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.

How could Joan possibly resist such honey-coated words?

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.

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.

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.

Good night. Thanks for listening.

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?