So in my book that makes him pretty good. He is the best right wing extremist available, having been civilized by Harvard.

I must not be going anywhere or I live in a place that doesn't participate in cultural trends. Obnoxious people who presume for any variety of reasons bother me, but entitled mothers are not anything I've especially noticed.

I have been aware of younger academic women bonding around having children and even around childbirth. They even bond around wedding rings and weddings. I have noticed, at least in a mediocre-to-okay school, that women are more ageist than men. Men respect older colleagues and talk with them based on common intellectual interests. The women appear not to actually have any intellectual interests--they only bond around the usual shallow girl things, motherhood included. They are also susceptible to leadership by a "mean girl." I admit--it's disheartening. Alarming, too.

I'm inclined to think that the thesis about money is becoming substantially accurate. It's as though the idea we rejected representation proportionate to one's property in favor of one man one vote is periodically overcome by the strong drive for property-based representation. When the Senate was appointed, popular will was not decisive. And now popular will, or even the general interest, isn't, or seems not to be. And the Supreme Court concocts First Amendment doctrine to strengthen corporate influence over public opinion.

My question is, was there a period in the twentieth century when popular democracy was not overcome by the drive of wealth to control politics? And why would one not tend toward the idea, if you buy the analysis that the financial industry owns the government, that Obama is just a happy face for keeping the system intact?

You're one of the best writers that posts on Salon. I read the one today and, in amazement at what my eyes beheld, looked at your past letters. I didn't notice that you'd cut HH a break. Now, don't molest those inanimate objects, and have a good evening or late afternoon, or whatever your time zone presents you with.

Your letter was so interesting I looked at your other letters. Wow! What I don't get is how you can be so verbally clever, all the while slamming HH for the same crime. As you know, Rex Reed was "more praised for his witty and caustic turn of a phrase than his understanding of what was appearing on the movie screen in front of him." Any way not to say something like that about you? Or maybe you do understand what appears in Salon? I have no way of knowing for sure. Last, the whole gay scene deserves satire, and you're good at it. Promise me you're not actually just anti-gay. You can't be anti-gay and witty and caustic all at once. Tell me that can't be! I want to be able to laugh at your gay send-ups. Give me permission.

In Texas, people shake hands with a stranger and say, "Glad to know you." Needless to say, that's naive. Many trusting Texans learn to their rue that it takes a long time to know someone. It sounds as though Pennsylvanians who say they "don't know Obama" are a bit more sophisticated than the Texans who readily believe they "know" a stranger who offers his hand.

Ever heard of that? The whole turn of gender events for the Democratic Party has to be considered well deserved and, to any observer who has figured out that American politics is mostly a show for the rubes (and the rubes include top shelf intellectuals and friends), genuinely funny. The setting--the ruination of American politics by pure celebrity appeals over substance and back biting among women about women--is sad. But within a sad setting, the plot line is hilarious.

that it is something of the biggest irony yet that the very folks who were swooning over a pop star type of candidate are now freaked out because there's a new sensation replacing the one folks are done with--and she has designer glasses! That's cheating! I think some people were trying to tell the Obama groupies that this sort of stuff is not a good approach to politics. It's to be predicted that fickle public opinion, when appealed to at its most shallow ("We are the ones we've been waiting for.") can turn on a dime. The Democratic Party should try placing its bets on something more solid. Oh, and for another laugh, I now read that Obama's breaking a promse and turning his back on public funding, counting on his rock star appeal to bring in massive money, isn't working so well. The money isn't coming in in the amount expected, and McCain is free just to camaign, while The One has to dial for dollars. I prefer Democratic Party policies on lots of things, but I am having a good belly laugh, perhaps like the one said to have broken out in newsrooms when Palin was announced.

I couldn't read it either. I mean, please!! I saw how dishonest it was when you said she thinks America's wars are God's will. I heard her pray that what we do will be God's will. That's way different. That's what people in those religious stratas do--they pray to do God's will. That's actually one of the attractive things about them. It's humble. And the misogyny--I really don't get why someone would think that's a good idea. Geez...!!

We can bring Russert back to ask her a good setup question. Then the posters can jump up and down with glee when she can't explain discrepancies in her moose stew recipe and she has to admit that her first son's name is actually a word for something runners use to exercise.

coming from Obama supporters in here is fairly incredible. I guess they are the party of traditional values. Can't you think of anything else?