Thanks Mr. Blumenthal for your excellent work on this piece. It explains so much. When he was governor of Texas, the leader's treatment of Karl Rove is so illuminating. He's a mean, petty man, both publicly and privately. The damage he can do in the next 15 months is scary.

I once believed as Mr. Blumenthal does -- that HRC is the only candidate with the administrative know-how to restore the presidency and America to its proper place. However, I've come to fear her close association with corporate America as much as I fear Bush's imperial presidency. If she kowtows to the same people Bush does, nothing will change. American policy will still be geared for the greatest benefit to the most privileged. We need change. Edwards and Obama are unknown quantities but I think they are worth the risk.

Thanks Glenn. You've nailed it once again. I grew up in West Virginia and was proud to cast my first vote for Sen. Rockefeller, whom I saw as a strong progressive who, if he were from any other state, would likely be president some day. What a disappointment he has proved to be. He had accomplished basically nothing in the Senate until CheneyBush came to power and since has distinguished himself as their biggest enabler. You neglected to mention he also supports granting telecoms immunity for spying on Americans. I suppose since West Virginia has swung far to the right in recent years, he is merely pandering in order to stay in power, but you would think someone with his personal fortune would be above such craven pandering. This is why it's imperative that Barack Obama, John Edwards or, less likely, Dennis Kucinich be the Democratic nominee for president. HRC is just like Rockefeller and the other establishment Dems. It's time they for them to pack their bags and head home for the good of the nation. Thanks again.

I'm just astonished at what's going on in this country. How can Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, etc. do this? Just think what would have happened if these weak, unprincipled, corrupt, pygmies had been in power during Watergate -- God, what would have happened?

If immunity is granted for the telecoms, we might as well turn out the lights. We will no longer be a nation of laws and democracy will be a total illusion. It's hopeless.

Yes, Hillary looks bad and John Edwards looks good, but HRC's looks do not turn me off on her candidacy -- it's the policies she espouses. Were she elected, she would be just like the current White House occupant -- just as secretive, just as petty and just as dangerous to our Democracy. If this picture kills her candidacy, while an unfortunate reflection on us, I say good. Edwards is the only candidate with a remote chance of winning who will bring real change.

Glenn wrote: "It's hard to imagine a more serious scandal than this."

How about politicizing the justice department; torture; spying on American citizens? The list goes on. Nothing will be done about this one either and next month there will be another, different, egregious violation of everything America stands for and nothing will be done about that either.

It's interesting that Edwards' surge corresponds with his adopting a more populist stance -- at least a more outspoken one. Had he not been afraid to be a Democrat for a year, he'd be on top of heap now. As it is, it's likely too little too late for the reasons you outline here.

While Pollan makes some good, common sense points with regard to eating whole foods -- to claim he is preaching from some kind of moral high ground is ridiculous. In his last book he talks about personally killing a pig just to see what it's like. He defends meat consumption in the face of all the data that tells how bad it is for our bodies and our environment.

As for people being to busy to eat right, that's baloney. It takes about 30 minutes to prepare a decent meal. If you can't squeeze 30 minutes out of your day to do what's right for yourself and your family, then you need to reprioritize.

Passage of Telecom Immunity is the biggest slap the Bush Administration and Congress have made to the face of the rule of law and the American People -- and they've slapped us around a lot.

For the life of me I cannot understand Rockefeller's position on this. He does not need lobbyists' money (He's a Rockefeller for chrissakes!) and he is treated by West Virginia voters as a deity. He could author a bill decriminalizing child molestation and West Virignia voters would put him back in office.

The only explanation is that he must be pure evil; a traitor; an enemy of the people.

So the writer is outraged that someone would dare to espouse a vegan diet, which she describes as "extremist?" I wonder if she is equally outraged by the millions upon millions of dollars our government spends promoting meat and dairy consumption and subsidizing these products that cause so many diseases so that they are affordable? You suck, bitch!

This is one of the first times I've found myself on the opposite side of an issue with you. I felt the Times' story was the most informative piece on McCain I've seen. I learned more about it from it than I've ever gathered from the puffball pieces dones by TV. You forget that most people -- even those who read the Times -- don't follow politics and politicians they way you do. They have jobs, families, etc. of their own that occupy most of their time. I think the article was enlightening and that there was enough "there" there to allude to the concerns of his intimiates over a possible affair. Whether he was bedding the lady or not, he was certainly awfully damned coze with a lobbyist.