Bravo to omooex for succinctly articulating my thoughts on this, and kudos to Salon for selecting it as an editor's choice. I wish more people would open their eyes and minds about Ralph Nader and his work. Although I will concede that Ralph Nader may have gone too far in diminishing the overall differences between the candidates, I do believe that his original intent in 2000 was to distinguish the lack of distinction between the two parties -- at the time -- in a much larger context of the political process as a whole.

I doubt you would have seen Senators Clinton and Obama sound so populist without candidates like Edwards and Kucinich. Mr. Nader's candidacy will enlarge the debate and hold the ultimate nominees accountable to a broader range of issues beyond what we're hearing today. We need more like him doing what he is doing, not less.

People should read "Why I'm Running," Mr. Nader's interview with Tim Russert, even if they are not ultimately convinced. (http://www.slepton.com/slepton/viewcontent.pl?id=1496)

What's with this lame reference, not just once, but twice today?

I can't believe I'm reading this dreck on the pages of Salon (as opposed to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal -- to which I originally began to respond on this subject), but as I become more familiar with the gaseous offerings of Joan Walsh, I most certainly should.

Once again, although it shouldn't be necessary with a publication such as Salon, we have to lament the loss of nuance and context, and in conjunction with the rise of so-called "equal-weight" politics. Media saps like Ms. Walsh extract Reverend Wright's comments from their original context (which I find completely appropriate in relation to the life experiences of Mr. Wright and his congregation), inaccurately amplify a larger significance that only exists in the echo chamber, and then inappropriately attach them to Senator Barack Obama.

If Reverend Wright had delivered any of these speeches in New Orleans, I doubt he would have been so excoriated. This is, ironically, while Senator John McCain continues to receive a pass for his association by endorsement with the much more scarily radical Pastor John C. Hagee, who has publicly claimed that Hurricane Katrina was a result of God's wrath for the city's celebration of homosexuality. (And this is just one among many of his disturbing viewpoints.) Senator "Straight Talk" McCain was allowed his strange kabuki dance over the administration's handling of Katrina without any scrutiny at all that he represents the party that so criminally mishandled this crisis, and the incendiary, racist rhetoric of an influential endorser.

This inconsistent application of "association accountability is grossly unfair, and reprehensibly irresponsible. And at the risk of repeating myself, shame on Ms. Walsh.

This is a great opportunity to ask Salon for a feature that allows readers to customize content. I would welcome the ability to move some "writers" (i.e. Joan Walsh and Farhad Manjoo) out of sight and out of mind, and to move others to the forefront (i.e. Glenn Greenwald and Alex Koppelman). Then we could in effect, politely tell the former to "shut up" without ever having to say "shut up."

Someone please print this post, preferably magnified on a minimum 12x18 board and hang it prominently in Ms. Walsh's workspace.

After reading this disturbing (but illuminating) post this morning, I received an e-mail solicitation from Senator Russ Feingold and Progressive Democrats of America asking for recurring monthly donations for their cause from now through November. I responded by committing $25 per month, in the hopes that (although small), this effort will help counter the reprehensible action by these so-called "centrist" Democrats.

Gadfly? Perhaps. Flamboyant? Probably. Marginalized and sidelined? Absolutely. Laughingstock? Not so much.

But Alex Koppelman should turn the mirror around. This piece was an embarrassment, even for the ever decreasing bar for Salon these days. In what I usually find to be a great feature on Salon, this was probably his lowest point since the painful "live-blogging from the bar" episode. And by the way, contrary to Mr. Koppelman's dismissive assertion, this actually was a "news" item, reported on NPR this morning.

I have a difficult time grasping why most media automatically default to group think status quo, but cannot fathom why so-called "independent" publications like Salon do so.