Whoa, Glenn! You're listening to the Mike Gallagher show? I know this is all about love of country and trying to restore the Constitution and all, but there must be limits. BTW, when Allen appeared on MSNBC when news of Scotty's book first broke he stated quite simply that the book validated the view of the administrations blogger critics. Knowing Allen's reputation, I thought it was a remarkably fair assessment. And there was none of the "left-wing hater"s spin. Obviously when he got to Gallagher's show he was just playing to the rubes. They all do, you know. So why bother listening to that crap? Stay focused on Russert, Williams, Gibson et al. That's where your heroic work is really needed.

"Well, something was crumbling: the divide between his two selves." Watching Scotty with KO last night was like watching a totally different person...a person finally free from his evil twin.

Things can't be this bad outside the blogosphere. I mean they just can't. For the good of the country...for the good of man & womankind they really, really cannot be this bad.

Plenty of others have done an admirable job of tearing into the "substance" of Lind's argument, so I'll simply say that Michael Lind is the kind of deep thinker who gives intellectualism a bad name.

A little dap for the inventor of the technology that allows you to fast forward over life's bad moments. Call me a front runner, but in a darker age I definitely would have changed the channel after the first half.

I say this as a firm Obama supporter. If Keith Obermann is as much in the tank for Barack as we all believe, he will soon direct one of his special comments at his totally unhinged treatment of Hillary. That will have more to do with binding the wounds than putting some Hillary-lite candidate on the ticket.

Before the ballots are counted in November, we can already rule Olbermann and Bill Clinton as two who lost their way during campaign 2008. The downward trajectory of Olbermann's reputation underscores the serious problem with advocacy journalism. As we should condemn the Democratic Party when it mimics the Republican, we should also condemn any news organization that mimics FOX by swilling agenda-driven news.

And a big fat JEER for Mr. New Politics. There is only one response a (ho-ho) change candidate should have made in this scenario, and that is this: "Wes Clark is an adult American who actually fought for his right to free speech, so he's entitled to say anything he wants and as the Democractic nominee for President I will defend to the death that right even if I disagree with it."

Stop throwing people under the bus, Barack! It's getting damned unseemly.

Obama totally undercut his lovely speech on patriotism with his media-induced aside condemning Clark. It's that kind of craven behavior that drains the meaning out of words about the glory of American ideals. The question now occupying this long-time Obama supporter's mind is this: are Obama's last two weeks a sign of cowardice or cynicism?

One of the greatest on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand pieces ever written.

Maybe you've expounded on this in the past and I missed it. If not, would you mind telling your readers what's so dumb about having the All-Star game decide home field for the World Series. I really don't get how injecting some competitive consequences into a competition is so dumb.

After being a virtual voice in the wilderness here today on the not-so-dumbness of having the All-Star Game settle home field for the World Series, imagine my shock in tuning in PTI and finding an ally in baseball-hatin' Michael Wilbon, a relentless kurd in the way of the eternal civil war between the New York Sunnis and the Boston Shia. How is it that Wilbon was able to see how psyched the players were at the end of the game (even the ones long out of the line-up) while all the Kingster could see was player unhappiness with Bud's budding little brainchild? Was Wilbon's TV closer to the action than King's? The only players not in Milton Bradley Anger Management who could possibly have a beef with this system would be those on the ONE team that might possibly get aced out of home field. The rest of the players could care less (and if KK is going to argue otherwise I hope he's going to offer more evidence than some locker room popping off). Given the historical perspective of most major league players, by the time Evan Longoria plays in his second mid-summer classic, most of them probably aren't even going to remember home field ever was determined any other way.

It's clear that the overriding issue here is the legitimacy of the letter. Those defending the legitimacy are missing the point of the skeptics. It's not that getting caught masturbating in a small conservative town can't happen, but did it happen as described in this letter? As a professional editor and writer, I seriously doubt it for all the astute observations made by other skeptics. What really bothers me about this though is that I'm a big fan of Cary's advice and I really enjoy the comments this column generates. But if this starts feeling like letters to Penthouse, it's going to stop working for all but the most gullible. That puts Cary in a (what's the word?) pickle. If this column starts being driven by phony letters, it then becomes nothing more than Penthouse without the juicy sex. What to do? Tennis, the ball's in your court.

Did anyone catch the ESPN West Coast drive-in show this morning when The Cowherd said that Ortiz and Manny were the best 3-4 combo since Gerhig and Mantle? Seriously. And when someone in the studio corrected him by saying it was Ruth and Gehrig, he dismissed it by saying Ruth finished playing in 1927 and Gehrig and Mantle played in the 50s and 60s. The Worldwide Leader, folks!