I get it - sexxxy, inhumanly proportioned girls + good action scenes - but I don't see why he's been so popular for so long.  It's been like 25 years and he's never lost his fan-base!  I can't think of any other artist that's been this consistently popular.  

I grew up on McFarlane's Spidey, so I will always have a soft spot for him, even if looking at his artwork as an adult I see things that make it less appealing to me than when I was 13. I'm not a big fan of how he draws faces (he's much better drawing masked characters, which explains Spawn), and like some of the other Image founders he can go way overboard with hatching and other unnecessary lines. He basically gave MJ a porn star look. But I loved (and still love) all the things he is known for when he drew Spidey -- the contortionist poses, the huge eyes, and the crazy webbing.

My feelings towards Jim Lee are pretty similar -- enjoying him for the things he does well while recognizing his limitations. I do think he draws a great Batman, and I agree with Trebor that Hush is the best thing he's done so far. He's also showed a willingness to experiment with different techniques, like the watercolored pages from Hush, or painting in general that he's done in other works. To be honest though, I think perhaps more than Jim Lee himself, it's the combination of Jim Lee plus Scott Williams that I appreciate. Lee inked by Williams vs Lee inked by Lee are miles apart, even though Lee draws fairly tight pencils. I should also mention that part of Jim Lee's appeal for me is a personal connection I have. Not that I know him or anything like that -- it's more his background and upbringing, and in particular some of the things he's mentioned about his parents when he gives interviews echoes a lot of the experiences I had growing up.

This is probably one of the things I had in mind when I talked about enjoying what he does while recognizing limitations.  I think he's great at things like big splash pages, two-page spreads, or pin-ups, and you can sort of tell that that's what he likes to spend his time on.  He is, as you say, merely competent as a storyteller.

As far as Capullo, I got to talk to him last year at Baltimore Comic Con, and I gave him props for putting out issues of Batman for nearly three years running without being late, and I think he only skipped maybe 1 or 2 books during that time.  His wife, who was with him, gave me sort of a rueful look and said that it's because he basically works all the time.  Whatever one's opinion may be about his artwork, the man definitely seems to have strong work ethic.

I have to say that I like it a lot and it often puzzles me how vocal some folks online are in their disapproval of the storyline. Mind you, the negativity around the "Sins Past" storyline in Amazing Spider-Man also mystifies me as well, so what do I know? I thought that was an excellent story too.

As heinous as that would be, there's a part of me that's thinking that would be one hell of an origin for an extremely messed up villain. He could even scar himself and take up the mantle of the new Darth Vader. I better keep quite. It's obvious that Disney would love to have Vader back for the new films...

As a concept, it was pretty good. My biggest problem with it was the characterization... Tony Stark was terrible, and many others weren't much better.  Plus, they destroyed the New Warriors (though they got redeemed a bit during Avengers: The Initiative, which is secretly a New Warriors book).  The cool stuff (like the Initiative) didn't last, but the crappy stuff (Tony Stark as essentially Evil, the constant hero vs. hero thing, etc) seems to continue to stick around.