Joan, you are absolutely right! Senator Clinton should and must

continue her fight to become the first woman president. As Obama

mania becomes more frantic and the media more painfully

cheerleaders for him, those of us who support Hillary feel

energized to help Mrs. Clinton battle on against all odds.

I live in California but have volunteered to make calls from my

home to voters in Texas and Ohio. I haven't been this involved

in a political race since I was in college. Anyone who calls for

Hillary to drop out now is asking Americans to give up the

process this country celebrates-- that of allowing all citizens to

vote for the candidate of their choice. Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania

and other states' voices still need to be heard. Shame on those

whose snarky dislike of Hillary seek to derail the excitement

of this historic race.

As usual, Joan, I agree with you both in your response to Obama's race speech and

in your "Moving beyond Obama and race" essay. Incidently, I do not believe you tip

your hand about who you support in the race for the White House. You seem no

more a Clinton supporter, than an Obama fan. That is to your credit.

I am in one of the often referred to Obama demographics--white, upper middle class, advanced college degrees; in fact, I'm a left leaning college professor. Yet, I'm one of the rarities in my group; I support Hillary Clinton. As a critical thinker who tries to see both sides of issues, I'm struck by the almost irrational way Obama supporters attack even benign questions about Barack O. As a pundit and writer, you, Jane, are one of the most fair minded, non-judgmental commentators I have observed. I hope you don't believe some of the critical reactions to you on these blogs. You're doing a fine job. I appreciate your reasoned take on politics. As a woman, I respect your talent and savvy. When I was an undergraduate literature major, I read voraciously, including a lot of so-called Black liberation theology. I learned to

understand the histrionics of these thinkers. I've always felt a kinship with my African American friends and students. My mind has been open to Senator Obama from the start of this campaign. Yet, I've grown increasing uncomfortable with his allegiance to Rev. Wright, as well as his attempts to finesse his way out of the dangerous territory of Black race rage. First, Mr. Obama says he knew nothing of Wright's rants, then, he says,oops, he did. He claims his mission is to unite all people, yet in watching film clips of the church that inspired him, I see no white faces. Also, Obama supporters seem increasingly manic in their eagerness to shut up and demonize Hillary supporters. It all seems devisive and not at all like a new kind of politics or postmodern, positive change.

Joan, even if Hillary did run a perfect campaign, which she may have done already, when Obama is constantly lionized and swooned over by nearly the entire press, she will never

have a fair shot at the presidency.

Obama has lied, oops, misspoke, many times, yet, he's never been beaten up

because of it. Just this week, he said that the Democratic nominating race had gone on too

long. Then, today, Saturday, he switched positions and said the race should go on as long as Hillary wants to stay. Which statement is untruthful? Obama says whatever he thinks is most

politically expedient. He knows the press won't call him on his lies.

Obama lied when he said he never knew that Rev. Wright preached controversial sermons--

he finally admitted he actually did know Wright held problematic views when pressure

forced Obama to cough up the truth.

And today, Sunday, in the Washingpost Post, there's a great article about how Obama lied

or, at the least, exaggerated his father's relationship to the Kennedy's scholarship money. According to the essay, Obama even bent the truth when discussing his father's relationship to the civil rights movement. Lies? I'd say so.

Isn't it time we started questioning Obama's honesty and scrutinizing him even

partially as much as we do Hillary?

Some bloggers on these postings seem obsessed with rage at what they perceive is

Ms. Walsh's bias against Obama. I respectfully disagree with these writers. Ms. Walsh

carefully balances her political responses with intriguing, neutral analysis. As a TV pundit, she is equally fair. If one reviews Walsh's writings or television appearances, it's evident her treatment of Obama and Clinton is never judgmental or slanted.

It occurs to me that Obama supporters are so used to the media fawning over Obama

that when one isn't gushing, she is accused of being a Clinton supporter. The pathological

anger erupting from Obama-addicts against anyone not overtly smitten with him is, quite frankly,creepy. Most pundits are so afraid to be accused of being a Clinton supporter, they

preface all their comments about Obama with a litany of praises about him.

Lastly, why are you all so outraged that a journalist may favor one candidate over another?

MSNBC should be called the Obama cable channel. Chris Matthews drouls over Obama, as

does Keith Oberman and Tim Russert. Not one of them has ever announced that they

support Obama. So, grow up and accept that the modern media is never about fairness

but all about money. Joan Walsh is one of the most objective journalists working.

Joan, thanks for setting the record straight about the Edwards.

So much of what journalists and pundits are

saying this election season is untrue or, at the

very least, uber-spin that it's nearly impossible

to find a neutral, informed source.

Now, if only someone with media savvy

would untangle all the false stories

circulating in the main stream press

about the Clintons. But, we both

know that will not happen.