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."

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.

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

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)

Here we go again. A Ralph Nader candidacy highlights what's wrong with presidential politics, and the subsequent discourse in this country today. The system he draws attention to is much more worthy of the scorn he receives from supposed progressives who sneer and whine without really doing much themselves. So now poor Mr. Gonzalez is the new recipient of of such from bitter minds and tongues.

Really! Do the writers and editors of Salon understand what a democracy is, however imperfect? After witnessing the horrendous political landscape over the last 30 years, dominated by both Democrats and Republicans, I'll be supporting Mr. Nader. And I could care less anymore about whether or not I'm considered "naive" and a "spoiler" merely throwing away my vote. Go tell it to someone else, please!

Ms. Paglia states:

"...nationally syndicated hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, have always drawn a very firm distinction between their views and those of the party establishment in Washington. They have consistently maintained, and supported it in detail, that they are conservatives first and Republicans second. They have fiercely denounced the party when it has strayed from conservative principles. McCain, who has co-sponsored liberal legislation and courted and flattered Beltway journalists, has been a longtime target."

Um, I don't get it.

These hosts have consistently maintained and supported a radical ideology, (and by extension its architects and executive management) that has nothing to do with "conservative principles," and everything to do with disdainfully dismantling our democratic way of life: two debt-financed invasions, a dramatic redistribution of wealth to the wealthy (through tax cuts and unprecedented corporate fraud), illegal violations of our rights and liberties... the list goes on and on.

It was only when a disillusioned public expressed their discontent over their safety and economic insecurities (giving the miserable failure that is George W. Bush and his administration a majority disapproval rating) that these "conservative" hosts broke with their party, and then criticized it for not being "conservative" enough. This is why we have a "weird old coot" pandering to these gatekeepers of the republican nomination.