That's the upshot, isn't it? You have to be at his place for him, but you can't be at his place without him.

The next time he comes home, be at your own apartment. Let him call you to see what's going on. Tell him that if he ever wants to see you again, it will be at your apartment, and he will be giving you a key to his place.

I doubt he'll do it. Frankly, though, there is just about zero chance that he's a keeper, so this is fine. Let him lose you through his own arrogance and move on with your own life.

Friendship serves important purposes. But those purposes (companionship, support, etc) are almost entirely local. Why do you think it's so easy to let friendships wither away, anyway? They aren't nearly as important anymore once they're long-distance.

The quiet pruning of stagnant friendships is not just prudent, it's essential. No way do you still have time for college friends who live in faraway cities--perhaps you make time for the best friend who was like your right arm for four years, but the bulk of them? Read their Livejournals and be done with it. They distract you from building the network you actually live within.

Unless you live in the small town where you grew up and no one ever leaves, you will have to find room for new people on a regular basis all your life. You can't accommodate everyone and still treat them all well.

That's not necessarily to say that you shouldn't attend the wedding; these are rare events and usually end up being worth the trouble. But the reasoning is flawed. Going will not make the friendship stronger--it will be a one-shot reminder of a dormant friendship that's served its purpose.

I am sure Maddox will be labeled an Uncle Tom by some who will say he is selling out Barack. On the contrary, Obama is selling out the country.

Because now, with so much at stake for the country, he refuses to acknowledge that black people will always be second-class citizens and he should make way for a white person he's beaten?

That's so damn creepy I don't even know how to respond. I'll go with "cynically" and point out that there's no more evidence that the nation is ready to elect a white woman than a black man, so where's the contempt for Hillary?

I'm sure that made all 20 Democratic voters in Idaho very, very happy.

In terms of relative delegates earned, an overwhelming win in a small and conservative state is equivalent to a smaller majority in a larger swing state. It's an equally valid reflection of the will of the people.

And if it's not, well hey! the Clintons had plenty of opportunity to contest it while they were winning by the same rules a few cycles ago.

I was entirely for Clinton before Iowa, but I'm getting pissed off. Above all, the party needs a winner and loser, both gracious in their roles, and Clinton keeps whipping up morons like you into believing she's still in the game even after she's beyond the point of catching up.

I hate both of the Clintons now: they've poisoned all of my happy college-aged memories of believing that the country might be in the hands of people who had its best interests at heart. They don't give a shit about anybody except themselves--not even each other.

So the news media is biased if it takes more interest in a juicy tell-all than in a flattering memoir? Get real.

The silly part about this story is that it's not really about McClellan, Fleischer or any of them. It's about conservatives and your cultlike insistence that if you don't admit the truth, everyone else will eventually forget what the truth really is. Every time something happens that disturbs this view, you can't bear to actually reconcile it with your version of reality, so instead you find a way to dismiss it.

McClellan knows your president is a dipshit and is finally willing to say so, and the only way you can feel better about that is to pretend that the real story is how disgracefully Fleischer was ignored. Keep at it, guys. Most of the country is not, in fact, brainwashed the way you are, and will be voting accordingly.

Look at her "more letters" link. Nineteen pages entirely composed of rants against Obama. In the last month.

The poor woman is mentally ill. Don't respond to her; she's beyond rationality and is only encouraged by people trying to engage with her.

...Obama is winning. He can win with you or without you.

Hint: if he wins without you, you've just fucked your own interests over, because he clearly doesn't need to pander to you.

I think he'll win with you--with just about all of you, frankly. I don't give your whines and rants one single iota of credibility.

That said, Walter, are people seriously worried about this anymore? The polls show that the primary divisions are minimal at best, and people are beginning to heal--did you find this essay at the bottom of your desk drawer and decide to submit it even though it's a few months old?

But for the wrong audience. Salon is largely read by nasty, unhappy people who take pleasure in little in life except hating things. I know; I'm one of them.