Salon seems to only mention Edwards when they are off-handedly mentioning that other people of running for the Democratic nomination.

“Edwards, Gravel and some other guys are also running for the nomination. Now let’s spend the next six pages talking about why we love Hillary!”

C’mon Salon.

Edwards has a CLEAR message and a CLEAR agenda.

Yes, I know. You like Hillary. Maybe it would be even fair to say you’re obsessed with Hillary though she has neither said nor done anything even remotely interesting. True, she got into a game of semantics with Obama a while back, but that’s about has “earthshaking” as her little campaign has gotten.

She’s running solely on her name.

One more time: outside of her NAME would any of us consider her political accomplishments more noteworthy than, say, any of the other candidates?

Shall we compare Hillary’s political accomplishments to Dennis Kucinnich?

No? Because she, basically, hasn’t had any significant political accomplishments?

Okay. Fine. Let’s compare Hillary’s speeches to the D man.

What’s that? The ultimate triangulator has NEVER said anything remotely interesting, progressive or controversial? She’s too afraid of upsetting ANYONE (especially corporate America) so her entire political platform begins and ends with “I love America. Yea!” Not much of an inspirational candidate, is she?

Yes, Salon, Hillary has the last name Clinton. That doesn’t mean she should automatically be given 6 pages of coverage every single day nor does it mean she should automatically be the Democratic nominee.

“I was married to Bill Clinton! Don’t look at my political accomplishments – I was married to Bill Clinton!”

She was married to an actual politician with a lengthy political career filled with actual accomplishments.

But she ain’t done !#@$

The whole concept of understanding yourself and others, reading verbal and nonverbal social cues; if it's all a big lie then wouldn't that make Tom Cruise correct about psychiatry? I mean, c'mon! Isn't that the same "scam" that psychiatry tries to pull? That somehow they can "teach" people how to better manage their emotional state and read the verbal and nonverbal cue of others?

We can argue if any of Mystery's techniques are effective, true, but I don't think we can just assume his entire concept that there is a "good" and "bad" way to interact with people is wrong.

Obviously some convertional techniques work better than others.

AKA Smith.

Please. The level of "moral outrage" in response to this thread is embarrassing.

Some men have difficulty striking up conversations with strangers, men or women, but especially women. This isn't shocking or news to anyone.

These men go to a guy to get tips on how to approach people, ice-breakers, how to strike up conversations and tricks on how to keep a conversation going.

How is this a "scheme" or "mind control" exactly?

But again, reading through a lot of the letters, you don't see people (especially women) veiwing this as normal or not worth commenting on. Instead of saying, "Who cares?" a lot of people, especially women, seem to be deeply offended.

Again, his big crime was to say women respond more favorable to men who are confident and know how to begin and maintain a conversation.

A lot of men (I'd say the majority) feel the need to "prove" themselves to the women on this board by chiming in, "Me too! I hate this guy too! He hates women! Anyone who has difficulty talking to women is...is a loser!" Why the men feel the need to chime in with the "me too's!' seem odd to me, but there it is.

I know, I know.

In order to prove your "enlightend male" street cred you have to automatically a) hate Mystery b) ridicule shy men seeking advice and c) insult any woman who ever falls prey to these conversational ice-breakers, er, I mean mind control scheme! "Those pathetic whores! How low must their self-esteem be to fall for such an ice-breaker, er, I mean mind control technique!"

To the chicks: come down! It's just advice for the socially ackward who have difficulty approaching strangers and striking up conversations.

To the men: you can calm down to. Piling on with the "me too's!" to show your solidarity with the women is not necessary. Though I'm sure they appreciate the effort.