I read your blog regularly.

Today, I was reading your article and, by coincidence, had just received my annual resubscription notice from Time, Inc. I sent it back with a "post-it" note attached saying "DO NOT RENEW. Due to dispute between Time, Inc., Glenn Greenwald, and Joe Klein," and signed it.

Keep up the good work, BTW.

I usually fully agree with Joan Walsh, but I always have the feeling that she places too much trust in the good will and good "faith" of conservatives and the religiously preoccupied. Her suggestion that those of that ilk might recoil - even a little - from Romney's calculated pander is wishful thinking, to put it mildly.

This paean to christists is the theological counterpart to the shameless beating of war drums by all the Republican candidates. The response from 9udi gu11iani, Huckabee (of course), and Fred Thompson will be one-upmanship at it's most revolting, proclaiming that each of them loves Jebus more than the others, along with challenges to the Democrats to match their lunacy.

By the way, Dawkins and Hitchens have nothing to apologize for.

Juxtapose Hillary's real comments about Iraq with McCains and see which side the American people are on: Hillary says it's time for the Iraquis to stand up for themselves, and McCain says he is prepared to commit America to staying there for another 100 years.

If it is made clear that those are the choices, and McCain is elected, I'm leaving.

George, you're not exactly in high demand to lead any parades yourself. Not even by members of your own party.

This point has probably already been posted, but I'll add mine to it: Anyone who goes into a strip club is hardly in position to throw stones at the performers he (or she) might see in the club. Likely, even less.

The predictable crapola the McCain campaign sent out as damage control following this very plausible, although as yet not fully developed story (but, mark my words, they have more than they put in this article and it'll be coming out), is rife with the usual lies and distortions, some of which are mentioned above.

Not commented on was their reference to Bob Bennett as representing Democrats during the Keating Five Scandal. Well, that may be true, but Bob Bennett also found work during the 1990's. Maybe some remember: he was Bill Clinton's attorney through the Paula Jones-to-Monica Lewinsky marathon sleaze parade, brought to you by the Republicans. Now, why didn't they mention that? Wouldn't have anything to do with the similarity of the allegations, and the Republican article of faith that it was an impeachable offence for Clinton, would it?

Joan:

I almost always agree with your analysis of current events, but you are fighting a futile and indefensible battle when you try to justify or rationalize Clinton's tone-deaf remark about RFK's assassination.

At the outset of the primaries, I was not an Obama supporter, and, while I was not a Clinton backer either, I was not against her. While I have always considered her a highly intelligent person, I questioned her political instincts and skills. This episode pretty much sums up what an inept campaigner she really is. If she still doesn't quite understand what was so offensive about her reference to Kennedy, then it cannot be that she just made a slip of the tongue, attributable to exhaustion, or whatever.

She is unfit to be the Democratic Party nominee, and I am disappointed that you can't see that; instead you sign on to the "sexist" BS that is now the Clinton excuse for all that has gone wrong. Believe me, I, for one, am not against her because she's a woman. I'm against her because she's a terrible politician and could lose the race against McCain because of it.

I had to smile when I read the juvenile taunt that Scalia apparently considers "jurisprudential" to the effect that the country would regret the day the Habeas decision was issued. It would have been so much more appropriate - and the passage of time has proven it to be irrefutably true - if it had been written in the Gore v. Bush opinion.

Within 24 hours the remarks Wes Clark didn't even make will have been uttered directly by Barack Obama, according to the "unbiased" MSM.

You can bet on it.

Now, why would the presumptive Republican nominee be so defensive about an equation of him with the current Republican President?

The irony of it all is exactly captured by the message on the sign and it's proof: No dissent allowed by Bush; no dissent allowed by McCain.

I have been practicing law for over 30 years, and following state, local and federal politics for over 40 years. It is absolutely incredible to believe that a member of the Governor's family, not to mention the Governor, who has a legitimate beef about an individual would not get action taken. It wouldn't take more than a single complaint to the appropriate agency, and the threatening individual would be dealt with but (I hate to be an all-caps poster here) ONLY IF THE ACCUSATIONS WERE FOUND TO BE TRUE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

The fact that the desired action was not taken tells you all you need to know: The Palins are a couple of low-life dimwits who have absolutely no clue about how government - and law enforcement - is supposed to work. They have some notion that it's all there for their personal benefit, and settling scores in their dysfunctional family is just another day at the office.

If this is the top of the political system in Alaska, please grant Todd Palin's secessionist party it's demand to be let go.