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'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 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 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?

Last I saw Green Bay fans were hanging out by the hundreds at Lambeau field, demanding Farve's return.

Everyone else in the world can see what the Green Bay brass is thinking. They're thinking that Farve has been in Green Bay umpteen hundred seasons and only delivered one championship, and that one was 12 years ago. Chances that he'll bring another next year: about 5% and falling. Green Bay wants to win championships and that means moving on. Sure Farve is a good QB, but there are probably 10 QBs in the league better than he will be next fall, and Green Bay isn't going to get past any of them in the playoffs with Farve.

So the fans are demanding Farve. And when Farve can't win them a championship, the fans will blame the front office for not bringing in enough talent, which is what they were trying to do when they cleared Farve off the board in the first place.

Fans really suck sometimes.

I'm going to vote for him. It's true that Barr has a history as a Gingrichite Republican, but right now, I don't care. FISA has killed my interest in Obama. Obama is allegedly a constitutional lawyer. I would expect a lot more from a constitutional lawyer than the cold shrug Obama has given us on this issue. Any politician who would throw the 4th Amendment under the bus to get elected does not deserve my vote.

Barr's track record is concerning, but I don't expect him to win. What I want is for him to get 25% of the vote -- enough to scare the hell out of the Democrats and convince them that civil liberties are not political footballs.

By voting for Barr I avoid voting for McCain, but still make my point. Barr needs enough support to earn a place in the debates. If he can get that far, maybe we can expose the Democratic party for the sham it really is.