You have the makings of a book. I wrote an extensive e-mail to my family today after sending them your article. I ended up asking why the Supreme Court acts like it does and I ended with this: "The Court adheres slavishly to the precise words of the Constitution as it interprets it and common sense is abandoned resulting in the above absurdities. Over the past hundred years there has been much debate as to how rigidly the Bible (a sort of Constitution for many)should be interpreted (that word again) and while there are fundamentalists who believe the world was created in seven days, that humans were created then in our present form, that the world is
10,000 years old and so on, they have been almost universally discredited. Luckily, the minority does not get to set the rules. By contrast, The US Supreme Court, another literalist group and decidedly a minority (5 out of
9 jurists out of hundreds of millions of citizens), does get to set the rules." Now that is "dysfunctional" writ large!
I hope you go for it.

While I do not always agree with your conclusions, I always appreciate your
careful consideration of political issues. But I was completely in
agreement with your recent op ed from yesterday's NYT. I don't know any
lobbyists but I fully expect that they are no more corrupt than the typical
politician or the typical voter.

I agree that "cash-in-paper-bag" transactions are probably pretty rare but I think you are placing too much blame on the electorate. Corrupt individuals are often likeable people -- witness Charlie Rangel -- and there is a huge personal cost for individuals voters to figure out the reality behind the friendly face that good politicians so often have.

When combined with the nearly limitless ability of human beings to self-justify self-serving actions (teacher unions fighting pay-for-performance "for the children"! or pro-business advocates arguing for corporate bailouts lest the "economy go under"!), we find ourselves facing a "culture of corruption" shared by Republicans and Democrats, shared by politicians and permanent staffers, shared by corporate America and environmentalists and unionists and every other "ist" we can imagine.

Even if I understand the nature of the problem and even if I understand the cause of the problem ("power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"), changing it seems an impossible task -- too many lobbyists and politicans and voters have too much to lose should power devolve away from the federal government back to individual citizens.

WHY ISN'T A LOBBYIST WHO MAKES OR OFFERS TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO A POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDER OR OFFICE SEEKER IN ORDER TO INFLUENCE A VOTE OF SUCH HOLDER OR SEEKER ENGAGING IN A BRIBE?

Matt, I wanted to tell you that your article about the Corzine/Christie/Daggett campaign was excellent. As a newer, 'netroots' blogger, I read tons of political prose online. Your writing exceeds most. I came across you through a New York Times Magazine article about Independents. I am looking forward to purchasing and reading your 'Argument' book.

very insightful as with your previous articles -- you really understand what's up and can connect D.C. to the people. I assume many influential people read what you write (maybe even Obama).....so... how about some solutions to Obama's problems you mentioned the public financed election campaigns -- Obama (Congress?) could increase presidential allotment to $190 million enuf for a publicly funded campaign if: Obama gets the FCC (new appointments) to mandate free 10 mins at 6 and 10 PM for 60 days in Sept and Oct (none in Nov) for candidates in 3 or 5 min substantive dialog/ announceements/issues (no 30 sec lies or attack)rotated among all the major candidates and offices. might make a good story-- if Obama and others would buy in, (i.e. publicly funded House and Senate campaigns too)(talk to Rep Rush Holt or?)..

With all due respect, it would have been worth mentioning that the reasons FDR has a much stronger legacy regarding the New Deal than Huey Long included that FDR acquiesced in a politically motivated IRS investigation of Long and his associates which essentially turned up nothing, and that Long was killed in 1935! The latter is a pretty staggering omission, I would think.

I'd like to preface the following screed by saying that were I a resident of New Jersey, I'd be voting for either Corzine or Daggett; the idea of pulling the lever for a nothing like Christie would be akin to choosing Spam over Porterhouse. That said, could you specifically - and the Times in general - be more in Corzine's corner? You rightfully - and thoroughly - report Christie's failing to report the income earned on a $50,000 loan to a friend, but limit Corzine's affair with Carla Katz by saying "he has gone to court to protect the secrecy of his email messages to an ex-girlfriend who also happened to lead one of New Jersey's largest unions." Firstly, Katz led the state's LARGEST state worker union. Corzine didn't report the $470,000 he loaned her - nor its forgiveness, nor the gift tax ($160,000 appox) he paid upon that forgiveness. None of this was included. Secondly, I've a problem with reporters injecting themselves into stories. That said, when the two of you were (I think) in that diner, you'd pointed out some of what you viewed as Corzine's accomplishments. My question: who cares what you think? I can read that in a book or in an editorial. You could have pointed out his accomplishments (there've been more than a few) without saying YOU pointed them out. You didn't even wince when Ed Rendell said that "if (Corzine) wins...I think a lot of governors will say: it's ok to tell the people the truth" and what tough medicine lies ahead. Why didn't you jump all over that? How many will read that their state exectives have been lying to them for fear that we're too stupid or sensitive to know what's got to be done and that getting elected is more important? Unfortunately, the piece is endemic of how the Times is treating the race. A few days after your story appeared, another, entitled "A Rivalry as Strained as New Jersey's Finances" appeared
featuring accompanying pictures of Corzine - bathed in light and looking to
the heavens for guidance - and Christie - snarling in a darkened background. I understand that total objectivity can be elusive; it should at least be attempted. Thanks for listening.

My name is Rajiv and I'm a community organizer in Philly. I just wanted to say that I'm a huge fan of your political writing. As you know (better than most), politics is more than just policy. It's also about the well-intentioned yet flawed human characters who populate the political arena. And your writing captures this aspect of politics beautifully. You employ the techniques of a gifted novelist, truly narrating and not merely reporting. By reading your pieces, people become a little more familiar with the psyches, the egos, and the motives of those who we elect to carry our country forward. I applaud you for your insightful work.

I read the New York Times magazine regularly, so I’ve seen your byline plenty of times and appreciate your thoughtful approach to the political arena. But you really outdid yourself with State of Distress. The opening of the article paints such an incredible picture that I felt as though I were there in person. And when I got to the line, “You could almost see Corzine’s heart sink in his chest,” I knew I was in for a good read. I appreciate good writing, but when it’s married to outstanding substance, it’s like eating chocolate cake with a twice the icing. And you’ve really done that here. I’ve never understood the reason for the ongoing tax angst in New Jersey (I mean, everyone hates taxes, but it really seems worse in the Garden State than elsewhere). Now I get it. After reading your bio, I was surprised to find that you have never seen an Audrey Hepburn movie. I’d lose no time in seeing Charade. Also, I’m not sure how our political outlooks would line up, but the World Series will hold the same interest for both of us.

As a moderate young Republican/former administration official/capitol hill flack I've lately become very interested in your book and work in the New York Times Magazine on the Democratic Party's transition and debate during the Bush wilderness years. I realize you've picked an area to focus on-the post clinton Democrat party and naturally want to focus on continuing to watch the party transition and develop.

That said, there's another story and it's one I'm familiar with in my career and life and it's a big deal right now. It's the story of what our party once was and why for example in places like New Jersey which you wrote about this week, Virginia which you've written about in the past (warner), Illinois, New York and other areas, where the party is mentally dead and ideologically exhausted. For all the coverage of the christian right, there's been very little explored into why the moderates have disappeared without a fight and why the party can't find new leaders in those places.

I realize you are busy, but to me there's nothing more exciting in politics right now than the fight and debate over the future of the GOP in blue America and given the barrels of ink your op-ed page spills complaining about the unchecked power of the right in my party, it might be worth some of your time and fine reporting.

Keep up the good work.