Reading about GQ magazine's cowardly behavior in spiking a story about the Clinton campaign made me want to cancel my subscription.

First rule of Today's GQ Man: Be a wuss! Josh Green is an excellent magazine writer, so his piece on Hillary campaign infighting is unlikely to have been killed by GQ magazine because it was bad. That leaves Politico reporter Ben Smith's explanation--that it was spiked by GQ's editor Jim Nelson because of pressure from the Clinton camp, in the form of threatened denial of access to Bill Clinton for an upcoming GQ cover story. ... Maybe Nelson will have something more to say that will make him look better than he looks now. But there's one way to find out how good the piece was. Publish it--somewhere. That's what the Web is for, no? ... Note to Josh: I'll do it if no one else will. ... Or is GQ not only spiking the piece but refusing to let Green place it elsewhere? That would be full-service journalism for the Clintons. ...

No doubt about it; this is definitely "cancel my subscription" time.

The problem is, I don't know how to do that. So I went to the website to find out.

As it turns out, you have to have a subscription before they'll allow you to cancel.

I may cancel at any time during my subscription and receive a full refund on any unmailed copies by calling 1-800-XXX-XXX.

It's like totally unfair.

It's too bad I can't cancel, though, because in addition to being a pretty decent men's fashion magazine, GQ markets itself as offering cutting edge political coverage.

The website conveys an unmistakable impression that GQ is no-holds barred, fearless type of publication. As to political fashion-consciousness, this does appear to be true. A blog by The Style Guy (Glenn O'Brien) does a pretty thorough job of dishing of the candidates' styles, and has an absolutely nauseating picture of a full face kiss between an overweight former vice-president and a leading democratic candidate for president, and I found it very amusing. Anyone with the slightest interest judging the candidates by what they wear (there is the old saying that "clothes make the man" -- and the debates don't leave much else to go on), ought to read it.

So I can't believe that a magazine showing clear signs of fearlessness (or at least slouching towards something resembling fearlessness) would back down from a piece that might have really put them on the fearless journalism map, simply because they wanted Bill Clinton's puss on the cover. I could see the point of spiking a story if maybe a leading fashion designer had threatened to withhold his mug if they didn't pull a story about a lapel width or trouser cuff war or something (they are, after all, GQ) but this?

Let's face it, some things are worth being a wuss over, and some aren't.