Read your own columns.

I understand the tendency among older feminists to be heavily pro-Clinton, but I'm afraid you can't even begin to claim neutrality in this race.

I feel that I staked a claim to be feminist by voting the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 84 despite the evidence, apparent even at that time, that Ferraro was, shall we say, ethically challenged. Your columns lambasting those of us who have chosen to support the campaign of a charismatic, articulate, educated candidate of color and rejecting the campaign of a candidate who seems determined to prove that women too can lie cheat and belly up to the bar just like their morally bankrupt husbands have been anything but neutral. Want me to vote for a woman? GREAT. Show me a woman who rejects an unjust war begun with the sole aim of enriching the big oil companies, and that has proven successful beyond the dreams of avarice of the most spoiled Exxon exec. Show me a woman who refuses to manipulate the public opinion by remarks about bombing Iran made the day of a highly competitive primary. Show me a woman who distances herself from the racist remarks of her ex-president husband.

I highly resent the insinuation that because I feel that this particular woman is unfit to be elected dog-catcher, that I'm somehow sexist. As for your much vaunted working class background, I'm from a white-trash redneck family in the reddest part of one of the reddest states, from a congressional district known for electing John Bircher's to the congress.

It's all too possible to be anti-Clinton and feminist.

Having an agenda, that's one thing. Presenting yourself as neutral while pursuing that agenda is another, so just admit your bias and let's get on with TRYING to rebuild the party.

Keep up with the Indian news via BBC for a while. These are the same folks who hold a major riot in the street because an isthmus the government wants to tunnel through is, in reality, a bridge built by Hanuman, the Monkey God, and who proclaim a baby girl born with two faces is an incarnation of an Indian god instead of a disfigured victim of poverty.

Vedanta is nauseating. Far from being this great life-altering philosophy, it's mostly a kind of anti-intellectual fundamentalism that makes Calvin and Falwell look like the voices of reason.

This is old hat in India, where, just a few months back, there were literally riots in the streets because the government wanted to dig a canal through an isthmus that was thrown up by Hanuman, the Monkey God, during an episode in the Ramayana.

These are the folks that American corporations, like Dell, Microsoft, ATT, ad nauseum, have sold our soul to in order to hire customer service workers for a nickel an hour. While poor lower caste individuals live on oats they dig out of horse feces, we subsidize this insanity by moving technical jobs to the subcontinent where they can be done by people whose 4th language is english.

Come on, folks, THE emerging economy? What is wrong with our culture that we will enable this sort of idiocy in the name of "religious freedom" and lower wages?

Fellow lefties, if you're too young to remember My Lai, never encountered an historical account of the Red Army's ceremonial procession through what was left of the Third Reich, and unfamiliar with the Junker and the hereditary officer corps of Germany, this should serve to remind you of one fact. The history of the left has been one long struggle against standing military organizations. It was even important enough to make it into the American Bill of Rights, in the form of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers argued eloquently against standing armies, being all too aware of the abuses that are an integral part of the entire idea of placing deadly weapons into the hands of psychopaths and the dregs of society that were willing to forgo a normal life in the hopes that they would get to rape, pillage and plunder. Militias were their attempt to eradicate this problem once and for all. Obviously the attempt failed.

A standing military's primary aim is to maintain itself. Civilian control will curtail some abuses, but once out of oversight, "boys will be boys", whether fragging their own commanding officer or expressing their own resentment of their intellectual and social inferiority and putting those uppity women who dared to infiltrate the sacred military halls with the aid of "those communists in Congress" in their place. Fascism, communism, mercantilism, the ideology simply doesn't matter. With the aid of muscular Christianity to affirm their moral superiority, the current military establishment effectively does an end run around congressional oversight and continues the age old campaign to make the world a better place by shooting, raping or imprisoning anyone in it's power who expresses their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

The Army ain't our friends, people. Any young women overcome with the desire to serve their fellow man in uniform stand in desperate need of good advice, counseling, and reminding that once out of the States, laws don't apply to military personnel.

I'll most likely vote for him anyway, but I'll be damned if I will work for or contribute in any way to a candidate that will just throw away my civil liberties like they were nothing.

An Imperial left wing president is potentially a Stalin. Do we really need to replace "Uncle Adolf" Bush with Barry "Stalin"? Do we really win this contest in the long run if our chosen representative throws away our very precious rights over such inconsequential gains as were given by the Fisa measure just passed?

If any of you share my concerns, remove yourself from all Obama mailing and donor lists, and do so for the Senate and Congress election committees as well. Send them a message before it's too late!