Wow! I had a very similar experience at 19 - only for some reason, I picked Mormonism, despite the fact I believed absolutely nothing of 'normal' Christianity, and what Mormons expect you to accept makes Xenu look reasonable. (I was raised in a strictly atheist environment.) I was lucky enough to have first contacted an elderly Mormon couple, or this might have ended even sooner, but as it was, it lasted about 3 days, until I was 'interviewed' by 2 very weird teen missionaries, & they began interrogating me about my sex life. When they equated sexual fantasies (they wanted to know ALL about mine...) - to murder, I snapped back to what I considered the Mr. Spock side of my brain, & then proceeded to describe sex in the dullest terms imaginable. This led them to believing I was 'close to the veil' and some sort of angelic being. (making sex seem dull to a repressed teenaged boy has that effect, incidentally) It led me to cringe at the word 'Mormon' ever after. I understood then that it's human to want to pick a well-defined path that will somehow protect us, and that life doesn't honestly offer that.

There's something I do not understand about the widespread media support of Hillary Clinton. (I think it's clear by now where Salon stands on the issue.) First of all, why is this different from the Right Wing media's support of various candidates? (I believe it's Romney, but I don't see enough to be sure.) Obama would be the more interesting President. It would be a far greater leap for our country to elect a black man than a white woman, who - truly - was just the wife of a former President. I know they prattle on about her great career, but when I actually looked into that great career, I was astounded at how little there was, in marked contrast to both Obama & Edwards. Wives of former Presidents have been elected around the world. Sorry, but it's not a leap. Obama is, by far, the more interesting speaker. His background, in my opinion, is substantially more impressive than Clinton's, & he seems considerably easier to trust. But from a media standpoint, just 'more interesting' should be enough.

Personally, I hold the Clintons more responsible for the war in Iraq than other Democrats who agreed. Not too long before, he was President. Theoretically - one would hope - they both should have known better. They should have known at least enough to question Bush's information. Instead, I remember Hillary backing the war with as much gusto as Rumsfeld. Why would we believe she would behave differently than Bush, in a similar situation? Other than appealing to the Liberal side of things, I'm not sure she's as different from Bush as we'd like to believe. Is she less sneaky? Has she been stronger? I don't see any evidence of that.

Beyond that, as we expect anything involving Cheney to have a Halliburton attachment, I see no reason to view Hillary Clinton differently (or her widely beloved husband, either) - Are they not corporate Democrats? What was their Special Corporate Friend? Tyson Meats? As far as I've seen, she's been very open about her allies there - 'Corporations are people, too.' Is that a big leap from Cheney tearfully declaring that Halliburton is a person, & has feelings just like the rest of us?

Is THIS the answer, that somehow, Clinton's Corporate Democrat image actually does serve the media, including Salon (which I understand has people working on her campaign - oh, THAT'S not a conflict of interest!) The media bias hit home for me when reading an article about the closing poll numbers - all hinting broadly that Iowa farmers & New Hampshire hicks aren't sophisticated enough to know the 'real' candidate. When they described a Hillary push to use a Kindergarten paper written by Obama, that was it for me. Rather than depicting the ludicrousness of her accusation, they highlighted how she said this in a 'moderate, soft voice, with a smile on her face.' Where I read, 'passive-aggressive,' they seemed to feel this was somehow a positive. That was such a twist on reality as to boggle the mind.

I hate seeing the Left equal the Right in its bias, though I know it does. In the end, they are one & the same. So when I read this article, it was very clear that if Oprah had chosen the 'real' candidate, it would have been a glowing commendation on her brave choice.

"Firing the staffer and making an apology was the right thing to do. Yet even when Hillary does the right thing, all you people can do is lob stone at her.

Knee-jerk much?"

Oh, please! They set out to do damage, did it, and a staffer resigns. Sounds like a pre-meditated scapegoat to me. It's the ONLY way she can get away with flinging dirt. We understood this when Bush did it to his rivals. But it's a stretch now? Tell me, were you this generous with GWB when his people hinted that McCain had a black baby & had orgies with his captors? I doubt it. But I'm sure Bush distanced himself just as 'nobly' as did Hillary. It's called being disingenuous with a purpose.

It's her campaign, she's responsible. A 'oops, sorry!' means nothing. It just means she's sneaky, & sends others to do her dirty work, then cuts them. I wonder what bonuses the poor staffer has received?