I'm thrilled to see a new Blumenthal column. I've genuinely missed his insightful commentaries. While working for the Clinton campaign, he's been the target of some really sickening vitriol from the right. Here's hoping he'll find a friendlier home here at Salon.

My enthusiasm for a new Blumenthal "column" was premature; I posted before reading the introduction to this excerpt. Still, it's good to see his name back on Salon.

LWs keep referring to the caricature of the Obamas as a failed "cartoon," suggesting that the satire was unsuccessful because it didn't make them laugh. New Yorker covers aren't meant to be "funny," exactly--they're wry comments on American society. Captioning a cover would be tremendously condescending.

Also, The New Yorker has been extremely supportive of Barack Obama and his candidacy, giving him coverage consistently more favorable than they've given Clinton or McCain.

I agree with Gary Kamiya; I think we should all lighten up a bit. God forbid that progressives should become as humorless as conservatives.

Because I can't imagine having to read (much less publish) so many letters from sanctimonious jerks. An awful lot of people are damned desperate to find someone to whom they can feel superior. My God, give this LW a break. She isn't evil for having children. She isn't scum because her marriage ended. Just because we aren't in this situation (yet), we are not morally superior to her.

The vitriol in some of the comments about her article made me forget this wasn't a Cary Tennis column.

My six-year-old daughter and I were strong Hillary Clinton supporters, largely because of my daughter's desire to see a "girl" as president. When Hillary conceded, I explained that it was time for us to move on and support Barack, since he is the candidate who most closely adheres to Hillary's (and the Democratic party's)principles.

This morning, my daughter saw part of Hillary's convention speech on one of the morning programs. "Mommy," she said. "If she's not running for anything any more, why is she still talking?"

Fair question.

Not even by the most willfully ignorant "journalistic" hacks. Sarah Palin is not the pig in the metaphor. She's the lipstick. McCain and his campaign are the pig.

I loathe everything she stands for. But I do think it's a bit unfair for Joan to chide her husband for accompanying her on the campaign trail instead of staying home with the kids. Since the baby is still breastfeeding, Todd Palin pretty much had to go along on the road as Trig's caregiver.

She has the kind of courage that most of us can only dream of possessing. If telling her side of the story helps her to feel like she has some control in a truly wretched (and already very public) situation, so be it.

I also can't understand why so many people are sneering because Elizabeth is distancing herself from the mistress and the baby. It's a self-protective mechanism. Because of her illness, she can't just throw John out of the house. Although I'm sure it would be satisfying, it would be far too disruptive for the children. Thus, her anger must be directed toward the person she doesn't have to see every day of her life.

I still have tremendous admiration for Elizabeth Edwards, and I think she's making the best of an impossible situation.

"Your" planet? And you actually have the gall to accuse someone else of having a disproportional sense of entitlement? Would it be okay for the rest of us to "sort of wish" you and your breeder parents would "just die already"?

for posting an article on Salon that makes you seem vulnerable. Some of the letter writers here can be just about as sensitive as a seventh-grade girl!

(BTW--you don't need them as your Facebook friends, either.)