when I complained about your demand for a story a day for each candidate, or however you put it. It's not journalism. Of course I was speaking about the notion of an equal number of stories to benefit each, which is what you requested. Can you honestly say that's how the media should work? Regardless of the truth on the ground? So where are all the positive stories about Darfur? Your interpretation of my remark seems willful.

And please stop the deliberate lumping of all Obama supporters in one boat. I did not accuse the Clintons of racism, ever, either in S.C. or in this latest darkening thing. If you read my letters you will see that I specifically refuted that charge. There are a few steps that Hillary has taken that I have really objected to (her response to the snub and her elevating John McCain over Obama in talking about experience come to mind) and I have openly conceded when I'm disappointed in Obama, as when he chose to exploit that military guy who said he thought Hillary wouldn't pull the troops out when she says she will, based on her remarks and history.

Anyway, I don't have your letter in front of me, so I can't remember all the charges you laid against us Obama fans, but I can tell you that much of it felt strawed up and not applicable to me. I wonder how many others feel that way? Please don't rant and rave at me about every single one of your complaints about any Obama supporter. It's just gotten out of control around here, and I can't believe the animosity. People would do well to remember that most of the bad things going around actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the candidates themselves. Obama, for example, specifically refuted that the Clintons are racist, so it's just not accurate to say he "accused them of racism." (Not sure if you said that, but I think you said something like that.)

I have tried to stick to specific arguments in response to specific points, hence my post to you originally. I stand by the substance of my two points:

1. Media's job is not to dole out positive and negative stories equally.

2. If one were labeling stories as such, this piece was a "negative Obama" piece, not a "negative Clinton" piece. It seems illogical that you chose this particular place to rant to Walter about his bias, given that in my opinion this piece did nothing more than shoot down one side for having created a story falsely and consequently portray them as zealots. More like this from Walter only helps Clinton.

The headline of this article is negative and innaccurate.

When reading the full context, one is certainly enlightened to note that inside the Obama campaign, Hillary is seen as particularly deceitful. One would have thought that most campaigns recognize that all of them, including their opponents, need to follow certain distasteful practices and treat it as a game of sorts. That Powers thinks this about Hillary--and she clearly does, her apology notwithstanding--is revealing. It begs the question: Is Obama Camp overly sensitive? Or is Clinton Camp disproportionately cutthroat? If I were Clinton, I would not want people reading the whole story.

It makes me crazy that this really experienced, talented, passionate woman whose nuanced thoughts about foreign policy could literally remake our image in the world (not to mention actually help the world) is now out of the picture because of some thoughtless remark. Of course it was stupid. But it's clearly what she thinks, and it's certainly not relevant to any policy position whatsoever.

Have we really come to this? Because I can't stand this kind of suppression of speech. And I would apply that to any remarks coming unguarded from the Clinton campaign as well. I've heard about the Ken Starr one but haven't seen or heard it myself so can't comment, but I draw a distinction between unguarded remarks and "seemingly" offhand remarks. In other words, if someone somewhere decided that comparing Obama to Ken Starr would offer political gain, then that is completely up for criticism. But if a Clinton adviser is waxing philosophical in a gone-on-too-long interview and has sort of forgotten that he is being recorded and says something like "God, it's like another Ken Starr investigation the way he's..." then I think it's completely human and understandable. I also think in both cases, the press should report it, because it's illuminating, even if for a glimpse into what the one side really thinks of the other.

As an afterthought, does anyone think that all kinds of policymakers don't hate each other? I can imagine at times Colin Powell or Condi Rice calling Rumsfeld a monster. People are entitled not to like one another.

I think Obama would be a better choice for a SC Justice. I've actually thought about it. His temperament and intelligence are perfect.

I try really hard to put myself in other camps, just to gain perspective. When I imagine being a McCain supporter, I realize how long this election cycle is going to seem if reporters make an issue out of every single outburst of irritation or anger on McCain's part, to fulfill the narrative of "John McCain is hot-tempered." Didn't we hate that about the "Gore lies" season? Anything the media could find that tangentially, tenuously, by a thread, could be reigned in under that heading--off they went and tied it in.

In McCain's case, I happen to think there's some truth, based on evidence (see stories of his frequent need to send apology notes), of his hotheadedness. Temperamentally he is sort of the opposite of the cool-headed Obama. Nevertheless, the media should discern between daily irritation that I'm sure happens to them all and systematic impulsiveness that would have a crippling effect on diplomacy.