dispute(s) with Joan, however. For one thing, that's where I belong. It is also bedtime on the side of the globe where I live.

No, the issue wasn't about Rudy so much. It was simply an emotional one for me, after having seen the towers fall and lost a brother-in-law, and after having experienced first hand how important the Yankees were to the healing process in New York. When Joan wrote her petty little column from her nice, safe little office in San Francisco, slicing and dicing how many times Rudy was or was not at Ground Zero versus Yankee games, it naturally set me off. It was more about the town and people I love, not Rudy. Not to mention Joan's cluelessness in this matter.

genetic GOP flakiness? We have the Iquitarod...and of course, there was Rudy.

A floozy-flouting cross-dressing fraud, who truly believed that being mayor during a catastrophe entitled him to the Presidency, and a free pass for announcing to his wife at a news conference he was going to divorce her, before telling her in private.

I mean, the pearl-clutching by the GOP faithful over Clinton's indiscretions were deafening in light of the silence engendered by a lout like Giuliani.

It's mind-boggling, really.

How could Joan possibly resist such honey-coated words?

You were the number 1 Rudy supporter, and you wandered into salon expressly to defend Rudy in his extremely poor presidential campaign.

In my opinion Rudy was the worse candidate in the 2008 primaries, and I thank god(dess) he did so poorly that he rendered himself politically irrelevant.

The article in question was about how Rudy had left NYC immediately after 9/11 to attend Yankee road games, and the great lengths Rudy had gone to get the Yankees a tax payer paid stadium.

After Rudy's campaign went down in flames, you stuck around, and have since become a fixture on Joan Walsh's threads.

Obviously you feel the need to obtain some revenge for every evil thing Rudy did that Joan Walsh reported on, but you won't get it.

Rudy is an evil, hypocritical, cheating, scamming, lying, and disgusting man, and I hope Joan Walsh is ready to rehash the dirt on that asshole should he ever raise his ugly little head again.

About the "dogface" comment:

Yes, it’s true. Two years ago, the very first time I landed on this site, I was really pissed off at something totally erroneous Joan had written about Rudy Giuliani in the months that followed 9/11. So I let my temper get the best of me. But only because I was reacting as a New Yorker who had watched the towers fall live and in person. And because I lost my brother-in-law, who was a broker at Cantor Fitzgerald, in that tragedy. Joan had written some rubbish about Rudy spending more time at Yankee games than at Ground Zero, which clearly showed she had no clue about the emotions that were bubbling up among New Yorkers back then.

What I wrote to Joan in my second, less emotional post, was this:

“I was absolutely horrified at your article criticizing Rudy for spending more time at Yankee games than at Ground Zero. I was horrified because it showed how absolutely clueless you were about the psyche of New Yorkers after 9/11. You see, any serious baseball fan and any serious New Yorker knows how critical the Yankees were to the healing process in the Big Apple after the tragic attack. In fact, HBO did an excellent documentary on that very subject called "Nine Innings from Ground Zero." And THAT's why Giuliani and so many New Yorkers spent so much time in BOTH places, right on through the World Series. You were wrong to trash him. It only showed your ignorance.”

As I said, apologized the last time this came up, saying, "So I apologize, Joan, for calling you dogface after losing a brother-in-law in tower one, and then reading your inane comments. Now, can you apologize for writing such tripe in the first place."

Of course, Joan never apologized.

Well, it’s certainly smart not to get too concerned with the possible personal agendas of the people writing in here. But sometimes one gets curious. Like when virtue001 called for a more “civil discussion” – an ideal that quite appeals to me. I thought – let’s see how this person has handled himself thus far, clicked on his letters and – wow. “Dogface.” (Nice to meet you too, sir.) I can’t take someone like that’s arguments about civility seriously and I personally would not validate him by agreeing with him – because what is important to me is less than meaningless to him. Pfui! (or do only the Germans say that? Then: Pshaw!)

I do remember the dominatrix picture and also that a number of Salon readers were bothered by the sexism of it. I probably read your letters (I usually do). On the other hand, the picture turned me off sufficiently that I may not have read the article. I remember being offended and frustrated by that sort of attack on Palin back then because besides being distasteful, sexist attacks – whether against Palin or anyone else – are just plain weak. It’s like admitting you cannot come up with any serious criticisms. I was/am only interested in truly debilitating arguments against Palin. (Luckily, there was/is no shortage of those either.)

When you said you prefer the term sexism to misogyny, it came to me: aren’t they actually two different things? They may often overlap, but as you pointed out to XH, someone could be a sexist but not a misogynist (and vice versa). Therefore - if I may briefly butt into your quarrel with XH – he was correct to refute that the articles were misogynist (which was the word virtue001 used), but you are right that they were sexist (which was probably was virtue001 meant). (See, he doesn’t even care enough about it to get the terms straight.)