Wow, Cary, this is really interesting. I have been thinking a lot about why we get such amazing letters so often, and then such hateful ones occasionally, especially on personal advice/family/male/female issues. I hope we can all keep talking about it.

The only thing I wanted to clear up is that somebody -- who didn't want to sign his/her name, I'm not sure why -- said the editor's best friend works here. I have a lot of friends at Salon, but my best friend works someplace completely different. It's a wacky idea -- we enjoy one another in all different settings, and sometimes talk about things other than Salon! It really works. Don't know where that other notion got out there.

Also, Blackpaw, Cary didn't categorize anyone who criticized the column or the LWs as a hate-filled flake. And I would also note that the letter came from someone other than Cary. The vitriol of a limited, vocal minority of letter writers is well-known, and widely discussed. The wisdom and compassion of the majority is what I usually notice. While shaking my head at the sad cranks.

I thank people for grappling with the issue raised in this thread.

I love Al Gore. I loved the slide show that became "An Inconvenient Truth." But I noticed many of the interesting Gore mannerisms that Andrew did -- and like Andrew, I found they made him more trustworthy and authentic, not less. (John Heileman's great cover story in New York this week raises similar questions, and Gore answers them by acknowledging he's not a born politician, which makes him seem more real and admirable). Raising these questions about Gore as a man, a candidate, a filmmaker and a wonk is not a way to marginalize him, it's a way of understanding his potential limits -- as well as the appeal his awkward authenticity can give him.

I think there are reasonable questions about whether this terrific movie -- and Andrew did give it a great review -- can change minds on this issue and change politics (I'm optimistic, maybe Andrew's less so, but...it's certainly debatable.) So...I read this piece before it went up, liked it a lot, and never anticipated the reaction, given how overall positive it is. We can argue all day about the Fairfax v. Ritz Carlton v. apartment building period of Gore's life. He spent a lot of time in DC, either way, while also working on a farm in Tennessee. We can argue about his accent, which, whatever its origin, is known to dramatically change from setting to setting -- whether he's in a black church, where I've seen him speak, or at Google, where I also saw him speak. I've never thought that was a sign of inauthenticity -- mine changes when I'm with my Long Island relatives. But it is a fact.

Another fact is that no one at Salon is out to get Al Gore, certainly not Andrew O'Hehir, and the level of paranoia in this letters thread is a little disturbing. For the record, we aren't Fox News, and we aren't committed to only bright and shiny coverage of our bright and shiny Democrats. But this wasn't even a critical piece, overall. Please save your firepower for a case where there's a clear transgression. Andrew O'Hehir is one of our best critics and fairest writers and he deserves better.

Sigh. Thanks for thanking me for...editing Joe, and then adding a mistake to his column. Our shingle outside Salon says: "Sure, we make mistakes, but we correct them as quickly as humanly possible! Thanks for reading!"

I edited Joe's column as the plagiarism mess was breaking, I added the links...and I screwed up. I have no memory of a movie called "The Bachelor" and while I linked to Mary Beth's piece, I assumed it was the legendary and mostly unwatchable reality television show. My apologies to Joe and Mary Beth, and to our readers.

In my last post I conflated Danish cartoons with our photos, which of course are not cartoons, after a month spent fighting that particular line of reasoning. Sorry about that, it's been a very very long month.