A reader writes:

Andrew, for every emailer like the one who said he'd abandon the Atlantic online, there must be three like myself who check the Atlantic more often than ever. There are poll-driven politicians, but there are also many -- far too many -- poll driven journalists and pundits. There is obviously no shortage of Hillary criticism from the wacky right, but for a very long period there was a shortage of criticism of her from the sensible center and from liberals, and your critique has helped fill that void.

Another adds:

I think that one reader is being a little harsh, taking you to task about the volume of anti-Hillary posts. It seems you run just as many anti-Giuliani ones. Also, I think it's important that someone with a (inter)national forum point out, repeatedly, that America may be, once again, picking the worst possible choices from all the candidates available to them.

Back in 2000, even though I knew it wouldn't happen, I was disappointed that Bill Bradley did not upset Gore for the nomination. Lord knows he wasn't perfect, but Gore seemed like the nominee out of sheer "well, this is the way its done" habit.

At the time, I thought we could've had Bradley vs Bush, Gore vs McCain, or, dream of dreams, Bradley vs McCain, with by far the worst, most tired possible version would've been Gore vs. Bush. And which one did we get?

One reason I have come on so strong these past couple of months is precisely because I felt Clinton was getting too easy a pass in the MSM. She had managed to reinvent herself in a way that obscured serious features of her record and her character from public view. It's better for the process if we judge the real Clinton, abilities and flaws, before simply acquiescing to the meme that she is inevitable. She isn't. No one is. My take on the strange new affection for Clinton on the right can be read here.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.