My father has an excellent theory on this hiring choice which makes it seem actually quite clever. Since the Times has a reputation of being a liberal newspaper, they felt they had to take go the extra step to prove their commitment to showing both sides of the political spectrum. But by hiring Kristol as their right-wing representative, the upshot really will be to make conservatives look like idiots.

Anyway that's the only way I can make sense of such a staggeringly bad idea.

For girls as tall as I remember Jessica and Elizabeth were supposed to be (from my foggy memory, correct me if I'm wrong), anywhere from a size 4 to a size 8 in today's terms is healthy, comfortable, and slender. The issue isn't size inflation - so what if a size 6 then is now closer to a size 8? Today's 6 is still relatively small; average women are closer to a size 10 or 12! The issue is the suggestion that there is such thing as a "perfect" size. What a horrible thing to suggest to teenage girls, who already have enough problems, to be told that their bodies are only "perfect" if they are a size 4!

I have to agree with nousername that these kinds of surveys are a little too black-and-white. I'm single and 30 and would like very much to get married. I'm occasionally very sad that I am not in a relationship.

But in general, I am pretty satisfied with the rest of my life. I don't lie around my house all day feeling sorry for myself. I enjoy my job. I have wonderful friends and an active social life. I don't have a fortune but I get by comfortably enough. Life is good.

So if someone asked me, "Are you single and happy?" I'm not sure what I'd answer. I'm not happy about being single, but I am happy. The one is not based exclusively on the other.

Take a college history class and you'll learn all of this. I'm sure the book is excellent and I'm not panning it, but to say that you'd be "hard-pressed" to find Americans who are aware of this history is a wild exaggeration. This isn't the first pop non-fiction book to address these stories either. Might I recommend Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"? Next time you should probably do your homework before telling us that "everything we know" is wrong - since I suspect quite a few Americans are already in the know.

It continues to bother me how much people dismiss Clinton's lead in the popular vote (if it be true, debatable). I seem to recall Democrats (including myself) screaming foul in 2000 when Bush won the election despite Gore's lead in popular votes. So let's not be hypocrites here. Obama should and will win, but dismissing Clinton's claims as "ephemeral" is ridiculous.

And while MI and FL did break party rules, I have family in FL who are FURIOUS that their votes aren't being counted because people who had nothing to do with them made a bad call.

I started out as a Clinton supporter because I have some reservations about Obama (starting with his health care plan). And it sickens me that people who don't support him are automatically tagged as bigots. Why aren't all the people who hate Clinton - some going so far as to call her a "bitch" on television and then defending it! - tagged as sexists? Why the constant double standard?

It also saddens me the viciousness that shows up so frequently on the forums here - the bickering in which I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG keeps appearing over and over from the C v. O camps. We're liberals, aren't we supposed to be open-minded? Isn't that what distinguishes us from conservatives? If all this hate continues, I am afraid for our chances in the fall.

I will gladly vote for Obama in the fall; I felt and still feel that Clinton would be a better president, but I also believe he can do good for this country, and I have high hopes for his presidency.

I don't have much to add here but the one thing that I did want to comment on was your decision to let men believe it's your Catholicism that holds you back. I can certainly understand that telling the truth would be a bit shocking for any guy. But hopefully you're not looking to do this in a one-night stand (at least for the first time!), but with someone you care about and who cares about you. A man worth keeping around would respect your inhibitions and help you and support you while you work through them. It seems to me that all the therapy in the world, however useful it is, can't get you through that one moment if you're not with someone you trust.

Schaller suggests that Clinton should leak that she wants to be veep, then stick with him and convince her supporters to do the same when he passes her over. I have to say, given the anger of Clinton supporters already, I can't think of a worse way to lose them once and for all. I hope that her supporters will make their peace with the Democrats rather than defecting to McCain or staying home. But deliberately putting Obama in a position where he is forced to rebuff Clinton would make that virtually impossible. What a terrible idea! I'm not saying he should pick her, but for her to deliberately indicate that she wants the job forces his hand quite a bit. I like the idea of a joint ticket, but if he's not going to pick her I wish she would take herself out of the running. It would make things a lot easier, and be the truly supportive thing to do.