JosieOrtez....what constitutes a'great' article? A singular, uncorroborated piece that supports your intense dislike of Obama and his several miilion supporters?

I read the piece. I don't know if and what this 'reporter' states is true or false. Do you? How?

I found the article mildly amusing, in as much as it is more about the writer himself, than Obama. His quest for work and interviews, his crappy car, the places he slept(or 'crashed') His atmospheric retelling of sitting on Chicago porches above places the homeless haunted. All very self-impressed with the romance of the young struggling reporter. He's a wannabe, using anti-Obama invective---to pander to the segment of the electorate that confuses vitriol and personal attacks with productive, meaningful political and civic dialogue.

I am white, female, very middle-aged, have struggled as a single mother most of my life and am told I represent the core the Hillary's base.

Sorry folks---I support and admire Obama--flaws and all.

JosieOrtez in supporting your candidate you might want to chill out on the anger, propaganda tact, it's so Bush 2000/2004...Its just not working this year.

Obama farted and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Hillary made one of hundreds of campaign stops in a town with a poetic name. Ooo, does this mean something?

No. No it doesn't. It means less than nothing, except that the author is an ass.

I'd say it's nice to see Salon balance out yesterday's Obama bloviation with a shallow undermining essay about Clinton, but two wrongs don't make a right.

When people express frustration with these insubstantial articles which take potshots on the most thin, absurd pretexts possible.

If the primary remains undecided until the Pennsylvania vote, will we be seeing an article which says "Hillary stopped in a town called Intercourse. Does this mean she's fucked?"

I left out part of a paragraph:

"When people express frustration with these insubstantial articles which take potshots on the most thin, absurd pretexts possible, it doesn't mean they want pathetically shallow essays on both candidates. I means they want an examination of actual issues."

When I read your letter, I couldn't help but feel sympathy. You're obviously working very hard for something you believe in, and the going is very tough. Don't feel bad. As I have said in a previous message, you have to _fight_ for anything worthwhile. No one will give you anything for free.

On a lighter note, I hope you don't end up calling me with the intention of convincing me to vote for Obama, lol. Because then we may just spend hours in a very lively debate, hehe.

In your efforts, though, keep in mind one very important thing. What passes for debate nowadays is really just people talking past each other with the sole intention of making their opinion heard. Very seldom do people actually _listen_ to what the other is saying.

A _true_ debate is engaged for the _sole_ purpose of reaching a conclusion through logical argumentation. A _honest_ debate also implies that if one side successfully proves his/her thesis, the other side should gracefully accept that he/she was wrong.

That never happens nowadays, which is why all we have are people talking past each other and mouthing beliefs. In your case, the most you can do is try to convince people using your sympathy and appeals to their good sense. And never take it personally if you are not successful. It's all part of politics and human nature.

Cheers, and good luck :)

I am vulnerable to conspiracy theories, I admit it. But what would be the best thing for John McCain and his hopes to finally be elected president? I think it is Obama as the democratic nominee. That is why so many republicians have crossed the line and voted in the primaries. They want to see this inexperienced man, who has very little behind him to point to his ability to lead a country, to be the leader of the other party. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, McCain will become President. Not as bad as Nixon over McGovern but nearly, and possibly worse at some levels, considering the number of actual issues that need to be addressed by someone who clearly doesn't understand that inspiration won't win the day nor feed the children, nor heal an environment.

Too bad, too bad for us all if that is what happens.

1. SalonFan, thanks for your hard work. Thanks to all the campaign workers who read Salon, actually. You're what makes democracy work! I'm thinking about volunteering for the Obama phone bank myself.

2. About Obama and Lieberman: IIRC, Obama endorsed Lieberman in the primary and Lamott in the general. This is pretty much SOP among members of congress-- support your colleague and your party.

Are you interviewing for an MSM job, Walter?

This article was so poorly written that it turned my stomach. Why do we invoke the opening of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina when it doesn't fit? Not to mention the smarmy 'Perils of Pauline' reference. Just . . . ew.

I know that the Hillary and her supporters stridently believe that her coverage in the media has been grossly biased, and that this same media coverage will be largely to blame when she does not win the nomination.

I'm sorry just don't see it.

Yes, I understand that the media is sexist. What I don't understand is why this has not been as big an issue for any other female politician who has held office? Why didn't Hillary's campaign understand that we live in a sexist society, where it is appropriate for the press to talk about a woman's hair, her style of dress and the height of her heels while claiming to be doing serious reporting? Why was her strategy to highlight and bemoan the unfairness of this inequity and sexism while at the same time claiming to be battle-ready and time-tested?

Why keep bringing up the media bias when the media has not: made a bigger issue of her not releasing her tax returns? made a bigger issue of her not de-classifying relevant papers from Clinton's presidency? If they are so biased, why has the media not made a bigger deal out of the fact that while she was First Lady her attempts at health care reform were so unpopular with both the Republicans and Democrats, that many see her stubbornness and political mistakes as a large part of the reason that the Republicans were able to win back the house in '94? Why hasn't there been a sharper critique of her "35 years of experience" claim, while Obama who by the same calculus could claim over 20 years of experience, is always reminded that he has only been in the Senate for 3 years? Why aren't more media analysts discussing how the Clinton White House was notorious for its secrecy, it's disdain for the press, its habit of giving choice positions and promotions to unqualified and untested loyalists, its disregard for policy and even laws that it found inconvenient, and how the Republicans learned lessons from the Clintons and took them to their disastrous conclusions? Why is Hillary allowed to take credit, as she did this morning, for helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland, but the media is savaged if they try to assign her any of the blame for Bill's failures? Why haven't more media analysts brought up the point that maybe, when so much is at stake for the nation, it's not a good idea for the Democratic party to nominate someone who Republicans, many Independents and, yes, many Democrats hate with an irrational and consuming passion? Why are the media going along blindly the notion that we should wait and see what happens in March, and now in PA in April; why have they bought into the "insult 40 states" strategy as politically sound and viable?

I feel very strongly that any other candidate with her history, with her track record, with her disastrous campaign strategies, with her crushing defeats in now 11 straight primaries and caucuses, and with her default position of claiming to be the victim of sexism and of media-hate, would have been laughed out of the public arena by now.