Joan, I believe what Senator Obama talks about when he says he doesn't want to go back to the fights of the 60's is the divisiveness of the times - hippies vs. rednecks, blacks vs. whites, hawks vs. doves, Republicans vs. Democrats. Yes, the 60's were a great time of change and hope represented mostly by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his movement (including, among others, the white students who joined him), but it was also a time of the government vs. the demonstrators; violence and hate - demonstrators killed at Kent State, the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Dr. King and both Kennedys assassinated, black girls killed in a bombed church, white student civil rights workers killed in a southern town, and more.

My understanding of Barack Obama's point is that he wants to make change by working together across our divides, without hate, without violence, without divisiveness, but with hope and respect. This is why, for me, he invokes Dr. King - who taught hopes, dreams, inclusiveness and love, not hate and violence.

We need to go back to the best of the 60's. I think this is what his message is about.

Joanna

Just a correction to Ethel M. Michelle Obama was asked whether she would "work for" Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee. (A rather presumptuous question at this stage of the game, and rather unfair.) Her answer was tentative, naturally, and her response was "I'll have to think about it."

Please, don't try to take the position that Bill would have behaved any differently. (Or if he would, might he be lying?)

Remember, she has two little girls at home. Support/voting for someone, and actual working and campaigning for someone are very different things.

Joan, I am beginning to wonder at your level of education, or at least your EQ. So many of your articles consist of defensive whining about things personal to you, such as your complaints about how Obama said the fights of the 60's (your era) are over, or your complaints about sexism, and now your complaint about your city, San Francisco, getting a bad rap. Don't you have enough journalistic integrity to try to be objective and write about something that matters to your readers and not just yourself? You need to get some perspective. If it weren't for the excellent, rigorously journalistic articles written by Glen Greenwald, I would cancel my subscription.

Joan, get some humility. All of these complaints about your blogs may actually add up to a problem for you. Instead of having yet another knee jerk reaction, do some hard thinking.

Despite my exhaustion caused by repeatedly deleting and then digging this blog out of the trash I just can't let go of my frustration with Joan not seeing or admitting to her own Clinton bias. So, I did a little research on Salon and found out that Joan wrote exactly ONE totally benign, pandering article about Hillary's LIE about her Bosnia trip, while this article about Obama, hyperbolically entitled "Bittergate" (a misnomer in my mind, because adding "gate" to a word should imply a scandal or corruption, as Watergate was, not just a controversial statement) is Joan's second vitriolic attack on Obama on these statements alone. The comparison is striking and she should see it and admit it.

I would love to see Joan not only address in detail the psychological motivation that would lead to Clinton making and repeating such a ridiculous story, followed by a deeply thoughtful thesis on racist comments in this campaign. I might be impressed if she had the courage and integrity to do so.

Joan, I saw the title of this article and because of the failure of objective journalism shown just in the title, I DID NOT READ IT! Does that make me an Obamabot (that will surely be your claim). No, it makes me a judicious consumer of journalism.

While the rest of the blogosphere (where good news is usually available and better than in the MSM, although Joan is now the exception) was enraged by the terrible performance of the MODERATORS of the ABC debate, Joan, predictably decides to focus on her OPINION (and the unknown and unreferenced opinion of "many others") that Obama stumbled.

I'm not reading you anymore, Joan. You've become a journalistic hack who is so desperate to beat down your girl's opponent, you can't even do a good story anymore. In fact, when was the last time you wrote something positive about your own candidate? No, you just focus on bashing her rival.

Pathetic...

I'M NOT READING ANYMORE THAN THE HEADLINE ANYMORE, JOAN. But I will continue to try to get your attention in my letters until you get some humility or maybe go back to journalism school.