Didn't Bush make some recess appointments in 2004 or 2005? And aren't those recess appts coming to their end about now? If so, I'd like to see some follow-up stories about what happens next. Does Bush just "re-up" his flunkys with another recess appointment?

It's articles like this that make me appreciate Salon as a progressive news source with integrity in both its journalism and its values. It builds trust.

It's good to see all the regular writers back after the holidays, but alot of news coverage was missed as massive stories broke over the holidays (probably by design). Tim did a good job with the War Room briefs, but I wanted the regular hard news coverage and features the rest of your crew produces, especially when you consider how big the stories were that were breaking. I'd appreciate it if you would plan ahead to keep some of your best writers on duty so that the powers that be can't slip bad news out into public view without remark--at least not in this corner of the media. I read Salon as intensely (or wanted to)over the holidays as I do at any other time of year. Movie reviews and "food porn" articles weren't enough.

As some other readers have observed, Michelle Goldberg seems to be affected by Neo-con sympathies and other anti-Progressive biases. Maybe like Bob Woodward, she's currying favor with new sources for her next book. Please don’t let her be a Judy Miller in your midst and keep her away from political stories. I spend money to subscribe to Salon because I trust your integrity, but when I see somebody reaching down and bending over backward to make a tortured case that attacking Joe Leiberman of all people might alienate moderates, I’m the one left feeling alienated--from you.

As a man in his late-30s who has done a moderate amount of Internet dating, I've been mystified by the prevalence of the word "soulmate" in the profiles of women of all educational backgrounds. It arises even among women who seem to have a fair amount of previous relationship experience. At what point in the American female experience is the prime directive to find a "soulmate" imprinted?

I've also been struck by the passivity of women who anticipate the experience of a magic "click" to tell them when so-and-so is Mr. Right. At least among my anecdotes, the click refers to something more all encompassing and mysterious than mere physical attraction.

I feel like the partner I have now breaks the mold by not subscribing to these inane notions. Maturity and realism are so attractive…Is there an educational initiative out there to debunk the uninformed superstitions that hold sway over so many American women? Love is active, not passive.

for highlighting the partisan dumping on Froomkin from the Post's White House reporters. It gives the lie to the notion that Woodward was a renegade celebrity ideologue and shows other areas of the newsroom have fallen into complicity. In my mind, WP has completely fallen out of the running as a credible alternative to the New York Times as the nation's newspaper of record.

This flame war with Jessica is fascinating, but let's get back to the issue.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is bad enough, but the idea that it was legal to deny medical help on marital status shows this isn't an issue where gays and lesbians will be the only ones personally affected.

What we need here is a constitutional right to procreate, much the way the Supreme Court created a right to marry (not yet extended to gays) explicitly in 1969 when it struck down a ban on interracial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia.

There have been a whole host of other reasons that have been proposed to prohibit people from marrying--all of which could equally be given as reasons why doctors (or the state) might object on moral or personal grounds to providing medical help: An attempt by Wisconsin to prohibit people from marrying when one person owes child support; an attempt to prevent prisoners or ex-cons from marrying, if someone has a history as an alcoholic or drug addict, has been through a bankruptcy, if someone has been accused of child abuse or neglect. If someone has a history of adultery or was determined by the doctor or the state to be too poor--all could be given as reasons to refuse medical help to have a child.

Maybe Jessica wouldn't choose to prevent people from having kids for any of these reasons, but plenty of others (from all ends of the political spectrum) probably would.

I doubt the current Supreme Court will write opinions to extend Constitutional rights to the act of procreation. Lacking that, the goal should be achieved through democratic means, with legislation that goes deeply into the professions of doctors and pharmacists, forcing them to risk their licenses and certification if they refuse help to patients.

If doctors and pharmacists don't want the state micromanaging their professions more than they already do, then they should prevail upon members of their profession to keep their personal views to themselves. Suck it up and do your job.

Woodward's carryings-on have undercut trust for the fourth estate (already at a low ebb thanks to the Judith Miller and the New York Times), but I am dismayed at how his leading-light journalistic colleagues like Sidney Blumenthal and Daniel Shorr (of NPR) continue to go to awkward lengths to minimize the opprobrium that Woodward deserves. Cronyism impresses no better in the field of journalism than it does in public service.

Blumenthal's understatement of what Woodward has done (credulous vs. complicit, as another reader observed) is inaccurate, pure and simple.

If Judith Miller was (properly) forced out, then it's only fair that Woodward be inveighed against and forced out too. This is a question of fairness and balance, and the editors at Salon should push Blumenthal harder to tell the truth.