"There's a big difference between relying on voters seeking out information and disseminating information as part of one's campaign."

There's a big difference between telling the truth and what you're doing. What is this "big difference" that you speak of? If you don't watch the debates, don't listen to Obama's speeches, don't read his books or policy papers, then how is he to disseminate information to you.

"Obama is doing the former, with a whole lot of uplifting rhetoric, while Clinton is doing the latter."

Again, there's a difference between the truth and what you're spouting. What has Clinton done to disseminate information that Obama has not? They both debate, both give stump speeches, both have web sites, both have mailers, both run ads ... perhaps you will claim that Obama's speeches are nothing but uplifting rhetoric; if so, then you haven't listened to them. Watching soundbites on the TV news isn't the same thing.

"Since I have not sought out information on www.barackobama.com, I really don't know what he's about, other than lifting up the country, uniting the country, and changing the country."

If that's all you know about him, then you have not sought out information *anywhere*. But how did Clinton disseminate information to you? Perhaps you got it while hanging around her campaign headquarters 24/7.

"I never felt any empathy with Hillary Clinton as we're two very different types of women but I began to take her side when I read some of the scurrilous remarks about her and the grotesque one-sidedness of the media."

That's an incredibly stupid reason to favor one candidate over the other.

Liking to argue is one thing; being any good at it is another.

"To Bryan S Why I Don't Like Obama.........

...........becasue too many of his supporters are like Bryan S. - see his comment below."

Yes, stupid.

"you'll surely get the usual bile from obama's automaton supporters"

A typical hypocritical comment from a typical Clinton supporter.

To read Joan Walsh, you would think that 18 million women voted for Clinton, and no women voted for Obama. Of course, that's not how it breaks down. Most women, and most feminists (actually, all real feminists), are not these foul self-centered sexist racist dissemblers like Walsh, Christian, and Ferraro. These people are sick in the head -- like Erica Jong, who likens Obama winning to Joan of Arc being put to the stake and talks of smelling the flesh burn. Sick sick sick ... these are emotionally immature, damaged people who have flipped feminism on its head and treat it as a source of entitlement, making it, as Harold Meyerson wrote, the last refuge of scoundrels. Oppression of women is very real, but the cause of fighting it has been set back by these selfish dishonest sickos -- with Hillary Clinton as their banner carrier, waging the most dishonest campaign seen outside of the Republican Party. Women have been treated unfairly for millenia, but Obama won fair and square, and to say otherwise is sexist and racist. And dishonest -- the Pew Center just released their study showing that Obama and Clinton got about equal treatment in the media until March 9, at which point (following Clinton's dishonest claim that the media was favoring Obama), they started treating Obama much more harshly. Despite that, the out-campaigned her, and won more delegates, more states, and yes, more votes -- unless you're the sort of dishonest scum who thinks that zero Michigan voters favored Obama, and that it's fair to count an election in which only one candidate's name is on the ballot -- like in some dictatorship -- when all the candidates pledged not to participate, and Clinton said it didn't matter that her name was on the ballot because everyone knew that primary wouldn't count. That's the sort of dishonesty, the filth, has had to tolerate from this bunch, and now they say that it's his responsibility to hold out a hand? Well, being the mensch that he is, he will, and has been doing so all along, but that's not where the responsibility lies. I'm told that Clinton's supporters need to grieve, but that's no excuse for their vile behavior, which they continue. Obama need to win you over, lest you vote for McCain ... and back alley abortions, perpetual war, corporate and lobbyist rule, disregard for the rights and interests of children and woment? Yeah, some feminists you are. You disgust me.

I'll start with a few simple pointers for how to do it: Don't call them racist.

But they are racist. Why is it ok to call people sexist (whether or not they are), but not ok to call people racist? What entitles you to a double standard?

Or old and irrelevant

The only ones talking about being old and irrelevant is you (unless we're talking about John McCain).

I've found my own writing often dismissed not on its merits (or lack thereof) but because as a woman who will turn 50 in September

You're a self-serving LIAR. Your writing, when dismissed, is always dismissed on its merits. Since you can't take that, you lie and mention your age ... something that, without you mentioning it, no one else would know. You're a LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR ....