I am truly disappointed in Barack Obama's decision to vote for the FISA bill as well as what appears to be a drift to the "center," as part of his campaign strategy.

Also, being an atheist, I am not interested in seeing any faith-based initiatives as part of government. In my mind it is important to keep religion and government separate.

That said, I still believe he will be a positive influence in causing "change" from the way things have been done over the last 7 years.

I am not giving up on Salon because I enjoy Glenn Greenwald.

But Joan Walsh's writing has reached the apex of absurdity. Twenty years from now she will still be defending HRC's massive incompetence and denigrating Obama's obvious talents.

I find it ridiculous, you're saying that the ancient syrian is attacking Joan Walsh.

He isn't! What is apparent, and what he is saying is that Walsh is enormously biased toward HRC and that she shouldn't call herself a journalist. To me, that is plainly evident. She is a shill for HRC! She nitpicks anything Obama does and refuses to recognize the stunningly incompetent decisions of Clinton. She forgives or minimizes Clinton's votes on the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman. She ignores Clinton's unacceptable lies about Bosnia and bringing peace to Ireland. She also ignores Clinton's massively mismanaged campaign, one that had all the aces in the deck and somehow (read the latest book on the subject) incredibly threw them away.

Her writing is essentially a propaganda mill for HRC as FOX NEWS is a propaganda mill for the Bush administration.

I'm not just saying this to counter any lunatic, feminist outrage, but that was the best post I have ever read in a Joan Walsh related thread. Paragraph after paragraph it was, in my opinion, well thought-out, extremely cogent and to-the-point you were making.

I am a big fan of Glenn Greenwald and read everything he writes because, it seems to me, he makes so much sense in discussing the issues that confront the USA today. Especially the MSM and how they are swayed by their their own monetary and political interests rather than objectively reporting the news.

Because I come to Salon to read Greenwald I am often drawn into reading Walsh's columns because of the headline and I wonder how she is going to heighten Clinton or diminish Obama that particular day. Then I get annoyed and write a posting.

I sometimes read the posts and am amazed at the writings of the feminist activists. They are really mean and confrontational. And I am sorry to say they just seem to utter nonsense in defense of women's rights in concert with their love-affair with Clinton. When one gets really outrageously ornery the others write posts praising the visciousness.

I have lived my life and I don't think I can recall ever seeing a woman discriminated against because of her gender. Perhaps I am not being fair, but it appeared to me that several women I have known received promotions to very lucrative positions just because they were women. Again, I'm not saying that sexism doesn't happen, it just isn't as apparent to me as racism or elitism is. In my mind it just isn't an issue.

As an aside, recently I became very disappointed in some of Obama's decisions, especially related to faith-based initiatives and FISA. These decisions concern me greatly and I don't know what to do about them. I am still convinced that he offers the most viable option for American voters. There are aspects of his camapign that are arguable and therefore should be criticized. What annoys me the most about Walsh is that when she criticizes Obama it seems she does it just for the sake of criticizing. To me the words are iniquitous.

Again thanks for the post. It really contributed to my sense of reality.

A few comments:

I am retired from a "Big Four" CPA firm. During the course of my career I was constantly made aware of the firm's desire and their distinct intention to find, groom, and to make available every opportunity to women of potential, to assist them in attaining a partnership; sometimes, I feel to the detriment of their male counterparts. I personally think that "elitism" played more of part than "reverse-sexism" did but that's another story. I recall that during my career the firm wanted to give every opportunity to women and Afro_Americans.

I have worked with many extremely bright woman, had long discussions with them and don't ever recall any bitterness relative to "sexism." Maybe my world is small and my experience limited but again my knowledge-base says that women do OK relative to their skill-sets. In comparing "sexism" to "racism" there is no comparison. "Racism" is rampant and I experience it everyday. On Saturday, I stopped in a diner on Route 40 just north of Baltimore and the people in the diner were all laughing about and agreeing with Jackson's comments re Obama. They were saying in mocking words how much they agree with Jackson's comments.

Also, I would love to vote for a woman president. HRC, in my mind is an abomination. Her lying re Bosnia and Ireland, her Iraqi War vote (and refusal to acknowledge the error of it), her Kyl-Liemberman vote, and her campaign mismanagement, and so on and so on, are just repulsive.

I just think she is an incompetent person, not an incompetent woman.

You've got to be kidding me! The racists I know will take this front page and pin it on the wall and scream that that's what we'll get when he's president. They'll call their friends and they'll have a party and buy a keg of beer and drink and laugh and ridicule the New Yorker picture of the Obamas.

The smart-asses like Gary Kamiya think the racists have a sense of humor and understand "irony." Ridiculous!

How stupid can his ilk be? And the racists vote! They vote, you idiot!