...that a relatively benign article like this one would resulted in the vitriolic comments exhibited in the letters posted here.

Frankly, I think it would have been better for Salon to have waited a couple of weeks to publish it. By then some of the resentment of those opposing the election of Barack Obama would have faded. On the other hand, I think the only way the anger and resentment generated from those of the Vietnam era -- those who served and those who didn't but supported that awful war (including a whole cadre of draft-dodgers like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Limbaugh, etc., etc., and chickenhawks who basically hid away like Bush) --will dissipate is when they pass from this life.

They will continue to be resentful because they weren't greeted by flower-tossing pin-up girls, or honored with ticker-tape parades, or even publicly thanked for their service in Southeast Asia by a public which had become increasingly resentful of the war and distrustful of those perpetrating it from on high. Unfortunately, neither the government nor the military hierarchy recognized -- and would have refused to provide treatment even if they did, thinking PTSD as being "unmanly" -- to those who were (and continue to be) haunted by the ugly images of an ugly war. Fast forward to today. Another ugly war. Still little effort exhibited to deal with mental health issues facing today's veterans. A public -- especially the young people, just like those during the Bill Ayers years -- who are angry at what their government has been doing both abroad (as in Iraq and elsewhere) and domestically.

I didn't participate in the demonstrations at that time. My sympathies went back and forth between the returning troops and the men who were being sent to Vietnam against their will. As a woman, I was out of harms way. At the same time, I didn't feel anger at the anti-war protestors. But I did feel outrage when I learned about My Lai and the murders committed by that psycho Lt. Calley. What could be worse than that? And I'm glad Ayers brought up the issue.

Finally, I really think Salon ought to consider making a rule limiting the number of back-and-forth statements made by individuals trying to get in the last word. They provide little in the way of dialog and merely take up space, generally going unread by most of us or, in the very least, merely skimmed and then disregarded.

But now that it's been brought up, and chewed on by more people than necessary here, this was my reaction to the football question. I turned to my husband and said "What is he talking about?" at which time my husband said "Some people take this lack of college football playoffs/championships very seriously" and then went into a big explanation about bowl games, large sums of money involved, how the fans want a playoff but the colleges are perfectly happy with things the way they are, etc., etc. As my eyes glazed over, I remembered how male journalists so often use sports metaphors and realized it wasn't at all weird that one would ask the president-elect an inane question about sports. I have little doubt that what was going through Ms. Obama's mind as she sat there was amusement at the idea of this serious interview turning to a trivial issue like college football championships.

I clearly remember the two of them sitting on a bale of hay in a (make-believe, like the Crawford "ranch"?) barn or something. They were being very folksy. Well, at least George was. Don't remember Laura saying much. But I clearly remember thinking "What the heck is this cowboy scene all about?" Didn't want to go out and have a beer with him and still don't. But I'd love to sit down and have a discussion about anything - except football - with both of the Obamas.

John McCain said over and over that he knows how to get bin Laden, so all President Obama needs to do is to assign Senator McCain the job of doing just that.

But seriously, folks, is anyone else but me put off by the phrase "capture or kill bin Laden"?