Michelle Obama's speech was moving, lucid, inspiring and strongly feminine -- Missus Obama is no less an example of what women in America can accomplish, what someone with her modest background can accomplish and what an African American can accomplish.

Everything good and true and admirable about America is exemplified in Michelle Obama's accomplishments and by her words.

This should also be the headline on Salon.com, a liberal-slanted news magazine run by a woman editor. Instead, I have to look at the fraudulent PUMA boondoggle crudely displaying in all its glorious obscenity as the headline on the same night that same speech was made.

Salon.com needs to fix it's editorial direction or replace it's editor.

No less than Hillary Clinton, that is.

I would fight as hard and as loudly as I could to preserve the right to voice any opinion I find atrocious. Neo-Nazi's, the KKK, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, preachers, pushers and PUMA.

That said, PUMA is a fraudulent organization whose singular goal is ensuring the election of John McCain. They may rattle their sabers as loud as they want, and I will call them out for that they are: anti-reproductive rights, anti-feminist, anti-Democratic riff-raff.

It is perplexing to me the pretzel like intellectual dishonesty that is required of you to support saying something along the lines of "I take umbrage with equating feminism with voting for Barack Obama."

First of all, by self-identifying as a Democrat, Barack Obama has already explicitly embraced a far more pro-feminist agenda and platform than the other major party alternative. That is to say, I will not deny that there are feminist of feminist-leaning Republicans; however, John McCunt isn't one of them ("At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt"). The ill-logic of your defense of McCain, PUMA and straggling Clinton supporters is self-defeating and transparent.

Moreover, I think it is no longer about what makes sense, or even reality, but mere stubbornness. You do not want to lose this argument, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary: Barack Obama is no misogynist, he does not lack credentials, skill or ability.

The speech his wife gave tonight should be irrefutable evidence of which side of this made-up (by PUMA, et alia) dichotomy Senator Obama stands. He is the husband of a very smart, very accomplished woman, the father of two very precious daughters, the son of a single mother, the grandson of a loving grandmother. Does he resent having these strong women surround him and fill up his life story, or is he empowered by them?

I can sit here and glibly trash Hillary Clinton all day and night. Much obliged. I don't care for her, that much is no secret. I think that it is a stretch to accuse me of being some sort of woman hater because of it. But I am, daily, by various letter writers and by implication by Joan Walsh herself. But I am not Barack Obama.

And it may be insulting for me to tell you to lick your wounds and get over yourself, but it is also good advice. It may seem insulting for me to say that PUMA supporters are deluded, irrational or simply the enemy in disguise. It also has the benefit of being TRUE.

When will this period of denial and anger end, when will the bargaining end, and when will the stages of grief finalize and come to its natural end: acceptance.

I trust you will do the right thing in November. If you want to see more involvement with women in politics, then run for office. Who knows, I might end up voting for you some day?

But if this is just some obsession based on spite, then I have every right to call foul, do I not? Is it about feminism or Hillary? Because if it is the former, then you must choose Obama. If it is the latter, then you should support the candidate Clinton supports: Obama.

Obama/Biden '08. Yes we fuckin-a will.

If Obama supporters refused to support Clinton in the hypothetical case of her victory in the primaries, I would say that would be pretty stupid.

As to AKA Smith's theory about political clout -- if a vocal enough group of women refused to vote for Obama and guaranteed his loss, then women would lose clout. Just like African American's lose clout when they do not vote in local and national elections, or Kansans when they vote Republican. Clout is what you do not have when you vote against your interests or do not vote at all.

I can't believe you actually made that statement. That is one of the most stupid ideas I have heard you say, and I know you are not an idiot.

If you want to, come November, validate the tactic of splitting the party by Republican strategists by either abstaining from voting, voting for McCain or voting Green (yes, they do have a much more progressive platform that Barack Obama): go ahead.

You are fooling yourself if you think people will take notice of your political courage. All they will notice is your spite and Obama's failure. He can't win for winning.

Also, it is highly ironic to bring up the specter of the Green Party when talking about Hillary ("NAFTA/Wal*Mart") Clinton, is it not?

I am worried about your "soul", or at least the existential crisis of being so turned around in your thinking about these things.

One last thing. I have defined PUMA. PUMA is a group whose sole purpose is to ensure the election of John McCain.

Remind me, again, what side you are on? Because the choice is essentially binary, realistically speaking. Come back to reality? Please?

..Thank you, Ms Walsh. I appreciate you and Ms Traister giving Mrs Obama the credit she deserves.