Thank you, Peter, and apologies for not knowing how to type the accent on your last name.

A few things here. First, your estimate is actually way low--it appears that the Obama campaign raised about $150 million last month alone. No joke. But while some of that money has come from traditional "bundlers" and big-money donors, most (an unprecedented amount, actually) has come through small-donor internet donations. According to the campaign, and this information will be independently verified, Obama added 632,000 new donors in September, and the average contribution was $86. So I understand why my friends overseas hear these outrageous dollar figures and assume that Obama's campaign is just American politics as usual, but exponentially greater. But I have argued that, in reality, Obama's model represents a kind of campaign reform in itself, made by possible by the Web--the amalgamation of the purchasing power of ordinary Americans outpacing the influence of corporate donations. It's not the amount that matters--it's where it comes from and to whom you answer. And Obama's base of financial support is considerably less tied to interest groups than his predecessors'.

You know, I don't know exactly what Obama knows or doesn't about guns, because I haven't talked to him about it, but you raise some excellent points here, and frankly I've raised them myself with colleagues in the media who make the same mistakes. A lot of politicians and journalists seem to be under the impression that assault weapons are automatic weapons, and that somehow there is a difference between an "assault weapon" and a pistol. In fact, as you point out, automatic weapons have been illegal in this country since Al Capone (unless you're what they call a class C arms dealer), and the only difference between proscribed "assault weapons" and your average pistol is the way they look. This is why I've never understood why Democrats make a big stand on the assault weapons ban--it's like trying to ban black cars because criminals tend to drive them. That's how much sense it makes.

My feeling is: if you want to bridge the cultural divide on guns, and if you really want to enact "common sense laws" while also protecting the gun rights, then what you really need to do first, is learn something about the issue, just like you would on healthcare or tax policy. If you talk like you actually know something about the guns themselves, then you might get sportsmen to trust that your proposals aren't going to unintentionally affect them. Until then, they are going to reluctantly support the NRA, mostly out of fear.

Thanks for the note.

Thanks, Jay. I'm flattered, but I'm honestly not sure there'd be enough of a market for all my stories and essays, especially since they're all available for free on this site and on the Times site. Plus I'd be too afraid that everyone would notice how much I've harped on the same themes over and over. But I do appreciate the thought, and if someone asked, I'd certainly never say no.

Sadly, Louis, I do not debate in public unless all four networks are carrying it. (not that you're the first person this year to challenge me.) And anyway, if you want to debate someone, I'd suggest challenging one of the many young African American leaders in this country who agree with me that race is not a defining obstacle to their seeking higher office. They'd know better than I would.

Gary is referring here to my Sunday cover piece, titled, "Working for the Working Class Vote: Will Church-Going, Gun-Toting White Guys Pull the Lever for Obama?" Or something like that.

So Gary...seriously? For real?

If you honestly believe that we are recklessly trying to get Barack Obama hurt because we used the word "lever," which can easily be misconstrued for the word "trigger" -- and that we are only too happy to incite such violence because somehow it sells ads and get us emailed around, which is all we care about -- then I can only say that I think you need some serious therapy to deal with your extreme paranoia. I mean, you've got to work pretty hard to see an invitation to violence in that.

And I'm pretty certain you didn't even bother to read the piece before you went off half-cocked. (Oh no, I did it again! See what I did there? HALF COCKED?) I mean, you're just way off target. (Yike! I did it again!)

Seriously, man, you appear to be fixated on an extremely dark premonition of the future, and it's making you see things that just aren't there. But hey, thanks for accusing me of trying to get a man killed. That's a new one, even for me.

Well, Anne, letters don't really get any better than that. Thank you so much. You're my kind of reader, and I really appreciate your taking the time to say such nice things. Made my day.

I know, I'm not proud of it. I'm not really an old movie guy, and anyway, I never knew Ms. Hepburn as a movie star, but rather as a humanitarian. (And she was a great one.) I will rectify the situation. And thanks for reading the book.

Iris, much as I'd like to, I do not respond to all emails. I generally respond to the less contemptuous letters. This isn't a blog.

I don't really understand what the revelation is with this AP poll. That white Americans harbor racial stereotypes? That those attitudes affect people's votes? We needed a poll to tell us that? The more salient questions are:

1. To what extent are those biases disqualifying biases in choosing a candidate, or are they merely factors among many others? We all know people with racial biases who will vote for Obama anyway, just as we know people with ageist biases who will vote for McCain. The trajectory of progress is generally that what was a disqualifying factor (i.e., anti_Catholicism bias that existed when Al Smith ran for president) becomes, in time, an obstacle that can be overcome (i.e. JFK in 1960). The mere existence of a racial bias doesn't make it determinative.

2. Are there other legitimate reasons that a moderate to conservative leaning voter might not choose Obama, aside from race? I believe there are.

3. By constantly harping on the idea that white Americans are hopelessly racist--this familiar liberal vision of America as a dark and unjust place--do you make it more or less likely that the voters mentioned above will decline to vote for a Democrat (yet again?). Thus far, none of the poll numbers I've seen put Obama in any substantially different range with white men than was Kerry or Gore. Neither of them lost because of racism.

I will write far more about this in the my next cover on Oct 19. Thanks for writing.

Well, Michael, you could call it whatever you want, but I don't think it would look much like the New Deal, even if it was a new deal. That was the 1930s, and of course the world has changed dramatically in obvious ways, from an entirely new kind of economy and global system to the reality of massive structural government expenditures as a result of social programs. I for one don't think the social contract between business, government and workers that made the New Deal possible would make much sense as the centerpiece of this century's policies. As for single-payer healthcare, there doesn't seem to be much national consensus for it, but it would be interesting to hear some serious proposals. Thanks for writing.

Thanks, Judy. You may be right about that. My own sense of it at the time was that Florida changed the governing model that Bush and his team intended to bring into the Oval office before they even got there. They made a decision, it seemed to me, because of the way he was installed as president, that they had to behave as if he were in total command of the agenda, because his enemies were trying to delegitimize his presidency, and any sign of weakness would add to the perception that he wasn't duly elected. They came into the White House on war footing. I would suggest that this made him a much more confrontational and less compromising president than anything in his record to that point would have suggested. I also think that absent the terrorist attacks of 2001, that stance would have led to his unraveling as a president much faster.

Of course, we'll never know until we get some distance form this period and the histories are written by less emotional observers. I have learned that you can't credit this president with anything other than sheer evil without getting some angry letters. Yours raises a good point, though, and I appreciate it.