Whoa -- who are you people? This may be the worst Salon comment thread I've ever seen.

Someone needs to put on a workshop to show Salon readers how to deal with trolls. Elephantman's posts don't merit any kind of reply. And before the inevitable, facile point is made that I, in this comment, am also responding to Elephantman (whoa! what a mind-blowing irony!): no, in fact, I'm not. I'm addressing the people who can keep these threads from degenerating into a series of scrawls on the door of a high-school bathroom stall (to use an appropriate metaphor): the people who don't seem to understand that "Hillary is a dyke" drive-by posts are not part of a conversation worth continuing, and that people like Elephantman are just here to prevent anything worthwhile from being discussed.

To Holly Capote (you're a gay guy, right?): one of the things I hate about these kinds of scandals is the way that they give everyone permission to be homophobic. There's a fine line between chuckling at the hypocrisy of the "God Hates Fags" closet-cases and just chuckling at the idea of homosexuality itself.

Similarly, it's disappointing that you would try to turn this scandal into some sort of referendum on male bisexuality. Even if that "erectile response" study weren't dubious and comically reductive (sexuality -- even male sexuality -- is pretty complicated), it wouldn't be relevant to this discussion. People should be allowed to love, and screw, any consenting adult they like, even if, according to you (or Pat Robertson, or a team of university researchers), those partners don't have the correct sexual equipment.

Can't we discuss this scandal without being sanctimonious, bigoted, and insulting?

Mr. Hannaham, you need to fire the person who wrote that one-line bio at the bottom of your article; it makes your novel sound absolutely awful -- a smug combination of classist white-trash stereotypes, homophobic stereotypes, and religious stereotypes. Count me out.

Anyway. Maybe Amy Winehouse is doing the kids a favor with her descent into what the British tabloids like to call "DRUGS HELL." She looks worse and worse with each passing minute. Given the (somewhat terrifying) superficiality of Gen Y, the devastating effects of her drug abuse on her sex appeal may be more of a caution than its destructive effect on her talent.

She's an interesting singer when she's sober.

Glenn, I was thinking about this blog while listening, this morning, to NPR's dreadful story on the Republican filibusters. It was exactly what you've described in post after post:

"Republicans say that Democrats have accomplished little this term because they refused to compromise with Republicans.

"John Boehner: 'Democrats have accomplished little because they refused to compromise with Republicans.'

"But Democrats say that they've made significant progress with fuel efficiency standards.

"Rahm Emmanuel: 'We've made significant progress with fuel efficiency standards.'

"Democrats also say that their work has been made difficult because, they claim, President Bush has refused to negotiate with them on key legislation."

"Nancy Pelosi: 'Our work was made difficult because President Bush refused to negotiate with us on key legislation.'

"But Republicans say that President Bush made key concessions, and many meaningful overtures, to the Democratic Congress. The problem, Republicans say, is that Democrats just wouldn't come to the bargaining table.

"'Mitch McConnell: 'President Bush made key concessions, and many meaningful overtures, to the Democratic Congress. The problem is that Democrats just wouldn't come to the bargaining table.'

"This is [Some Jackass With a Sing-Songy 'News Voice'], National Public Radio."

God, it's so infuriating. Why must reporters -- especially, I've noticed, NPR reporters -- constantly adopt this faux-naive, babe-in-the-woods posture? Everything is a mystery; there are no objective facts.

I feel like the upshot of all of these insipid, uninformative NPR political stories is the same: in the end, the reporter, with a smirk and a shrug, says "Oh, those politicians. Always disagreeing. Well -- heh -- I guess some things never change."

Well said. (Of course, it's our "lunch money" -- not theirs -- that the Dems are voluntarily giving away every day.)

If you want to counter the Republican spin, you have to offer the media an alternative script, which the Democrats have been bizarrely unwilling to do. There's no other way to say it: the Democrats are simply unwilling to lead.

The impeachment issue is another case in point. My own Congressman, Dave Loebsack (in whom I had high hopes, but whom I've given up on), was recently quoted as saying: "If the President invaded Iran without asking for Congressional consent, we'd have to start thinking seriously about the possibility of impeachment."

All of those high crimes and misdemeanors that the president has flagrantly committed . . . meh. Apparently, they're not the sort of thing that gets our Democrats thinking about impeachment. But if Bush were to start another disastrous war without seeking the consent of the American people -- well, in that case, impeachment would begin inching towards the table.

At this rate, Congress will finally be ready to challenge Bush by 2011. (By that time, of course, Jeb Bush or George P. Bush -- or possibly even Noelle Bush -- will be running 20 percentage points ahead of the despised incumbent Hillary Clinton.)

Vat a country!