Trial lawyers who apply class action where the plaintiffs never even know they have been offended is one thing. Trials lawyers like Edwatds, or Mark Lanier, or other contingency lawyers who have put their own fortunes and lives on the line to recuperate damages done by powerful people, who believe in law in a way people like President Bush claerly doesn't, deerve our admiration, not contempt.

I donated a lot of money to the Edwards campaign, in large part because of Elizabeth. Friends closer to the campaign vouched for the power of the connection between the two. And, while I know for some this will sound idiotic, his work as a trial lawyer underlined his integrity to me. I have had serious business with a great trial lawyer and think that in the absence of a viable union movement they do the work of angels. So Edwards's admission and continued lies (he is the father of that child, pulesee!) are awful. His weaknesses are one thing -- his hypocrisy and narcissism are together something of a degree worse. Yet this was the guy who forced health care onto the agenda. who gave us the roadmap for recanting on Iraq, who understands how dangerous the income and wealth gap are, not for outcomes, but for democracy itself. It is a sad, sad moment.

All due respect, but I don't read War Room for reprises of the editors' own positions concerning electoral strategies. Let them spend 10 million, and maybe, just maybe, it will get people to vote who haven't before. That itself would be a good thing.

I can't believe that people are thinking "if won't work." It will if Obama and his surrogates don't take the gloves off NOW. This is the time when the defining of the undefined occurs, and it doesn't happen in Germany, it happens in Germantown. There is an above it all sense, a forbearance, on the Obama campaign's part that is scary. Bob herbert pointed it out this morning in the NYT. They should STILL be hammering McCain for for Phil Gramm's "Americans are whiners" comment. Notice -- it is five days now since Obama didn't see wounded soldiers and it is still alive in the new cycle. Fire with firs, for crying out loud! Don't think people just see a grouchy old man when they see McCain -- they see a battered but unbroken war hero. he has to be shown to be the corrupt war monger that he is.

I am an admirer of your Whistling Past Dixie, and have generally thought your comments on the Democratic coalition have been sensible. Good luck with the posting.

Batman shares only one aspect with Bush. Both have the one-dimensionality of cartoon characters (though The Dark Knight is great, it still is not so deep.). But if a comparison is to be made, let us remember that Batman refuses to kill. Bush is a killer, a torturer, no self-sacrificing hero operating under a cloak of anonymity, but an arrogant lawbreaker, and bully. The self-delusions of the right-wing reach new heights with this op-ed. You simply get the feeling that the whole crew is out of touch with the world.

Aside from the mendacity of McCain in hiring another Weekly Standard fascist, we have the spectacle of William Kristol himself in this morning's NYTimes berating Barack Obama for. . . yes, you guessed it, not explicitly urging Wesleyan U graduates to join the Army as a form of public service in his commencement address, but instead simply urging them to serve! Apparently, Kristol feels comfortable spouting such obscene tripe on the pages of the "liberal" NYTimes. Kristol, of course, was of draft age during the Vietnam era, but didn't serve. Nor did he devote himself to ANY alternative service. But of course, when you are someone who serves those with near dictatorial powers, a certain attitude of moral superiority seems to allow you render judgment on your inferiors. What a snotty ass he is. I wonder what it took to produce such a piggish man? What youthful traumas in the Irving Kristol family? What form of abuse?

I only occasionally look in on Cary Tennis's column, so I'm not qualified to judge whether there are too many "advice to writers" columns or not. But the column wasn't about writing itself, it was about responding to good fortune. So many of these letters from self-identified writers are so hostile as to seem pathological. Can you say "over-determined," children?

Years ago (2001) I won a prestigious fellowship. My book is only coming out this fall, and I sweated with the idea that nothing would ever come of the work I did under the auspices of the award. I felt guilty, awful, and apologetic. It ended happily, but I have more than a little empathy for the young writer who is getting started. I'd suggest some of you who taunted her reflect on your nastiness. What does it really say?