Tim Grieve is correct in a general way. There is blame to go around.

Our Senators, though, are supposed to be leaders. They should not need a huge groundswell of outrage from the minority of voters who actually pay attention.

The Senators should have been crying Holy Hell from the minute Alito was nominated. They should have shrugged off predictable right wing complaints about the propriety of deciding how to vote prior to the hearings by pointing out that the hearings are not designed to tease the truth from right wing judicial nominees.

The Democrats are almost 100% useless. They are not doing their constitutional duty to fight tooth and nail for their beliefs.

Unless, of course, their "beliefs" go no further than desperately trying to hold on to their jobs.

I picked up the book yesterday and by page five it was obvious that Pynchon's critics have once again missed the boat.

In either case, I for one savor Pynchon for words, words, words. If I find myself jonesing for a simple, linear plot I can always find an old Zane Grey.

Gee, some of you guys are pretty hard on Mr. Barra for his offhand comment about genius and genre writing. I think both of these terms are too fuzzy to stand up to extended scrutiny (Poe wasn't a genre writer and King isn't a genius) and perhaps, if there is a rap on Allen Barra, using fuzzy terms might be on the mark.

On the whole, though, I think the essay is pretty much on the mark. The Bond of Fleming's novels is much more interesting than the cartoon character Bond that has evolved on the screen. Perhaps, like the mortal-sized Bond of "Casino Royale", the new Bond movie is a little closer to the real world.

Mr. Barra's point is that the books are well worth reading, and with that point I agree.

Here is the review previously mentioned:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/books/review/Schillinger.t.html?ref=books

Hope all can access this without a subsription.

I see there are Hillary Clinton supporters, some from New York who think she is terrific. Good for you. But I shall not be supporting her.

I will be supporting genuine progressives like Dennis Kucinich or (somewhat marginally) John Edwards. Clinton's continuing support of the invasion of Iraq is just not acceptable. She is too much of a 'triangulator'. The time is ripe for genuine progressive action in this country, such as Kucinich's call to extend Medicare to everyone.

Hillary Clinton - go away. Go play in the sand with your good buddy Joe Lieberman.

I am adding my vote to those who say Cary's advice was correct.

I speak as a person whose first wife was a liar and a cheater. Fortunately, there were no kids (that is, additional victims) involved and that made it easier.

It is tough and heartbreaking no matter what, but once the clean break is made the healing process can begin.

I have been very happily married to an adult for the past twenty-one years. It is possible to hook up with someone who has grown up and is willing to make a real commitment to sharing a life.

Lying drama queens, regardless of gender, are just not worth the pain.

Even as I type, Glenn is on Colmes smashing Gaffney, who seems to be more or less clueless. Stop the fight!

Glenn points out something that I am going to make even more explicit. Some of the comments have mentioned this but I don't think it can be emphasized enough.

There is no question that Gaffney, via the bogus Lincoln quote, advocated the execution of people who committed treason, 'treason' being defined essentially as expressing disagreement with the Dear Leader's support of the continuing occupation of Iraq.

But in the debate, Gaffney constantly denied that he said what he had said. Paraphrasing - 'No one is saying anyone should be hanged' while Colmes kept pointing out 'You are'.

And he is. He is advocating death for people who voice political disagreement. This is not just vile or fascistic. This is actually a page out of Nazi-land, e.g. see Richard J. Evans' book "The Rise of the Third Reich."

The Nazis, consolidating their control of Germany during the late spring/early summer of 1933, engaged in wholesale torture and murder. Gaffney seems to only be advocating murder, not torture, and only of elected officials, not all Democrats.

But give him time, give him time.

Kudos to Glenn, and Colmes (a different man in a different format on his own radio show) for stripping off Gaffney's little mask.

Every year that goes by renders pundits like Broder increasingly irrelevant. In a small way, that is sad. Broder really does have a background as a working reporter who does a workmanlike job of sorting things out.

But his background and personality make him incapable of understanding just how radical Bush and his cronies are. It can't happen here! I think the comment by Krugman, quoting Kissinger, to the effect that revolutionaries are often so far from the prevailing norm that most people cannot believe what is happening applies to Broder. Kissinger's example was Napolean.

Our example is the modern Republican party. Broder thinks it is politics as usual, and that it is important for "the president" to "succeed."

This president has already failed and is now a dangerous wounded animal. All that is left is resistance. Broder's yards and yards of breathless pro-Bush commentary sails right over Broder's own head. Broder cannot see what he has done and will, forever, shake his head in wonder at how his world is slipping away.