...because they are unable to see that you are already trying to be a better person. A truly shallow person would not be making the effort.

Instead, listen to the anon whose mother and father have been happily married for 42 years, and to eggster, whose suggestions are very wise. Intelligence and kindness are indeed much more difficult to find. [Does he also laugh at your jokes? If so, don't let him get away. That quality may be even more rare.] And Cary's counsel about an "existential spa treatment" is right on.

You might suggest something about his posture and how standing more upright communicates differently with the world, and would enable others to see him more clearly. Then, as eggster suggests, small changes at a slow pace, and regular, specific compliments.

Who better to assist a current ugly ducking than a compassionate former one?

In the meantime, it is also true that his status is increasing because he is seen with you, rather than yours decreasing.

It is possible that you may still decide that the relationship won't work, but you will know that you have given it what its potential deserves, and you will have given him a gentle makeover that can only help him in future relationships.

Or... you may discover that you really do have a swan.

Yes, to the "War in Afghanistan," but not in Iraq. That one should be the " Occupation of Iraq."

Hopefully this change will have the desired effect!

I did like knowing that I could alter my premium profile, including my "name," which I did when I changed my last name to an initial. Oh, well...

I find it very had to believe that Dowd (a conservative Texas Democrat) did not know more about Bush's qualifications, or at a minimum, his lack of competence.

Texas politics, from what I've read, was/is a pretty small world, where everyone knew/knows everyone else.

How could he not have read Molly Ivins' book on Bush's early political (and business) live?

Disingenuous & Unbelievable!

Another question: What is the proper procedure if you want to engage in a dialogue with another reader but not necessarily subject everyone else to it? There's no way to engage that person except to post another letter to the editor. I've seen those "dialogues" run into 20 or 30 posts. But I understand the desire to ask and answer questions or to clarify previous posts.

It's called starting your own blog... for yourself or for a group. Lots of people do it. I know of a couple of women who met in a comment thread on a knitting blog, decided to take it off-line (maybe via email at first), and then started their own blog. Oh, and they ended up with a book deal.

I, for one, would appreciate not being subjected to these one-on-one or -two or -three dialogues. They are more than tiresome. And, as alternate threads were one of the suggestions on the 600+ comment thread, I am still hoping that will happen.

Another blog I frequent will sometimes use an IM site as an alternate when traffic is very heavy. That might be another possibility.

Most of us are not in a position to know whether Dowd is sincere or not. It doesn't really matter, though, since his words (especially as they appear in the war apologists' NYTimes!) have little meaning for most of us. Rather, we all have reason to feel aggrieved by Dowd's actions. Not just once, but twice, he helped to elect GWB. By the 2nd election, if not the 1st, he could not have been unaware of the import of his efforts, except by willful ignorance. Appropriate enough in the Bush White House, we have come to learn.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for compassion for Dowd's personal travails. Losing a child is a tragedy for any family, and it's very common for the surviving parents to divorce. Mine did. Eventually. Most couples I've known who've lost a child, in fact, have ended up in divorce. And siblings just suffer in silence. (That's what makes the Edwardses story so compelling for me. They truly transcended something that would be unspeakable in most families.)

It is a mistake, though, to link Matt Dowd's personal tragedies and his so-called epiphany. One does not necessarily follow the other. However, if by his future actions, not just PR-spinning words, he demonstrates sincerity and true remorse by trying to make amends, he may be judged less harshly. In the meantime, I cannot judge harshly those who judge him harshly. The litany of suffering under this president should have remained unimaginable... It was, at one time.

Having said all of that, I do feel compassion for parents who lose their children to fates other than death. I'll probably catch a lot of grief here, but I can't help but feel some compassion for George Bush, the elder. The grief he must feel at the havoc his son has wreaked in the world, smashing to smithereens any bits of good that were part of the Bush family legacy.

Likewise, ME Dowd may be deserving of some compassion. One aches to try and imagine having a grownup child who has built such a questionable legacy. Just because he "fell in love" with some charisma. Somewhere along the line, grown up children must become responsible for themselves. But how can a parent now wonder: what if?

...as "a reader."

Having the commenter's name appear at the top, instead of the bottom, would make it a lot easier to avoid those whose comments do not interest us.

to every lob-- or any, for that matter. If you don't, then there's nothing to return.

Fwiw, I agree.

but one has to wonder if her silence was also being purchased.

Silence about what, you ask? Who knows. It could be any number of things.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't this affair now in the past tense?