It is always good to revisit the past but in the new media generation we live in, it's only the present (and up to a week after) that seems to matter.

I had totally forgotten about the National Guard story of Bush until you mentioned it, yet I was furious during the day or so that this was brought up. Heck didn't Koppel get the axe because of it? Now nobody cares or nobody bothers to mention it.

You've really highlighted the disparity not between the candidates but the parties. However, aren't they supposed to be the "liberal media"? I thought they were on our side.

But many Clinton loyalists were more interested in calling this stupid and naive than dealing with his underlying message that, "We need to change the culture in Washington, the same old politics of divisiveness and fear are not enough."

They chose to believe it was just Obama, a few middle and older confused voters, and a bunch of naive young idiots drinking the Kool-Aid. Turned out it wasn't.

This was precisely what Barack Obama has been talking about from the start. It's why he's running. People tried to say it. No one wanted to pay attention. Even when he started winning they still didn't really get what his message was. They preferred to think of it as a fad.

Well this column, and all of the debates, are precisely what Senator Obama's been saying. The reason why we need a new kind of politics. Respectfully, it's Senator Clinton that's hung on so tightly to the old type of divisive, gende/class/race/age based politics to try and rip the Democratic Party in two. That alone ought to be enough for you not to vote for her.

On the other hand 'AnaHadWolves' it is blatantly clear that the candidate that John McCain would rather run against is HRC - hence their recent harmonizing of their crticisms against Obama.

So forget the so called 'biased' pundits and the talking heads of the media because the repubs are in the wings rubbing their hands together while the ObamaClinton supporters run a very effective DIRTY TRICKS campaign on their behalf. Say what you like about the Repubs but at least they aren't tearing their party apart in front of the whole electorate by constantly bad mouthing the other runners.

"Obama did run against it from start with his change campaign."

Nonsense. He spoke about it in his usual generalities and slogans. He, and most of his supporters, didn't complain about it when Hillary was getting it. He and they only complained after he got a taste of it.

Great letter about the rules.

of the media's alignment with the GOP, but I think both miss the boat by failing to properly explain why this is the case.

Glenn, and to some extent Joe, proposes that reporters and pundits are simply out of touch petty gossip mongers whose world is ruled by Drudge. This is true,but it is also true, and far more relevant, to point out that media folk work for giant corporations. The GOP are willing, unapologetic corporate ass kissers. Corporations NEED the GOP to come out on top. Corporations NEED the populace to be blinded to the truth of what the GOP has wrought. Corporations NEED GOP policies to continue raking in their obscene profits. Corporations will not allow their employees to accurately report what is really going on-if they did, there would not be a single GOP lawmaker in all the land.

Sure, Obama has said "We need to change the culture in Washington, the same old politics of divisiveness and fear are not enough." He's said it alot. But all the while his stump speeches have been filled with the same old standard-media-narrative slanders of Hillary: She thinks she's "entitled" to the presidency, she has a "20-year plan" to become president, you can't believe a word she says, she's willing to do or say anything to become president, she's cold, ruthless and brutal,

etc etc. None of this has anything to do with policy issues. In fact, more often than not when he's attacked her for trying to be on both sides of an issue, or not "talking straight" about issues, it turns out he has practically the same position as her (NAFTA, illegal immigrants, social security).

This has all been a core part of his campaign and this is absolutely "the same old politics of divisiveness and fear." When he damns Hillary for "circulating" a certain picture of him, crying that she's the most divisive candidate in history -all on the word of Matt Drudge, with absolutely zero evidence that she actually did any such thing - is this your idea of changing the policital tone?

It didn't take long for "all the Obama supporters to flock here" because most people reading the articles on this site support Obama. I know that troubles the writers and editors. Maybe it troubles you, too. We aren't doing as we're told. We "Obamabots" are suprisingly unwilling to let anyone tell us how to think.

Do you really want us to go away? Do you really want Salon's letter-columns filled only with Hillary supporters? There'd be, at most, five people making any comments. And with so few hits, the magazine would lose ad revenue and go under. Because most people have chosen to support Obama.

That's a fine idea with one problem: The media wouldn't report the candidate's actual response, they'd merely report -- loudly -- that s/he "... refused to respond to questions about [x]."

I'm sure you can write the rest of that script.

-- bearpaw1

------------------

No problem!

Simply state that "I will be more than happy to answer that question at the END of the debate, after responding to your questions about policy."

Wow. You have created a remarkable text rendering of why we Obama supporters are so fed up with so many of you Clinton supporters.

Hit caps lock, my friend. Joe's great, no doubt, but you undermine your credibility by "screaming" at us all here in this forum.