The author makes a lot of points that I agree with. Undoubtedly Clinton faces sexism - how could anyone suggest that she doesn't? I live with it every day, as do all women in this society.

I don't consider myself particularly pro-Obama, and I'm certainly not a fanatic. I would have been happy with either of them. But he won the primaries, though, so in my mind he is and should be the Democratic nominee. And she is simply not still competitive in this race, not without a dramatic and likely devastating upheaval in the Democratic party.

The author casually throws in towards the end of this article that to suggest she is not competitive in this race, which is inarguably true, is the equivalent of sexism. It is not; it is mathematics. The charge of sexism here is offensive, cheapens the whole argument, and distracts from the real sexism all of us face (yes, just as frequently from liberals as conservatives.)

I mean, if I acknowledge the existence and sometimes prevalence of sexism, can we stop talking about it at every opportunity? Can we finally accept that most people voted for Obama because he was the better candidate, just like most people who voted for Clinton didn't do so because she's a woman? Obama and Clinton are both about so much more than their race and gender, but you wouldn't know it from this publication.

"Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn't the campaign’s central theme."

Well thankfully, us white working class folks have the woman who sat on Walmart's Board of Directors for 10 years to represent us. Thank God she's made our concerns her central theme now!

I'm from North Carolina, and could not be more sick of articles from David Brooks, Paul Krugman and all the others speculating on why we vote the way we vote. Some people like Hilary, some people like Obama. More people like Obama. That's why he's winning, why he'll win North Carolina and why no matter how you spin it nothing's wrong with his campaign.

While the Bush administration's position on Al-Jazeera is unfortunate, strange not to mention that it's at least enabled and probably encouraged by the Saudis. As was mentioned, they consider Qatar part of their country and the network that used to be the national network of their enemy, their enemy.

As such, the government of Saudi Arabia purchased aljazeera.com to discredit and sow confusion, where they broadcast weekly world news-style radical muslim conspiracy theories - stuff like the jews caused 9/11, etc. Meanwhile the actual network broadcasts from aljazeera.net. There's a whole legal battle about this...

So that leaves the question - back when Rumsfeld, Cheney et al talked about how much they hated what aljazeera was airing, do you think they knew the difference and purposely spread misinformation about the network? I tend to think that's more likely than the idea they're just that ill-informed, but you never know.

I'm all about being politically smart, but that shouldn't affect policy decisions. Good policy comes first, not politics - anything less is the tail wagging the dog.

So the fact that a majority of people still support a gas tax holiday means not that the proposal is a good idea, but that Obama and the Democrats need to work harder to tell people why it isn't. Or better yet, come up with a better idea!

How about a freeze on gas prices for the same period of time, for example? It's a better short-term policy, and it highlights the real problem, which is certainly not taxes. I doubt the oil companies will stop distribution; I'm guessing they'll even still profit. Hawaii did it quite successfully after Katrina.

I read the post where it was said that just writing about it is the problem. While I don't agree, I do think the tone some democrats have when writing or talking about it is problematic - that is, democrats tend to have a "look, it's happening again, the sky is falling" quality.

Different campaign, different candidate, different time, different storyline. The story this time is that everyone recognizes this is bs, people are tired of this level of discourse, Obama won't stand for it, and ads like this just show how craven and weak the Republican party can be. If John McCain ineffectually denounces the ad, why is he so ineffectual? I mean come on, doesn't he have control over his own party? Isn't he supposed to be the decider? That's the talking point here.

We're not surprised, but we're definitely not afraid of some stupid, ham-handed swiftboat crap. With all of the challenges facing our country today, this is what they have to talk about?

I read the article and thought it was funny. I understand not everyone might have; people have different senses of humor, of course. But I looked forward to reading the letters, I thought they might be funny too.

I was honestly shocked at the reaction, and frankly, it's pretty pathetic. This is not about men; it's about *bad fathers*, natch. If Salon had published an article about bad mothers on mothers day, I wouldn't have thought they were slamming women. Not all women are bad mothers, and vice versa, right?

Similarly this isn't about politics, or about how Clinton was left off while GHW was on. Salon is a left-leaning publication; I wouldn't expect to see GHW on Townhall.

So yes, despite what brightstar or 6stringer or whomever might have to say, get over yourselves. For the record, that's often my advice to men and women - try to take pieces like these in the spirit they're intended, instead for whatever you want to read into them to paint you or men or women or whomever as a victim.