I have to defend them. The New Yorker has published too many astounding articles over the years to have to put up with this. Among all publications in the U.S., the New Yorker is the one that should have enough intellectual street cred that, given two interpretations, one mindless and literal, the other nuanced and insightful, that readers would give it credit for the latter.

Whenever you interpret satire you have to consider the source. When Jon Stewart makes a comment about Jews it comes off entirely different than if Mel Gibson does.

It is unfair for people to argue, as many have done here, that the New Yorker has to take into account the feelings of every idiot who looks at the cover and is offended by it. Probably 99% of the outrage comes from people who have not read the issue. Such people have no more standing that someone who writes a movie review after looking at the movie poster.

I am certain if the New Yorker had it to do over again, it would have gone another direction. Doubtless an apology is forthcoming. Apologies are perfectly fine, but I really wish at least a few people would acknowledge that a magazine, especially one like the New Yorker, has a right to expect readers to look inside the cover before rendering an opinion. It is a sad day when a magazine as excellent as this one has to begin choosing its covers based on the lowest common denominator, not only of its own readers, but of any doofus who happens to stumble upon its website.

One final point. You can tell how robust a person or an institution is by how well they handle a good ribbing. If the Obama camp can't tolerate this, we could be in for a rough four years should Obama be elected president.

The man could be our next president, for crying out loud. You think the Clintons, or the Bushes, or the Reagans didn't endure just as much?

I voted for Obama, and Hillary Clinton drove me crazy at the end of the primary season, but now I want her back.

The final pledged delegate count was so close that, if the superdelegates would reconsider their positions and switch sides, the Democratic party could still nominate Hillary.

I am willing to admit I made a mistake. Let's start pressuring the superdelegates to switch their votes. We only need about a hundred switchers to put Hillary over the top.

Go, Hillary, Go!

I've said it in a previous letter and I'll say it again. Consider sending your vote to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. He may not be everything you want (he's certainly more conservative than I would like) but he has denounced FISA. A vote for Barr will really send a message to the liars that control the Democratic party.

Even if you don't vote for Barr, sign a petition to get him on the ballot in your state. If Barr is on the ballot in 50 states, that alone may put fear in the eyes of the Democratic leadership.

I don't think it is fair to argue that Obama supporters have failed to take his message of bipartisanship seriously. Bipartisanship and "moving to the center" are absolutely not the same thing. Bipartisanship means cooperating with people who disagree with you. Moving to the center means adapting the viewpoints of people who disagree with you.

Obama can (and I had always taken his message to mean) talk to Republicans and find common ground with them without moving closer to their position. A person can be a flaming, uncompromising liberal and still agree with an ultraconservative Republican about certain issues.

Bipartisanship means working with the other side. It means sacrificing political gains for the public good. It means saying, as Truman did, that it is remarkable how much can be accomplished in politics if you do not care who gets the credit. Bipartisanship does not mean giving up on your values.

We were not overlooking anything in Obama. We were lied to.

I am a moderate-conservative and pro-life, but was prepared to vote for Obama over Iraq and the environment. I have a history of voting Democratic, mostly because the Democratic party has always been (at least in my lifetime) the party of civil rights. Their support for telecom immunity is traitorous. If Obama votes for this bill there is no chance he gets my vote.

There is an alternative -- Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. I know Barr is on the conservative end, but he has come out strongly against telecom immunity. He is also in favor of a swift withdrawal from Iraq, and supports a balanced budget.

I hate to be a one issue voter, but the Democratic party, despite the beating it has taken since Reagan took office, still has not learned its lesson. You don't take your voters for granted. If you stand for something, you have to stand for it until the end, not until you have the nomination locked up.

I am tired of the cravenness of this party. The only way to shake these people out of their complacency is a third party candidate. Barr is not a bad option. Even if he does not win, if he makes it on the ballot in 50 states he presents a real threat to alter the outcome of the election. This may be enough to at least get Obama on the right side of this issue.

The Obama people are forcing this issue. If we vote for him, we put our stamp of approval on FISA also.