In saying that he couldn't delve into the workings of Bush's mind and couldn't psychoanalyze him, Baker actually did answer the rather straightforward and uncomplicated question. Nobody asked Baker to delve or analyze, he was simply asked whether he thought Bush could change course. His answer is obviously no, and his explanation couldn't be clearer: he believes that Bush needs therapy, badly, or he wouldn't have brought it up. Talk about your Freudian slip, corset and garters. . . .

Tim, you left out Bush's shocked silence at the question and then his nervous Beavis and Butthead chuckle afterwards. Both of which were totally inappropriate, and more mortifying proof that this man is not up to the job his family bought for him.

Words, words, words. Nothing he says about moderation can be taken seriously, because what he really means his submission to his rightwing agenda. But what's delicious is to see him sitting next to Bush this morning at the White House, his face looking curdled and lifeless. He's dished himself completely, and at some level he must know it. The dustbin of history waits for him.

Well, to split hairs, apocalypse is also a vision of violence, and the movie qualifies. Why add -ypto? Rhymes with crypto, so he's pointing us to hidden meanings, hidden truths--in his view. But as George Bernard Shaw said in another context, "I don't see why I should have to look."

Say goodbye? I never said hello. I've never paid real attention to her and her cadre of do-nothings and know-nothings. They have crossed my field of vision as mentioned in passing in magazine articles or columns, and I've seen them on People Magazine covers where I get my hair cut, and of course somebody somewhere will mention them on CNN or some channel--but I have happily lived my life without learning anything in depth about the lot of them. Life is too short. I read the lede of this article with surprise--why is salon.com wasting our time? Read about Paris Hilton? I'd rather re-read Middlemarch.

Obama is a fine speaker and gave a great, inspiring speech. However, there's nothing magic about him, or even especially charismatic. He's nice, he's good-looking, he's young. That's about all we know.

What's happeneing is mass projection: Democrats are hungry for someone to lead them out of the wilderness. Some thought Dean could do it by speaking the truth about Iraq; others though Kerry could be The One because he had a supposedly unassailable military record. We're dreading the revival of Clinton-bashing should Hillary run, and so Obama seems like the "some brave Apollo" David Bowie sings about on Diamond Dogs. It's not magic, it's desperation, and will end as hopelessly as that album does.

This observation is somewhat off:

<<Male circumcision typically does not destroy sexual function -- it isn't designed to stamp out a man's sexual pleasure or identity.>>

It may not destroy sexual function but it absolutely does decrease the sensitivity of the penis, since the foreskin was "designed" to cover and protect the glans. The exposed head becomes de-sensitized, how could it not? Ask men who were circumcised as adults. And in the 19th century, circumcision was a treatment for masturbation, meant to decrease interest by decreasing sensitivity.

Yes, Idlewild was deeply original from the standpoint of its hybrid music and dance and the way it was filmed, but it disappeared for far too many reasons. The story is thin, boring, and cliched. The fabulous dance numbers (I watched "Bowtie" three times when it was on DVD) are cut so badly you never get to appreciate them in all their richness. Macy Gray is wasted because she never lets loose the way she can and her first number is not just badly edited, it's hard to hear. Andre 3000's energy and zest are kept tamped way down until the closing credits. Why cast him as a suppressed son of a dominant father in the first place? The movie feels like a tease all the way through, offering much more than it ultimately gives you.

Joe, why would you assume the President has any interest in change, refreshing or otherwise? Surely he's the most stubborn President we've had in decades, and he clearly relishes partisan rancor or he would have been a true "uniter" from the beginning. Nominating Lieberman is too easy. He'll pick someone almost as contentious as Bolton if he can find such a candidate.

Delphine is right. Hillary Clinton is not inspiring. Though friends who have heard Hillary speak at banquets, etc. tell me she's amazing and personable, that never comes across in her public speeches. She seems cold, flat, careful, and there's too litttle expression in her face and voice. She often seems robotic, a technocrat. So while she may inspire people for nothing more than being a woman, or for giving the country a chance to strike back at all the Clinton-haters, that's not enough. Even with all the baggage of the Clinton years, if she could give a speech as rousing as Obama or Edwards or Mario Cuomo, or show as much feeling as her husband, she'd have a chance. She can't, and she doesn't. As the coach said in "Chariots of Fire": "You can't put in what God left out."

GK, before you move to Canada, try brushing up on your French.

"The proposal sounds nice."

Alex, how do you define nice? The proposal sounds foolish, unrealistic, and utterly groundless to me. The White House says we need more troops to fight "an ideological war," but since when do troops on the ground win that kind of war?

We have long since entered the realm of "Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today."

I'd like to see him get more specific:

--If she wins 3 of the first 5 primaries, he'll take a vow of silence.

--If she gets the nomination, he'll submit himself to psychiatric care.

--If she wins the popular and electoral vote, he'll exile himself to Albania and fly coach.

Leaving the country isn't enough, Dick. We want details and steps along the way.