Over at Salon: The Parody we are concerned, because Joan Walsh is concerned. And when Joan is concerned, you know that Barack Obama is the one concerning her. Here's the latest important, even-handed, balanced analysis as envisioned from the mind of Joan Walsh... http://salonparody.blogspot.com

In my efforts to ensure that Salon's coverage is balanced, and accurately represents what is truly going on in politics today, I feel compelled to bring up something that I think Democrats are just not seeing clearly. I am concerned about Obama, and I am concerned that I'm not seeing the candidate and his campaign resolve the key concerns I have. Most would agree that the concerns that I have are quite representative of the types of concerns you see and hear across America, in women and men, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, pundits and plumbers.

I am concerned that a failure to resolve these concerns doesn't bode well for Obama's chance at a primary victory, much less the general election.

First, I am concerned about Obama's use of the term "Mrs. Clinton." On occasion, instead of the appropriate, respectful term "Senator" Clinton, Barack Obama has used the term "Mrs. Clinton." Most would agree that this is overt and unacceptably sexist of Obama. He is making a point that Clinton is a woman... "Misses" -- by using this term. Why is his fundamental disrespect for the women of America allowed to continue?

Second, I am concerned about Obama's failure to wear a teal ribbon for ovarian cancer. His mother died of ovarian cancer, and yet he fails to wear the teal ribbon that shows his support. Clearly, most would agree his insensitivity on this issue points out not only his a hostility toward whites that is clearly cut from the same cloth as the anti-white racist hostility of his controversial pastor Rev. Wright, but also underscores his overt and hostile sexism against women.

Third, I am concerned about Obama's politeness. He has, on several occasions during debates, held a chair for Hillary Clinton. He uses old-fashioned "gentlemanly manners" to reinforce that he is a man, and that Hillary Clinton is not. Most would agree that this evidence of overt sexism, an effort to point out the gender difference and pander to America's innate sexism.

Fourth, I am concerned about Obama's opposition to the war. He insists on bringing this up as a way to attack Hillary Clinton. I am concerned that his consistent opposition to the war, and his mentioning it, is ugly politics at its worst. Most would agree that it's also extremely sexist for him to keep bringing this up, since Hillary did not oppose the war, and it makes her look bad. And his making her look bad feeds right into the sexist nature of every attack on her and her campaign.

Fifth, I am concerned about Obama's eloquence and ability to elevate discussions to a higher level. Most Democrats are like me, and they prefer to focus on important issues, like how I can get myself a White House appointment or a full-time TV pundit job, and who will pay for my daughter's college education, and why the idiots who write letters at Salon think I'm such a loser. Oh, and Obama's refusal to wear a flag pin, and his bad bowling. THESE are the important issues I want to discuss. So why is Obama talking about race, and the future, and America's image abroad? My theory? Most would agree that he is just showing off his oratorical skills and his baritone voice. This is sexist of him, because Hillary doesn't have oratorical skills or a baritone voice. It is unfair. Again, ugly politics.

Do you have your own urgent concerns about Obama? Share them here with us...

Why didn't they fly those planes into buildings in Sweden or the Netherlands? Those countries have more freedom to hate than we do. Obviously it has nothing to do with our overthrowing their democratically elected governments, or propping up dictators in their region, or funding decades of Palestinian abuse. Only a crackpot would suggest that our foreign policy would generate any anger. Everyone knows that we make mistakes and that only other nations do bad things.

Seriously, the fact that we have experienced so little terrorism, despite our decades of hostility against other peoples' sovereignty, is testament to both the good will of non-Americans and the overblown nature of the "terrorist threat."

Surely, an Iranian citizen has more reason to be terrorized by potential death from Americans than an American has to be by death from Iranians. No Iranian leader in the last decade, to my knowledge, has threatened the U.S., while 2 out of 3 of our potential presidents have openly declared their willingness to incinerate Iranian citizens.

Of course, I'm the wacko because I apply the same standards to the two countries. You can blame Bush as much as you like, but posts like Joan's and Clinton supporters' here suggest that the rest of the world has good reason to lump most Americans in with Bush; shades of disagreement don't matter so much when talk of "obliterating" entire populations is accepted by all major U.S. political parties.

I will not vote for Obama. It's not JUST Wright. It's him and Obama's books and Michelle Obama's words and Bill Ayers and Obama's turning away from his mother and looking to an absent father to define him. I see a pattern of disaffection for us as a country and as individuals. I see a person who wants to be elected to a position of tremendous power, prestige and and trust, but whose associations reveal a disdain for many of us while using class code to identify opponents and those who ask questions as either ignorant, racist or just plain bitter.

No other candidate with these kinds of associations would survive so long. Why Obama has done so is due to his skills and a lack of will in dealing with these questions on the part of us and the media. Wright is unrepentant in his views, as is Ayers. Fine - both are completely within their rights to be angry and blame others. For a candidate to have a brush with people like this is not uncommon or unexpected. One runs into all kinds. But to associate with these people for a long time suggests a common view of things, an affinity of world view, if you will.

It is important to remember that Wright is Obama's pastor, and if Obama is honest in how important his faith is to him, then Wright should be influential. If experience is not important in electing a president, then character must be.

I don't think it is irresponsible to look carefully at these associates of Obama, the strength of the association, their duration and potential influence. I don't think it is racist to ask questions. I think it is due diligence before choosing a person for president.