This is getting monotonous.

Folks, Limbaugh's reference to "phony soldiers" was to the likes of Jesse Adam Macbeth, and he made that explicitly clear. Macbeth was a phony; he never made it out of boot camp, yet he claimed service in the Army Rangers and invented tales of horrors he'd allegedly seen in Iraq.

I understand you're upset that the country is disgusted with MoveOn's immature antics; you're just as immature yourselves and don't see the problem. But lying about what Limbaugh said is not going to work, no matter how loudly you little girls whine to Daddy to fix it.

Woodie's cite of Natapoff's article should be required reading for every mindless yahoo who cried "Aw-men!" in reply to this ragbag of an article. Natapoff, an MIT physicist with actual brains, explained why the Electoral College is beneficial in terms even the average Salon reader can understand.

Salon readers are remarkably shortsighted creatures. When control of the national government slips through their fingers, suddenly they are fair-weather friends of federalism; that will be forgotten the minute their clumsy hands are on the reins again. When the Electoral College deprives them of one win, they move to dismantle it forever (as if it were a basic function of good government that they should win all of the elections!).

Let the adults settle this one, kiddies.

How many times does it need to be said? Men, do not write to Cary Tennis with your problems especially if there is a woman with a competing interest involved in the problem. He'll assume that everything is your fault, even if you're being physically abused (this isn't the first time Cary has done that). He'll ignore your interests in favor of hers.

I think a solid majority of the respondents here have given you the correct advice. Aside from a few outliers, everybody here recognizes that you are not at fault here, that the problem is not yours, and that you are best advised to leave quickly.

Leaving is a bitter pill to swallow, my man, and I'm sure you love her. It's going to hurt, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. Lots of times, the right thing to do won't feel good and sometimes won't even feel right at the time.

Part of the problem is that this is going to hurt her, and naturally you won't want to do that. However, if the argument from your own interests does not convince you, then consider that it may be in her interest to get hurt like this. People generally don't change unless there's pain. If we're comfortable as we are, why change? The pain of your departure may be just what she needs to address her problems. The difference between mature love and kiddy love is that we act in the best interest of the partner's long-term well-being, as best we know how, rather than merely the partner's immediate pleasure.

I'm sorry for the pain you're going to experience either way. Good luck.

(With apologies to Television Without Pity.)

If the sexes were reversed here, how many of you would be wondering what the husband wasn't giving the straying wife? I'd bet that's exactly where Cary's advice would start, in fact.

In the actual letter, I find the wife's use of bribes as a measure of repentance to be very suspect. Is that how she sees partnerships and moral indebtedness? That seems unhealthy. Maybe you should fix that, LW.

As for divorcing him, it sounds like it'd be a mutual favor. It'd free up the husband to chase the sister, and it'd give the LW the sense of moral superiority she seems to crave. A divorce made in heaven for a match made in heaving.

If you can't distinguish between socialized medicine and a free-market system where the government provides insurance to its employees like any other company, then you are officially too short to get on this ride.

Conason is a contemptible liar. He has found an enthusiastic audience here. I wish I could pretend to be surprised.

This article spotlights a critical weakness in the Democrat Party: They generally feel the need to dissemble their true position on issues in order to win elections.

The reasons you love Kucinich are mostly the reasons he can't be elected. Like it or not, his platform doesn't agree with what most Americans want. The common fantasy among committed Democrats is that they can elect someone who tells the public what they want to hear during the campaign, then goes back on his word and governs like a Kucinich once he wins -- and makes the nation like it. Suddenly, they see they were wrong all along! They want high taxes and overreaching social programs! They want Not-Kucinich, and his reich will last for a thousand years!

Voters detect this fundamental dishonesty, and they're turned off by it. I'm not claiming that there's none of this on the Republican side of the aisle, but generally, what they will do is a lot closer to what they say they will do. Even if that's often appalling, people probably like it better than being deceived.

Furthermore, the Not-Kucinich, once elected, often finds that he can't impose his will on the nation. Clinton turned out to be one of the most effective conservative presidents in recent years. He was forced to accept compromises that his successor, a nominal conservative, would never have been made to accept.

I hope you do vote for Kucinich. Primaries are not horse races; you get nothing for picking the winner. And I think the exercise in honesty about what you really want will do wonders for you. You may wind up losing, but at least you'd be the loyal opposition. Right now, you're not. A loyal opposition says what it thinks, not what it thinks it can sell.