I'm tired, man. guess I just don't notice certain things-- maybe it's conditioning I got somewhere, or something. I think I need to play a game of solitaire to pass the time or something.

than I used to, and yes, I'm a man. AND I utilize the internet. But I read buckets of articles online(although, strictly speaking, when it's a particularly lengthy article, say 10,000 words or more, I generally copy it and read it offline). At any rate, the cumulative amount of reading I undertake has probably not tapered off.

Now, an only slightly facetious question: if I store an article to be read offline as a PDF, does it count as a book?

Cary responds: So how can you love a Republican? You can love a Republican because family love is an unbreakable connection. It isn't an idea. Love is not approval or agreement. It's a bond. So when you ask why you should spend time with them, remember this: There is such a thing as enduring bonds of blood. These people gave you life. Your mom gave birth to you. We humans feel deeply connected with those who bore us.

(Oh, that's a good pun, isn't it?)

Yes, it's a good pun, and pretty sound advice. Although my late mother was mostly apolitical and my father is a democrat, growing up in Texas has otherwise meant a lot of exposure to people whom I might(and have)otherwise felt close to who nevertheless had the republican/nascent authoritarian aspect, glaringly sticking out, seemingly like a defective chromosome in an otherwise mostly healthy person.

I learned, admittedly not quickly, to accept people as they are. Some of them are stupid, and some(in fact many)aren't stupid, but unfortunately identify as they do more because of culture rather than the politics, per se. I guess if you otherwise fit in and have many of the traits that your culture values, it's pretty hard to transcend culture.

My best wishes to the LW in the struggle to accept the parents. (I vaguely remember Wil Wheaton, of all people, writing for Salon about this issue a few years ago.)

Anyway, that's all I have to offer, because otherwise I'll probably just get another point in the LW's letter wrong as I so often do. Maybe it's a defective advice-column-reading gene.

"The strategists for the Democrats in Congress seem to think that it's their words that matter, when in fact it's their deeds that matter, and the muddled messages that they convey when they back down in the face of an aggressive attack speak volumes to the American people about who the Democrats are. If they're trying to change the perception that the Democrats are weak in the face of aggression, the first way to do that is to stop being weak in the face of aggression at home and to stop being fearful every time the Republicans rattle their sabers."

There is both right and wrong in Westen's message-- on one hand he points to Jim Webb as an exemplar of how democratss should comport themselves, referring, mainly to his State of the Union response while neglecting to address Webb being among the dems who buckled on crossing over to vote with the GOP on this summer's FISA legislation. Likewise, I absolutely agree with him regarding Kerry's failure to defend himself. To me (and I imagine many others) he seemed more concerned about demonstrating his patrician aloofness and unwillingness to break into a sweat in response, only reinforcing a certain GOP narrative.

Unfortunately, our mediocre-- or worse-- big time national news outlets tend to take their cues from the opposition candidates during election cycles when it comes to critiquing administration policy, and during the week leading to the FISA vote, HRC and Obama absorbed a lot of the time the tv news devotes to politics in slinging sound bites back and forth regarding whether or not Obama was sufficiently tough or sufficiently experienced, when they could have been educating the public about what was at stake in the FISA vote and attacking Bush,jr.

One may object thusly, "yes, but isn't that the media's job to explain what's at stake? Shouldn't the candidates hash out their differences?"

Sure-- but the so-called "MSM" generally don't do their jobs, but just regurgitate sundry talking points. And the only "analysis" that occurs is disproportionately offered by right-wing blowhards who have their own axe to grind. And in the case of the FISA debate, one of the reasons the dems look weak is they generally don't allow for the big-time news organization not doing their jobs, and here the two leading candidates helped allow this to happen, even if they did so unwittingly.

Westen, at least in this interview, doesn't seem to be taking this disadvantage that dems face into account. Their "meta-message," the cumulative impression voters get about any given candidate, is only shaped by TV ads to a comparatively small extent. Westen talks about how the democrats are seen as wafflers, but doesn't touch upon how the recent utterances by at least four of the six candidates seeming to backtrack on getting us out of Iraq will hurt them. And unless they address this squarely, it will.

"Senate Democrats must commit themselves to blocking any and all nominees until Bush nominates someone whose independence and integrity are beyond reproach."

Really? Why? They rolled over for 2 SCOTUS appointments, they rolled over for defunding the war, then they rolled over for vastly increased executive snooping powers. If the democrats then choose to fight over Gonzales' replacement, what will that prove besides their hypocrisy?

Are you advocating that the dems behave like a loudmouthed impotent drunk who only starts screaming "let me at him" once he has two friends are holding him back?

You are usually a perceptive writer, Mr Greenwald, but I'm afraid you've been sipping the koolaid in this instance.