First we have Palin's husband as a member of a kook party. He wasn't particularly active in it or a leader of it. That party does nothing but spout inflamatory rhetoric. No real actions, and certainly nothing illegal. Palin, in her role as governor, gives a formal welcome to their convention, along with numerous other groups (its justified by her as like once wearing that Pat Robertsen button - She's just "folksy", remember).

Second, we have Obama somehow associated with Ayers. Ayers is a founder and leader of the "weather underground", is accused of numerous bombings. He gets off due to technicalities, though he admits he is guilty and and brags about it. Says fairly recently he should have done it more. Obama's first political coming out party is at Ayers' house. They are associated (some would say allied) politically over many years in Chicago; on boards together, feeding money back and forth, etc.

Explain to me again how the two situations look comparable? Or how Palin's somehow looks worse? I'm glad to hear Obama has strongly disavowed Ayers' actions, but it sure makes him vulnerable to charges of bad judgment to say the least.

I can't believe some of these comments in response to Pagilia's article. I don't read Salon all that much, but if Pagilia is really so off the mark with her articles, why isn't everyone just laughing it off, not bothering to read what she writes, and certainly not bothering to comment? That would be the rational thing to do, if you really believe what you're saying.

In fact, I don't get the whole Palin "mania" of Salon and so many liberal bloggers. It's not that most on this forum ever had any intention of voting for the Republican ticket anyway. So you should be happy McCain made such a foolish choice, and she shouldn't be upsetting you at all.

Why is it this woman Palin brings out the worst in so many of you? And why are so many afraid of Pagilia's somewhat offbeat opinions? This country is in a lot of trouble right now, and we need to work together and involve everyone if we're going to find some way to fix things. That's true no matter who wins this election. If you think either Obama or McCain really have a clue how to proceed on putting this country back on track once they're elected, think again.

I do watch Fox news a bit, about the same amount that I read Salon. They're pretty much mirror images, from what I can see. Salon = Democrats good, Republicans bad. Fox = Republicans good, Democrats bad. That's about it. Not much interest in a real discussion of the issues. Just singing to the choirs, so that their "devotees" come back every day for their daily "feel good" fix and to support their "team." That's the only business model that pays the bills for much of the MSM nowadays, I guess.

In reality, $85 billion (85,000,000,000) divided by 200 million (200,000,000) citizens is only $425.00, not $425,000.00 per citizen like someone claimed in an earlier post (just lop eight zeros off both numbers, and divide). That's a pretty big difference. Not even close enough for government work!

I don't like the McCain campaign's low "level of civil discourse" either. I don't like it when either side stoops to these negative, personal attacks, and for the life of me I don't see why McCain's people think it will help him against Obama with the voters this year.

But your defense of the NYT bothers me as well. You say "it takes some chutzpah to accuse the Times of lowering the level of civil discourse in our political campaigns at the very moment that the McCain campaign is blanketing large swathes of the country with robo-calls questioning Barack Obama's patriotism..." So are you saying if a political campaign uses such tactics, they have no right to complain and that it's perfectly OK if the MSM acts that way too?

Sorry, I don't agree. I expect better from the MSM, especially an icon like the NYT. I do think the McCain campaign's criticism of the NYT lately has been over the top, as any newspaper will reflect the demographics of its readership and cannot be totally unbiased. But just because McCain has picked the fight with the NYT for whatever reason, doesn't make it right for the NYT to fight back using the same tactics.

This is presented as a real letter from a "Texas Republican"? Of course, it just happens to include nearly every talking point the Obama campaign is trying to use to reach white southern male voters. The letter writer is supposedly a real bible-thumping, gun-toting Republican southerner. Someone who voted twice for Bush, is strongly anti-abortion, but now sees that Bush has more blood on his hands than the abortion doctors (among other amazing revelations) and wants to share all this with Salon. Talk about being "born again!"

Come on, Salon, if you're going to push a fake letter in a column, at least create a more credible author than this rather bad caricature. Or better yet, find a real southern Republican dissapointed in the GOP and McCain and leaning toward Obama. There are enough of them out there, from what I've seen.