There was plenty of additional disagreement earlier on Monday when Saad-Ghorayeb answered reader questions online. She noted that many non Shiites were initially resentful of Hezbollah for provoking Israel’s attacks, but now that anger has been “replaced by a resentment of Israel’s excessive violence,” which, is “perpetrating collective punishment.” Now, Saad-Ghorayeb said, one poll indicates that over 90 percent of Shiites support Hezbollah’s right to exist. Many people writing in used the word terrorist to describe Hezbollah, a term that Saad-Ghorayeb disputes. The spirited back and forth prompted one commenter to say that the conflict on the washingtonpost.com live online session is one tiny window into why “resolving the conflicts has been such an intractable problem…It may be satisfying to be oppositional, but it doesn’t seem like a good way to move forward.” Saad-Ghorayeb doesn’t find opposition for opposition’s sake satisfying. She says she finds it difficult to find common ground with readers whose basic assumption is that Israel is “a peaceful nation. I have to make a counter-argument. Some critical thinking is in order here.”

Elsewhere in Outlook this week, Michael Grunwald wrote about the politics of global warming—making the pun it is perhaps impossible not to make that “global warming is having its moment in the sun.” In response, Glen Barry writes at climateark that Grunwald’s piece indicates that “denial is starting to crumble” even though “Americans continue to resist the dramatic personal and societal actions necessary to lower carbon emissions.”

Pat Cleary writes about Grunwald’s piece at Shop Floor, the blog of the National Association of Manufacturers (the “millions of people who make things in America”), which was also linked to on RedState. Further global warming puns prove impossible to resist. “This piece re-heats…lots of canards, assumes consensus and alludes to the hot weather in Washington as just so much more global warming.” Cleary sees no evidence that it is and thinks the discussion remains “one-sided.”

From Australia, Blue Beyond notices that Americans “now accept that global warming is a reality, but don’t want to take the responsibility to do something about it. It’s too easy “to blame the Americans” because, as Blue Beyond notes “we Aussies are doing our bit to screw up the planet too.” A solution? “I hope that Americans do the one good thing and put Mr. Gore into the Presidency. Then we have a chance that one man’s voice can make a difference.”

But where, really, should one man’s voice be making a difference? Is the presidency really the place for Al Gore? Grunwald also argued in Outlook this week that Mr. Gore should think about a second act as the second in command and re-run for Veep.

Andrew Sullivan for one doesn’t think “it’s nuts.” Sullivan says Gore is “the most viable candidate in my view,” mostly because of his pre-9/11 hawkish record and foreign policy experience. He is though, as Grunwald writes as well, a “terrible candidate.” A solution? “An Obama-Gore ticket, with Gore as the veep, is a variation on the Bush-Cheney 2000 strategy—a young, untested pol with a daddy at his side.”

Who else could run with Gore? At the Democratic Daily, former unofficial Kerry blogger Ron Chusid asks whether anyone is up for a Kerry-Gore ticket. He notes “it will never happen” but likes thinking about it anyway.