How can there be so much coverage over Wright's comments, Wright's mind you, not Obama's, and essentially nothing over Hillary's direct statement? You say you don't think she literally, intentionally lied, because how could anyone expect to get away with it with all the documented footage? But if it's not a lie, what do you call it? If it's just a case of bad memory, that indicates her mind not only doesn't retain important information, but actually invents inaccuate experiences. Should a person with such issues be in charge of our nation, innocent of intention or not?

The only thing that could really help Hillary out of this would be if it was established that the scenario she described did occur, but on another trip. For her to confuse two trips in the midst of a strenuous political campaign would be understandable. But nothing along those lines seems to have happened.

Secondly, trying to get away with it in spite of documented footage is exactly what she tried to do. As you yourself point out, she dismissed the comments of her fellow travellers and those of questioning journalists until actual footage was brought forward. So, ridiculous as her attempt to get away with such an easily disprovable lie may be, that's appears to be exactly what she did.

And, again, the old Salon evasion. Your editorial and your comments seem to be really aimed at diffusing the situation. Once again dredging up Obama's tough week, though you admit this was last week's news, not this week's, and then trying to play down the seriousness of the Bosnia issue by framing your comments as if this was only a one-week issue that will possibly fade away. But if these scandals are the kind of thing that only lasts a week, why did you keep it up in Obama's case for two weeks while, after a week of the media's coverage of Hillary's blunder, only give her story the most glancing of notices?

I've started to think a lot about Farhad Manjoo's recent columns as I read Salon and the letters pages. Specifically, the idea that if one repeats a falsehood, even while claiming it's a falsehood, then you aid the perpetuation of the falsehood. While Walsh continually insists she does not believe Obama shares his ex-pastor's views, she nonetheless continually ties him to his ex-pastor, even a week after the bruhaha over it has died down. While at the same time, she barely acknowleges Hillary's dishonesty, in what appears to be an attempt to keep it out of the minds of the readers. It's very interesting that her byline suggests a serious criticism of Hillary, while the actual content of the piece does nothing of the kind (Hillary is not held responsible for her words).

But I also think of Manjoo in terms of the way I read these letter pages. Am I wrong in my perception that the overwhelming majority of letters are criticizing Salon for its lack of serious, unbiased (or at least, balanced, if the former is utterly impossible) reporting? Am I just reading with blinders on? Or are the majority of readers fed up with Salon's coverage?

I really don't think anyone, or any rational person, would be bothered by Walsh's biased op-ed pieces—a form of journalism which by its very nature reflects personal beliefs—if they were balanced by other views, or if simple news reports were included that acknowldged the scandal over Clinton's inaccuracies. But this is entirely missing. Where are the articles covering this story? All week this has been a major issue, a huge upset to Hillary's campaign, but what does Salon run? A piece on how the GOP is out to get Hillary. Great. To read the site for most of this week, you wouldn't have known the story even existed. Unless you read the letters pages, that is.

Maybe Walsh really doesn't see how biased she is, doesn't recognize the extent to which she filters out criticism of Hillary while jumping on every chance to deride Obama. Maybe she doesn't recognize the clear implications of what she deams newsworthy and chooses to include on her site. True enough, indeed.

Only Paglia seems allowed to criticize Hillary openly, and she's on hand seemingly as Salon's liscened crank, the town contrarian: "Oh, that nutty Paglia, here she goes again!" At any rate, she doesn't maintain a specifically political column. I suspect she'd have been let go by now, if she did.

I don't think it's so much a question of "talking past one another" as it is 1) with the huge deluge of letters, and the way one's ability to return to the site varies from day to day, and even within the course of the day, it is very hard to continue a conversation and 2) the letters columns are not really intended as a posting board for on-going conversations, but as a place to respond to the authors of a particular piece, or column. That, at least, has been traditionally the use Salon reader-responders have been most comfortable with. Perhaps that will change, I'm not sure. But considering how quickly letters pages are closed down (they used to remain open indefinately), I don't think much of a change is likely to happen.

I happen to agree with these words, and that is why Obama is my candidate. I do not endorse these words because Obama is my candidate.

This is beautifually put.

I will say that race has played very little role in my support for Obama. I don't care what his race is, I care about what his politcs are. Obviously his racial identity plays a part in how his politics are formed, and thus play a part in how I connect with his political message. But it's a sidebar for me.