Lovely to see that the country has awoken -- one year late, albeit -- and realized how bad our president is. But that still leaves the Democrats in the same position they have long been in: they win issues and lose campaigns. Unless a united, confident and tough Democratic party can forge a message that speaks to voters and can withstand the constant smearing of the Republicans, a nice blue map will continue to get us an ugly red government.

One of the things that seems to be missed in this debate is that the political climate in this country has changed, at least for now. Thanks to Karl Rove's "divide and conquer" strategy, the bases on the left and the right are what matter. In 2004, Kerry went for the middle and Bush went for the right, and Bush prevailed. Democrats have been very slow to learn this lesson, in many ways, I think, because to truly accept this as the new political reality in the United States is to accept that bipartisanship is, even in theory, a dead issue.

As it pertains to the Alito nomination, there are millions of disaffected Democrats and other people in this country who want someone to fight. Al Gore didn't fight hard enough in Florida; the Congressional leadership rolled over in 2002; Kerry couldn't or wouldn't take his gloves off and come out swinging in 2004; and it is quite obvious that the Democrats have no intention of fighting in 2006. What this country needs is a leader -- anyone, please -- who understands the disaffection in the country and is willing to stand up to Bush. If Democrats cannot find the stomach to stand for something now, when Bush is so embroiled in scandals and failures, they will be forever relegated to the status of the Tories in Great Britain: an ineffective opposition party that looks and sounds like a bad imitation of the ruling party and can or won't do anything to change its status. It's time to stand up, be counted and filibuster Alito. A vigorous opposition is the only thing that can bring about a Democratic victory in November.

What strikes me as the funniest/saddest part of this whole melodramatic soap opera is the stern, authoritative declarations from Mary Matlin and other Republican apologists that Cheney "didn't do anything wrong." What, other than shoot a guy? I mean, this is so absurd, I can't believe the press is even reporting it. I admit that I am not a hunter, but I do understand that there are rules that go along with handling dangerous weapons, and the first of those is clearly do no harm to other humans. Clearly, he didn't do it on purpose, but -- and for once even the mainstream media is picking this one up -- the coverup is the story. On a day when the accountability of the White House (or, more precisely, the lack thereof) was front-page news thanks to reports about the bungling of Katrina, it just goes to show once again how no one working at 1600 Penn. is ever at fault for anything. As the NRA slogan goes, guns don't kill people, people do. Doesn't sound so good now, does it, Dick?

I don't want to sound like the cynic that this world is turning me into, but why is everyone always so scared of new threats that aren't even remotely as bad as the old ones we've become accostomed to? Take West Nile Virus, for example: unknown until a few years ago, the fight against this not-very-deadly disease has cost over $20 billion in the US alone. The flu, on the other hand, kills hundreds of thousands of people every year in the world, but until very recently did not engender anything like the mass hysteria of a new disease. It's the same with airline security: everyone, deep down, knows that the chances of another terrorist attack in the United States are incredibly high, and, that with Al-Qaeda's love of airplanes, there is a higher probablility of airplanes being targeted than, say, bowling alleys. There. I've said it. If you fly, there is a small chance that your plane will blow up. Does this make me happy? Of course not. But what does it say about our society that the all-encompassing fear of a manner of death that will, even under the most horrible of circumstances, only affect a tiny proportion of people -- that is, death through any sort of airplane disaster, terrorist or otherwise -- now causes constant news bulletins on whether solid lipstick is safe to take on planes, while liquid lipstick isn't? Doesn't this seem totally crazy to anyone else? Aren't our priorities completely out of whack? Isn't a life slightly threatened by terrorism but free from constant fear for one's personal safety worth more than a world only a tiny bit safer and far more fearful? Please, someone explain to me how we got to a point where parents have to try baby formula before taking their kid to see grandma in Des Moines.

I hope you have a daughter so that she can grow up to be as shallow and self-absorbed as her mother. Get over yourself.

The one thing that no one seems eager to talk about is simply how Bud Selig can possibly keep his job after this report. Under his watch, steroid use became so widespread as to be commonplace, and he did nothing about it. He presided over illegal actions that were so obvious that everyone in baseball and anyone who paid any attention to the sport knew what was going on. Yet press coverage leaves him alone and castigates Fehr (who deserves castigating) and the players themselves. Is it possible that Selig is seen as so ineffectual that no one even bothers to lay this at his door? He needs to go.