The media is more sexist in its reporting than it is racist. This is fact. (Though it's debatable whether or not the people currently up in arms about Ms. Clinton's treatment would be likewise upset if the same were happening to Mr. Obama.)

Currently, a number of prominent people are visibly displaying support for Obama in an attempt to sway voters. This, too, is fact. It is, in fact, the basis of the idea of endorsements, and I don't hear fans of Ms. Clinton complaining when she receives one.

There's a lot of ink (and, just to cover other media - pixels) being spent telling us how Ms. Clinton's campaign is having new troubles all the time in this or that way. This is another fact. (Not necessarily that the troubles exist, merely that we're being told that they are.) While one could hardly point to a comparable amount of time devoted to Mr. Obama's real-or-imagined campaign woes, a simple glance at Republican coverage shows that the media often plays this game of picking the next to lose, then trying their hardest to make it happen. While it may well be based on "Clinton hate", mysogyny, or what have you, that doesn't change the fact that it's a part and parcel of every race, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Though the fact that it shouldn't be a surprise doesn't make it any less contemptible, I agree.

All of the above are facts. They are beyond dispute, and to even attempt to argue them is a waste of time (though whether or not they SHOULD be facts: "Is it fair for the media to pile on Ms. Clinton in an attempt to MAKE her lose the race?" is certainly a valid question.)

But in addition to those facts, we must bear in mind one other thing: Ms. Clinton, due to the American peoples' perception of her (whether true or false, it just can't be ignored) is that she just can not be considered very 'genuine'. I won't call that one a fact, but let's consider it a factor, shall we?

Given those facts (and the one debatable one about public perception of Ms. Clinton) there is the question of her as-yet unapologetic support for the war, for the Patriot Act, and for any number of other Republican-backed proposals that served only to erode the rights of Americans and people around the world. While Ms. Clinton's stated plan for the future of Iraq stands in stark contrast with Mr. McCain's, nevertheless, her past stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's, and I (as well as many other Democrats, I'm sure) would like to hear her explain it to our satisfaction before we feel that she represents us. Are we not entitled to that before we give someone our vote? I'm sorry, but I simply refuse to vote for a person based on their race (which I share with her), gender (which I don't, but even if she were male, I'd still have the same issues, whether anyone wants to believe that or not) or their last name (because I'm not a Republican).

I'm sure that Ms. Clinton is a fine individual, she's clearly a canny politician, but to myself (and any number of others) she appears to be a female version of Lieberman, but with more party support.

On a personal note (as I can't speak for others) I'm not even expecting a lot. Even a "yes, it was the wrong vote to make, but we had the President up there, baldly lying to us after having fabricated their story from whole cloth. How could we have expected treachery of that magnitude? In retrospect, of course it was wrong, but I honestly made that call for what I felt were the right reasons, and if I made any error, it was in simply believing that the President of the United States wouldn't actually LIE to send our troops to die in the desert." Even something like that would make me say, "huh, well, that certainly explains it" and I'd nod, and rethink my vote. But that hasn't been forthcoming, and therefore (as I said above) I feel that she does not represent me, my views, or my values. Call that mysogyny if you must, call it irrational, or pretend that I made it all up - that's your call.

But before you pretend that Ms. Clinton is being treated unfairly by Salon, I suggest you look at the number of 'editors choice' letters that are chosen that actually attack those self-same editors for failing to support Ms. Clinton enough.

Hillary has pissed off the left with her war vote, Obama can't convince working-class voters he has any real substance. McCain is a pathetic old scoundrel, but he's got a good chance against either of them--either because the left will desert Hillary in the general or because he'll succeed in showing Obama for the vacuous neophyte he is. It's one thing for Obama to scold Hillary for her Iraq stance in Dem primaries. It will be entertaining to see how he handles McCain in a debate on the issue.

Nice job of flackery pretending to be news coverage. Reminds me of when the Dems decided to run McGovern.

Thank-you for your thoughts. I agree with you, and it has not engendered any loyalty toward the company. I will never understand how they think they are saving money by paying people to do nothing.

I've decided to head in another direction altogether and am working on that. I agree with you that globalization is here...and yet I wonder what kind of response we can create to it. I actually like the idea of "green jobs" although I'm not sure what these are and where they are.

It concerns me that college students today face such a limited job market. Our country really needs to find some answers. We have have let 9-11 ruin us in several ways 1) denying student visas so the talented crop of students that used to come here to stay and now aren't 2) investing so much in military expansion but siphoning money from schools and other necessary infrastructure 3) promoting the fear and posturing that may be stifling to our famous ability for "innovation 4) letting Bush/cheney run the armed madhouse giving rise to corporate abuse both domestically and abroad from Blackwater to Enron...the wealth of a few growing whilte the pocketbooks of the many are shrinking. Health care, for example, being out of control.

I could go on. I just wonder what people think we can do, politically, about globalization. How should we respond politically/socially/publicly?

P.S. Speaking of health care, I also worked, recently and temporarily for a company that sold medical equipment--expensive medical equipment that assists doctors during heart surgery. I'm not saying that I don't think it was a good product, but it gave me the creeps when I had to spend an afternoon organizing and mailing the checks to doctors as "commission" for ordering the product for their hospitals. They were known as doctor reps. And the commission checks? Anywhere from a few hundred to more than fifty thousand dollars. And that was just for one piece of equipment.

Scary and sad that ours society has become this corrupt and greedy. Someone needs to clean house in Washington D.C. John Edwards was right when he said that the system is broken.

Sometimes I wonder if Bush will take up drinking again once he gets out of office (if he hasn't already) because he must realize at some level what a failure he has been, and how angry most Americans are, even members of his own party, for his dishonesty and incompetence. But maybe I'm dreaming that he would ever even subconsciously realize any of this.