I think Cole goes a bit too easy on Ahmadinejad. The man really is a raving anti-Semite and all-around nutjob. Of course, that would make him no different from many American politicians of the early to mid-20th century - before anti-Semitism became unfashionable.

However, despite his anti-Israel remarks, I'm not aware of the Iranian president's ever making a similar comment against the U.S. As many have pointed out, Iran was in no way allied with Al-Qaida, and had nothing to do with 9/11. So why would he be forbidden from visiting Ground Zero?

Only the logic which says that Israel and the U.S. are essentially one and the same would make it imperative to deny Ahmadinejad his visit to lower Manhattan. This is certainly the viewpoint of American right-wingers, Joe Lieberman, et. al., and a sentiment which is, ironically, shared by genuine Muslim terrorists.

My only question is: where does that leave the rest of us?

Glenn, thank you for continuing to point out Democratic politicians' betrayal of their constituencies. I'm convinced that there's no more important political story as we go into next year's elections.

Your exchange with the senatorial aide - and his/her quite palpable condescension toward average citizens - echoes my experience here in Minnesota with our freshman Democratic senator, Amy Klobuchar, who is turning out to be cut in the mold of Dianne Feinstein - at least when it comes to issues like warrantless wiretapping and condemning free speech (the moveon.org ad).

When I wrote Senator Klobuchar to express my displeasure at her vote to gut the old FISA law, I received a reply in which she stated that she voted for the revisions because of "gaps" in our national intelligence gathering. Of course, she didn't specify what those "gaps" were, at which point I wrote back asking how, exactly, the old FISA law was inadequate in that regard. I never received a reply to my second email.

I'm now starting to understand why people voted for Nader in 2000. Much as it pains me to say it, I'm willing to risk giving more elections to Republicans by voting third party in the case of faithless "liberals" like Klobuchar. Why should any of us vote for these quislings? What good does it ultimately do? They obviously hold us in contempt, and even the most fundamental constitutional principles mean absolutely nothing to these vacuous, power-hungry blowhards.

It's a classic form of projection.

Lyndon Johnson was probably the most liberal president the U.S. has ever had, but he never gets credit for that because of Vietnam. Yes, Vietnam was his fault too, but he wasn't exactly alone in pushing the U.S. into that war. Let's not forget that the late, great Ann Richards and Molly Ivins were also Texans - true ones, not fakes like W.

I shudder to think of what might happen should Rudy Giuliani become the next president. By all indications, the man is an outright fascist, a neo-Mussolini, and nobody from the South had any role in electing him mayor of New York.

... they'd be arguing in favor of - not against - slavery, as it's endorsed implicitly and explicitly in both the Old and New Testaments. Of course, they'd also be calling for a ban on virtually all divorces and on the eating of shellfish, and would endorse celibacy over marriage.

I seriously wonder if these people can even read.

Both political parties have ignored illegal immigration because it's a boon to the rich and large corporations who control all of our political establishment. Illegal immigrants = cheap labor. It's that simple.

It just so happens that native-born men without college degrees (most of whom are white) are most likely to feel the impact of illegal labor, as their livelihoods are undercut by it.

If the Democrats had lived up to their progressive reputation by coming out strongly against illegal immigration 10 years ago or more, they might have been able to win back some of the working-class white male vote. Yes, it's unfortunately possible - even probable - that some of these appeals would have been racist. However, it's not racist to insist on simple enforcement of immigration policy - something taken for granted in most of the world's developed democracies and a fact that many PC liberals would rather ignore.

So the Democrats lost an opportunity to protect American wages and gather more votes in the process. The reason: they'd rather suck up to rich Hollywood types who love their Jamaican nannies but don't really want to pay Social Security taxes. Once again, we find the Democrats deserve to lose because their progressivism is so often transparently phony.

I love FNL, though I think I understand why it's not very successful in attracting viewers.

We're a nation in love with - some would say in thrall to - wealth. The enormous number of tiresomely formulaic programs about doctors and lawyers allow people to fantasize about becoming one of them. Obviously, these shows aren't exactly documentaries of those professions. But they perpetuate the myth of how glamorous certain jobs are.

FNL hits a bit too close to home. These are the people who fight the war in Iraq, who work in dead-end jobs, who have no gleaming future ahead of them in some Manhattan penthouse. The same psychology of a country that thinks slapping a "Support the Troops" sticker on a car is a meaningful measure of such "support" (while giving tax cuts to rich people and underfunding veterans' health care), a psychology which also perpetuates the growing gap between the haves and have nots, creates indifference to an honest portrait of people who don't really count.

True, FNL is only a TV show. Still, I think its lack of receptance, despite its great intelligence and heart, speaks volumes about our values. The working class is supposed to sacrifice itself on the altar of our culture's greed and narcissism, and then basically shut up.