While I know few Salon posters will listen to anything anything columnist David Brooks says, he had an interesting piece in Thursday's New York Times June 20 titled "The Two Obamas."

To paraphrase Brooks, he says that Barack Obama has spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing but when it became clear he could spend more money opting out, he did so, "probably dealing a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform.

"And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the (public financing) system is that Obama's got more money now....Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s and claimed that private donations are really public financing."

After saying that there's no "Koppelman, Clinton, Obama, Walsh, Salon or even McCain bashing in this post," EHJ goes on to talk about "paranoid old Jewish folks" and to claim rumors about Obama being a Muslim who is anti-Israel were started by right wing Jews.

I wish you'd return to bashing politicians and members of the media instead of a slamming large numbers of a minority group, even if it's one you say you belong to

Bernbart said that "The bigotry against Muslims is similar to the bigotry against Catholics and Jews in earlier decades. This bigotry is always driven by the same people... Rightest Christians. THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION AND NEVER HAS BEEN! It IS A DEMOCRACY"

He's right that virtually every minority religion and ethnic group in our country has faced such prejudice when they came to America.

Before John Kennedy, it was thought that no Catholic could ever be president. I doubt that a Jewish candidate will be elected in my lifetime.

The Muslims are only the latest target, with all of them being judged by the actions of a relative few.

And while as a member of a minority, I've heard prejudiced remarks all my life, I refuse to believe that the people who said them speak for the majority of members of their religion or race.

Those who truly practice what they preach, including evangelical Christians, don't judge people by what country their ancestors came from or where they attend religious services.

One can question Sen. Barack Obama's stance on issues and his policies but to oppose him because his father was an African and a Muslim is truly un-American.

As one of Hillary Clinton's 18 million supporters, I'm not sure that it would be the best thing for her to be vice president. I think she has more to offer in other possible roles.

But if Sen. Obama does choose another woman believing that will win over Clinton's supporters, it will do just the opposite.

It's as patronizing as if Sen. Clinton had won the nomination and chose one of her African-American supporters such as Trenton mayor Doug Palmer or congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee or Stephanie Tubbs Jones, thinking that would satisfy those who voted for Obama.

Dear Kasha6228,

Well, being one of those who voted for Sen. Clinton, you've certainly won me over to Obama with your talk of "Hellary's neducated voter base who wants a woman President, and it does not matter who or what that woman is...You know how women are!"

Are you really a Republican trying to infuriate 18 million Democrats?

Karolyn, I posted a comment about "The Two Obamas" column when I read Salon's "The 527 Monster Hiding under Obama's Bed" article. It was an excellent column that I haven't heard much comment on.

Now Clinton supporters have yet another pundit telling us "the Clintonites really have no alternative but to toe the party line."

As proof, he cites a study of the 1976 election between Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter.

He concludes that virtually all of us who backed Hillary will vote for Obama, whether we know it now or not. How patronizing!

There is no comparison between what's happened in 2008 and the 1976 election. Ford may well have lost to Carter because he pardoned Richard Nixon, an unforgiveable sin back then with many Democrats who voted.

And Jimmy Carter's supporters didn't spend the entire run-up to the general election telling those who voted for his primary opponents what selfish, uneducated, bitter, old and uninformed people they are. If they had, the White House might have remained in Republican hands.

I wish Salon had assigned this article to a Clinton supporter, rather than to someone who, while she's a good writer, sounds like she's discussing the behavior of some strange foreign tribe, not millions of women voters.

Obama supporters seen to have two approaches to dealing with those who supported Sen. Clinton.

Some say "boo hoo, you're sore losers," ridicule our examples of sexist behavior toward Sen. Clinton and tell us to just get over it.

I wonder if Sen. Obama had lost and his supporters felt that it was because of racism, if they'd be ready to forgive and forget. Would they appreciate me, a white woman, telling them they don't know what they're talking about and that I know more about racism than they do?

These Obama supporters call Clinton voters old, ignorant, disloyal Democrats. But they're sure we'll come back to the fold because John McCain is Bush 3, too old or will try to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Other Obama supporters say, "get lost, we don't need you, go vote for McCain or stay home because we'll win without you."

Neither approach seems like a good one to win over millions of voters you may need in November.

I know about John McCain's faults.

But whenever I ask a question about what I view as Obama's weaknesses, instead of getting serious answers that focus on the candidate, I'm attacked as inane and bitter.

Last time I checked, it wasn't un-American or even un-Democratic to voice a dissenting opinion.