Why do Edmund White and Gore Vidal represent gay America any more than a gay plumber or nurse? To listen to one literary queen justify his attacks on another is not very edifying, and it certainly is not representative of contemporary gay American culture. I felt like I was reading a few lines from "The Boys in the Band," for a moment.

Get over it... and get over this sort of tacky repartee--it's so "yesterday." I speak as a gay, male contemporary of Mr. White, so I'm not age or gay bashing, just offering a questioning note as to why this sort of material is worth mine, Salon's or any other person's time!

America, I hope, is "moving on" in it's attitude toward gay-issues. Too bad Mr. White (and, it would seem) Mr. Vidal have not!

As silly as this stuff is, there are going to be a bunch of right-wing loonies who will think these satirical re-dos are the real thing and only enforce them.

These people already believe anything negative about President Obama, so don't give them anything else they can misconstrue.

This is getting way out of hand and only harming the nation when all is said and done.

Like Limbaugh and Beck, this guy is "just an entertainer." The problem is his brand of "entertainment" appears to make such immature and destructive behavior okay for others.

Excusing irresponsible commentary and disgusting behavior in the name of "entertainment" is degrading to society as a whole. Come on folks! Whether you're on the "right" or the "left", Rush, Howie, Whoopie or Tucker are all contributing to a national ugliness, which, if left unchecked (in the name of "entertainment value") is going to lead to furthering a "crude, rude and intolerant" nation.

It has nothing to do with "free speech," by the way. They all have the right to spew their flavor of caca, but he have the right to "just say no" to this kind of "entertainment," and when the ratings fall, so will their brand of crap.

Isn't it interesting, how some people often put things down to the "lowest" common denominator? When people hear about "an affair," (anybody's affair), they immediately think of sex. When the topic of gay people comes up, it's what they "do" in bed (or elsewhere). "Same-sex marriage?" Got to be based on sex!

Funny, how it's often the most tight-laced, conservatives, who would never think of having sex outside of the bounds laid out by God, who spend most of the time thinking about other people's sex lives and the tons of sex those other people must all be having. Hmmmm!

Like a previous poster, I also watched last night's election coverage from BBCWorld as well as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They both offered extensive and diverse coverage. I was so embarrassed by former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, a guest commentator on the BBC. (This was a simulcast between BBCWorld and the domestic BBC1 television.) So, the whole world, along with our "special relations" in Britain saw this arrogant, nasty, petulant man criticize his hosts, their correspondents, as well as the British and Europeans.

When a distinguished British historian, Simon Sharma, tried to put the events in perspective, Bolton would cut him off with a snide or dismissive remark.

We may have the chance to wipe the slate clean with our international allies, now that we have president-elect Obama, but old detritus from the Bush Administration like Ambassador Bolton sure don't help.

Of course one has to assume that the BBC knew something of what it was getting when it invited the ass to join the mix, but before the programming was over, you could see more than a few raised eyebrows around the set.

That's all the Republicans have to offer! For Romney to refer to the Russians as "Soviets," is ignorant, if not down right dishonest. The right-wing has an agenda, built on Cold War assumptions. There are two sides to the Russia/Georgia conflict, but most Americans hear only the "officially sanctioned," White House version.

Haven't we had enough of a dishonest, fear-mongering, narrow-minded Administration. Romney and McCain only want to continue in the Bush-Chaney model.

We all need to work even harder to make sure this does not happen, because these men and the powers behind them, are ready to pull of another 2000 Presidential election and further erode the rights and living standards of poor and middle-class Americans in favor of the rich and the corporations.

By the response to this article, this is a topic whose time has come. Many of us have questions, but while it's now OK to ask about sex, we still can't bring ourselves to ask these questions. Thank you Salon for running this story. Why do some people see natural bodily functions as "dirty?"

Let's have more, responsible and educated discussion on topics that have been for too long "flushed down the drain, without so much as a glance."

Huckabee may be a Baptist preacher, but not all preachers and not all Baptists are "bad." He's also experienced, well Arkansas, and that's all Bill Clinton had. He also appears to be honest, fair and sincere, which as a heck of a lot better than any of his opponents, with the exception of McCain, who has been too cozy with Geoge Bush.

No one can be "all things to all people" and if they portray themselves as such, they are either without any principals or are not being honest. I'd rather have a man I know to be honest and basically good, but with some points I disagree with than a sleek and glib opportunistic talking face, who tries to make everybody happy... and that goes for Democrats, as well.