"Why do his most venomous supporters not realize that we all want hope and change and that their ugly behavior prevents exactly that?"

Why do Clinton supporters insist that Obama supporters are ugly and venomous? Suzeqzee: do you actually know any real world Obama supporters? have you ever been to an Obama campaign office? I volunteer several nights during the week and on weekends, I can assure that I have never heard any negative things being said about Clinton or her supporters, in fact, we have many former Clinton supporters working just as hard to see that Obama is elected as those who were always Obama supporters.

Do you really think that the few Obama supporters who post ugly and venomous things on Salon are representative of the majority of Obama supporters? Not only that, why do you insist on focussing only on these posters and not on the majority who post well-reasoned, rational letters? I know it is fun to read the nasty letters and get all worked up. But I resent being called ugly and venomous. You do not know me.

What is wrong with "cute"? She is cute. Do you think Obama doesn't appreciate everything else that she is? Please.

And, at least he didn't call her that other word that begins with a "c" and a "u" that ends with a "t" - the word McCain called his wife.

Well said. Our relationships with our spouses, our mothers, our fathers, our sons, our daughters, our siblings, our friends, our neighbors - our relationships make us (for better or worse) who we are. And, when it comes down to it our relationships are the most important and valuable part of our lives. As the saying goes: has anyone, on their deathbed, ever said they regretted that the didn't spend more time at the office? And, if someone did say that would we not find it incredibly sad?

I agree with you 100%. I had a subscription a few years ago but let it lapse. But I renewed it this year because of the election. Sure, a few years ago the level of discourse in the letters thread was not always what I had hoped for. But the level of discourse and the editorial direction has deteriorated dramatically with my 2nd go round with Salon. Now I visit it pretty much for entertainment value - I actually find it fun to read the ridiculous letters - my life is sort of boring so reading the junk here is fun. But maybe I should go back to watching soaps or E!

Apologies for above to all of you who actually take the time to post well-reasoned, dispassionate, letters with arguments that are grounded in evidence. Unfortunately, your voices are drowned out by the junk.

"But winning over middle America, it will take more than a speech to do so."

Agree - but she certainly is off to a great start with this speech!

You lost me at "Ron Paul" (well, actually before, but no matter). You style yourself as someone who is not afraid to look reality in the eye unlike we starry-eyed optimists who support Obama. Please. You do not get anymore pie-in-the-sky than Paul and his supporters. Ron Paul is a fringe character who simply re-hashes the libertarian/Any-Randian/Miltonian (as in Friedman) nonsense that so appeals to adolescents (yes, I am embarrassed to say I was one). (Love the moronic bumper sticker you see in a picture of him at his desk on his website: "Don't steal - the government doesn't like competition.") The vast majority of Americans do not accept his views. I consider myself a moderate (slight left of center) liberal democrat (small "l", small "d") who believe that there is a role for government and for free markets. The failures of free markets are to numerous to count.

In the late-80s (when everything was about de-regulation) I was a lawyer at the SEC, in the office that "regulated" mutual funds and other investment companies. My office granted exemptions from the Investment Company Act of 1940. An application for exemption came in - requested to be able to sell "Collateralized Mortgage Obligations" (bundled mortgages sold off in pieces to investors). Sure, we said. They started with a bundle of good mortgages, than asked to add less good mortgages and, finally, total junk mortgages. No problem, we said. Well, the rest is history: bundled mortgages made it easier for mortgage lenders to write risky mortgages because the bundles contained good and bad mortages; riskier mortgages allowed consumers to buy homes they couldn't afford; demand for housing boomed; investment companies started adding more bad into the mix; then these investment vehicles got more and more complicated - to the point where no one knew WTF they were selling or buying! This bit of de-regulation was a disaster. The SEC granted these exemptions but provided for zero oversight. At the time we were working on this matter remember thinking that I must be dumb because I never completely understood what they were trying to do - now I realize that it was all smoke and mirrors - no one understood. Some people became very rich, some people lost a lot.

I do not think you watched the speech or if you did you totally missed the point. Michelle's point was that, given where they came from, they have achieved much and have been able to make a very good life for themselves and their daughters because of that. Nothing in there complaining about her life now - the speech was entirely upbeat and expressed gratitude for what she and her husband have been able to achieve. The point is that only in America could Barack and Michelle Obama achieve what they have.