I am always amused that publications as liberal as The Nation and columnists as liberal as Alterman are always railing against the bias of conservative columnists and conservative publications. Why is liberal bias any less distorted or exaggerated than conservative bias? Whatever side you are on, bias is bias: exaggerating the negative of the opposition and completely ignoring the negative of those you agree with.

You despise the O'Reilly's of the world for their bias but have you ever once, even once, seen Olbermann allow anyone on Countdown who disagreed with one thing he says? Yet you probably believe due to your own bias that a full hour of nothing but Olbermann bashing Bush, the Republicans and Conservatives is great TV.

This election is very difficult for me. I vote Democrat 90 percent of the time but I cannot support Barack Obama in this election. Nor can I vote for McCain and four more years of Bush. I was a Hillary supporter and feel she was screwed by the flawed primary system that almost ensures mediocrity for both parties.

I feel that Obama lied to get the nomination and is now lying the other way to win the White House. His 130 "present" votes because he was afraid to have a "yes" or "no" on his record that could be criticized is not exactly a profile in courage. And most Jews are sure he will screw Israel the third or fourth chance he gets. (He's much too smart to do it the first or second time). And his wife not only sat through those Wright hate sermons with her two daughters, she got up and cheered him. Not the type of first lady I would want representing the US.

Arnold Levine

Boca Raton, FL

It seems to me that Alterman discusses what is the election of 2008. Failing to have the forums or the time for casual public discussions, most Americans will watch TV or the net, then vote. This is the design required for continuing an unfair dominance by certain industrialist interests. It has been accelerated by Bush's people. We had better watch closely the nuance of "some have called..." or "has been accused of..." when it crops up. The only reply is in a question, "Who has accused, why and what do they stand for?" When we hear, "The perception is...," it is often the actual perception builders who say this--and they have no obligation to tell the truth, according to that Florida court ruling re Fox News. What to do? Shout it from the mountaintops, at every chance you have, don't hold back, make calls for Obama, campaign, put on the bumper sticker and work hard in your neighborhood.

Richard Ray Harris

Desert Hot Springs, CA

After reading Mr. Alterman's article, I was greeted by coverage of the mythical "Clinton-Obama rift" disappointingly similar to what he described on NPR. As I shook my head in disgust, it occurred to me that the conservative pundits in the mainstream media have placed themselves in a rather precarious position. What if, instead of responding to questions about the "rift" with vacuous statements about "unifying the party," Democrats stood up to their antagonists in the media?

Specifically, the Democratic party needs to step back for a moment and ask what the "Clinton-Obama issue" is really about. This is because what we're seeing at the Democratic National Convention is a party that has produced two popular candidates with strong public support bases. Naturally, this makes the task of narrowing the selection to one a bit more difficult, but that is how the political system should operate. Instead of finding someone who will point this out, the media has thus far done a good job of finding people to talk about "setting differences aside" and "putting the Party first." Admittedly, the Democratic Party is not particularly exemplary and is still regarded by many of its supporters (myself often included) as the lesser of two evils. However, this makes the fact that two of the party's candidates have strong popular support bases even more noteworthy. Instead, the Democrats are allowing the media to set a hostile agenda when the reality is that their party has produced two strong candidates with popular public support, while the best that the Republican party could churn out is a relict from the days of the Old Boys Club whose "support base" consists largely of war-mongers and corporate interests who really just don't want a Democrat in the White House. In light of this perspective, which party do you think should be on the defensive?

Although the conservative stranglehold on the media will likely complicate any effort to counter the mainstream media's spin on the popular support for Clinton and Obama, the Democratic Party itself does wield enough power to demand more civil behavior from the press. Unfortunately, this sort of assertiveness is not readily apparent in the party. One of my most consistent frustrations with the performance of Democratic candidates in the last few elections has been their willingness to allow their opponents to bait and sidetrack them from the issues that matter. The party is going to continue to bleed independent supporters at every election unless it starts to set its own agenda for the media. Moreover, such a measure may serve to draw public attention to the pathetic state of the mainstream media in the United States and the need to re-evaluate whether the corporate juggernaut we have produced is really what the authors of the Constitution meant by "freedom of the press."

Brian M. Napoletano

West Lafayette, IN