I've already contributed and will again, but I have to say the targets you've chosen today are not in the class of serious problems I think need attacking. Those would be your long list of criminal and constitutional violations that this administration has been committing since it took office, and the Congress that has made all that possible.

I've written about the Iran resolution and the anthrax investigation, but as serious as those are, they cannot compare in impact to the attack on the Constitution, which is all we have standing between us and tyranny. Bush, the Republicans and their Democratic fellow-travelers (how odd to apply that name to the Democratic Party - not since McCarthy, I guess, only this time it's accurate) - have given us a pretty good idea of what that tyranny would look like, and are continuing to enlarge that view.

That is what the Money Bomb should be spent on. As it is, you cannot possibly raise enough money to defeat every Democrat who needs to be kicked out of Congress for enabling the subversion of the Constitution. That is the crucial issue; the Iran resolution and the anthrax investigation are more transitory even based as they are on the government's previous attacks on our democratic republic. I urge you to re-focus on the bigger picture and spend every penny you raise to go after lawmakers who have instead enabled lawbreakers.

That said, your unflagging work on this should get you some kind of major prize or something, like a MacArthur genius grant. I am in total admiration of your persistence, intelligence and drive. You are accomplishing great good.

I've got broadband and it loaded very slowly for me, too (2 minutes is a lot longer than it used to be!), but it did eventually load while I read something else. I did get a confirming email immediately, but it went to Junk, so check there for it.

Abramowitz's attitude and answers in particular. Notice how he elided the big question -the WMD - and focused on the easier ones, saying you can't always get the whole story the first time around. Duh. Or the second either, Abramowitz? And how about the years and years your paper beat the drums on the WMD, and even when it finally conceded there were none (you have conceded that, right?), you kept the war drums going full volume despite the most urgent rationale for the war having been proven to be a lie of the worst kind.

Why not get a job as a government shill, Abramowitz? Then you don't even have to get the story right ever!

You and your kind are truly dishonest, delusional and severely dangerous to democracy.

And I'd really like to know what the journalism schools are teaching these nitwits. You'd think these faux journalists are getting their degrees online from schools whose pop-up ads they clicked on. I'd like to see a full investigation of the state of journalism schools.

I too get sick of the '60s being blamed for everything and no credit given to those years when people in the streets and schools started a movement that has led to:

* an enormous expansion of human and civil rights,

* increasing gender and racial equality,

* a heightened awareness of how government can lie to its true authority (the citizens) and how politicians can subvert the Constitution,

* a burgeoning and vital focus on the environment and how it affects both personal and planetary health and well-being, and

* a cultural explosion that not only vastly broadened the scope of music and the arts but even gave people today the right to wear their hair the way they want.

And far too many of these people today - Barack Obama among them, with his manipulative put-down of '60s politics - are utterly, appallingly ignorant about how much of their freedom to live their lives as they see fit is owed to the civil rights activists, feminists and cultural rebels of the '60s. Every era has its good and bad sides, and so it was with the '60s - the over-emphasis on ideological correctness, for example.

But while the '60s will be remembered as a time of intense personal participation in the most basic duties of citizenship, this era could go down in history as a time when citizens retreated to the safety of cable television, celebrity worship, materialism and consumerism, and unthinking acceptance of such democratically damaging concepts as "post-partisan politics" - which only leads to things like the kind of "journalism" you find in The New Republic.

Hey people! Here's a no-brainer for ya: You can't have compromise unless you first have partisanship.