Agreed - the level of discourse on many internet forums is quite often disappointing. But you can't judge the potential of the internet by a few dorks (myself included) who have nothing better to do with their time than posting comments on blogs. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(You say that few have commented on the obviously more important and substantive question of Georgia/Russia. Well, as of 12:07 EST I saw that there were 228 comments to Glen Greenwald's interview with Professor King. Moreover, the Georgia/Russia conflict is not something that lends itself to a pithy one line or 1 paragraph comment. The interview was several paragraphs long. Maybe I am slow but reading it took a long time and I know that formulating a coherent, articulate letter would take even longer.)

Getting back to the internet. The Georgia/Russia conflict is a perfect example of the good that can come from the internet. Before the internet we got most of our news from US media outlets. Now thousands of media outlets are available over the internet. Yes, you have to sift through a lot of drech but you can ferret out the information for yourself.

Technology and the internet are not going away. It is v. important that we harness these for good. Unlike, McCain's website, Obama's website devotes a lot of space to the internet and technology. Obama recognizes that the internet offers the potential to improve government and bring it back to the people. Some examples: Google for government: Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to track federal grants, conracts, earmarks, and loans online; before signing any non-emergency bill, it will be posted for public review and comment on the White House website for 5 days; require Cabinet officials to hold periodic national broadband "townhall" meetings to discuss issues before their agencies. Are all these things feasible? Will they make a difference? Who knows? But the point is that Obama knows that the Internet could be a tool for good governement.

The technology of radio broadcast FDR's "Fireside Chats" to thousands of Americans. These Chats were one of the ways he got us through a major crisis.

George W. Bush: scion of old money New England WASPs, graduate of Phillips Academy, a private boarding school in Andover, MA; graduate of Yale University; graduate of Harvard Business School

John McCain: son and grandson of Admirals (the aristocracy of the military); graduate of Episcopal H.S., private boarding school in Alexandria, VA graduate of Naval Academy at Annapolis

You label Barack Obama "elitist" and many have applied the same label to Hillary Clinton, but if you look at their backgrounds, there are more similarities than differences:

Hillary Clinton: born in Illinois to parents who have roots in Scrantion, PA; grew up in middle class suburb of Illinois; attended public school; graduated from Wellesley; graduated from Yale Law School

Barack Obama: born in Honolulu, to a mother from Kansas; attended private (non-boarding) school, on scholarship; studied for 2 years at Occidental College; transferred to and graduated from Columbia University; graduated from Harvard Law School

It boggles the mind that anyone can say Obama is more elite than Clinton, their family backgrounds and education are strikingly similar. No, the elitists in this picture are George W. Bush and John McCain who come from privileged backgrounds that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't even dream of.

I am an Obama supporter but I admire Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama started out from humble roots and achieved amazing things - shouldn't we honor and respect both of them for this?

virtually no one was computer literate.

Not everyone would agree that Margaret Thatcher was the best PM Britain had. And, I find it difficult to believe that women who supported Hillary Clinton would have supported Margaret Thatcher. Clinton: liberal Thatcher: Conservative

Think for yourself. I am so sick and tired of people like you parroting, without question, the line you have been spoonfed: "Obama is empty, no substance, socialist, etc., etc." How are you any different from the people in Soviet Russia who accepted, without question, the party line they were fed? You are not. Think for yourself. If you can't do that you deserve to be disenfranchised.

I did not just one day have an "epiphany" and decide to support Obama. I have been following his career and learning about him and his stands on issues since he came on the natinal scene. Mine is a well-informed decision. I have also educated myself on John McCain. I have made a well-informed decision not to support him. (And, there was a time when I was open to voting for him.)

An ill-informed, uneducated electorate leads down the road from democracy to tyranny. This is patriotism? I think not.

At its heart it is about how we treat our children. As a mother, I find the lack of compassion for Ms. Sey on this thread is disturbing.

Re-read the article, put yourself in Ms. Sey's shoes. Imagine what it would be like to have parents who were so oblivious to you as an individual that they were incapable of recognizing that you were suffering and needed their help. To her parents she was a thing, an elite, medal winning gymnast, not a person. But that is how we treat children: as things. Ms. Sey's parents and coaches exploited her for their needs. We see this not just in athletics: academics, music, too. Parents rationalize - oh, this is what my son/daughter wants - when it is what the parents want.

When society as a whole accepts that it is okay for children to be treated as things, there only to fulfill adult needs, it is any wonder that some people cross a line and do horrible tings to children.

Everyone recognizes that when women are treated as things, there only to fulfill male needs, they suffer. Why can't we see that this is true for our children?