Kennedy and others make a huge mistake in allowing themselves to be distracted by conspiracy theories about the 2004 election. That turns our political discourse into kindergarten whining about cheating when our democracy is in danger.

In _Kingdom Coming_,Michelle Goldberg makes her case that the Republican party did a brilliant job of out-organizing the Democrats in 2004, by organizing via the Christian Right and threats about the "gay agenda." Voters turned out lest the homos take over the world, and Bush won. Most of this happened under the radar of conventional politics. No "cheating" was required.

Liberals need to see and understand these tactics, because we're going to be beaten by them again and again until we learn how to deal with them. The demonization of GLBT Americans provides a vehicle by which the Religious Right can bypass the usual church/state separation of the pulpit from the voting booth.

Forget this stupid conspiracy stuff: I for one do not wish to live in some real-world Handmaid's Tale, and that, folks, is where we are headed.

Pay attention, folks: the gay marriage amendment isn't about gay marriage. It's about giving fundamentalist churches a way to organize for elections without stepping over the church/state line (such as it is.)

A preacher cannot stand up in a pulpit and say, "Vote Republican." He or she CAN stand up and quote Leviticus and Paul on the "abomination" of homosexuality, get people mightily riled up and titillated with allusions to sexual practices that excite and disgust the imaginations of the faithful, and send them off to the polls to -- vote Republican.

All the rest is window dressing. Yes, it is getting harder to make a speech in Congress in support of the amendment that makes any sense, but they don't need to make sense. This is about producing a tally of who is "for" and "against" the "gay agenda" so that in the next election, the preachers can rail in the pulpits and send the faithful to the voting booth.

Don't take it lightly.

Tracy Clark-Flory asks, what might the consequences be of forcing a boy to dress as a girl?

That question has already been answered in a couple of horrific cases in the past, but it is beside the point of the story. The child is insistent on dressing as a girl. The parents would only be "forcing" a particular gender identity if they were forcing the kid to dress as a boy.

I'm sorry that this thing has become a public brou-ha-ha; for the child's sake, it should never have become one. Children do all sorts of odd things, some of them for profound reasons and some of them as short-lived phases. If it is a phase, making a huge big deal out of it will only complicate matters. If it is a phase, it will pass. That is the nature of "phases."

If that were my child, I'd get an evaluation from a good professional as to how well-adjusted otherwise he or she was, and if everything else is ok, I'd step back and wait (1) for it to be outgrown or (2) for it not to be outgrown. The world is plenty cruel to children who are different and/or imaginative; the parents need not add to the grief. Just love the tyke, and let time sort things out!

If on the other hand, everything is not ok, if the kid is suffering in some way for which this is just an expression, then don't get involved in public arguments about child-raising, take care of the kid. And the rest of the world should butt out.

Thank you, Lori Leibovich, for a brave, honest, and truthful critique of the hype around breastfeeding. I am the mother of two grown sons. One was breast fed for nine months, through multiple rounds of mastitis, one that left me with problems to this day in my right shoulder. I kept breast feeding because almost everyone around me was absolutely sure it was the only way to go.

Younger son just didn't like breastfeeding; didn't seem to like my milk, in fact, and after miserable weeks trying to get him to nurse, and listening to his hungry cries, I decided along with my midwife to "try" a bottle of formula. Problem solved. I fed him the dreaded formula, while strangers, family, and assorted others chimed in at how bad a mother I was. He's graduating soon from the state university, a healthy, happy young man applying to the Peace Corps.

Do I think breast feeding is optimal? Of course. Do I regret giving the younger one the bottle? Absolutely not.

Mothering infants is grueling. The most grueling aspect of it, in my experience 25 years ago, was the willingness of outsiders to dump guilt on moms who are recovering from delivery, sleep-deprived, and in shock from all the hormonal crashes and changes in their bodies.

Thanks for an article that encourages kindness and understanding.

"Women, like men, can be tyrants and bullies and liars and cheats, and feminism has actually worked if it has allowed women to make money and get famous in these roles, à la Coulter."

Ugh!!! Gag!!! Coulter is icky but you have a point.

However, not everyone gets that treatment, and I wonder how much long blond hair and good looks one needs to get away with Coulter-style bully behavior. The glee at Martha Stewart's conviction reminded me a lot of the reaction to Leona Helmsly, and in both cases, the women in question would have been perceived much differently had they been Mike Stewart and Leo Helmsly, methinks.

Until a woman who isn't conventionally pretty can act that way and not be pilloried as a harridan, I don't think feminists can break out the champagne.

"You're entitled to your opinion, but comments like that aren't going to float with me."

Thank you for giving an example of what a decent person might say when he or she hears a cruel joke about fat.