QUICK HITS: Gotta run, but check out Regions of Mind on gay Arab-speaking linguists (with stats), a photo of Dolley Madison (yes, a photo; yes, that Dolley Madison), and Elvis’s possible Jewishness (?!).

Also this Washington Post symposium on what the Democrats gotta do now. It’s when I read things like this that I realize I, too, am a political junkie. Summary: Zell Miller says (sassily, as is his wont) that Dems should’ve appreciated him more. A guy who writes for the Nation says Dems need a Barry Goldwater/Ralph Nader/St. Benedict. Mark Warner is still boring. Donna Brazile still thinks Republicans are evil.

And Carter Eskew is confused, or at least confusing: “Security. Can’t walk away from this one.” No kidding. The fact that Eskew even needed to say that speaks volumes.

“We need a new Democratic definition of global security: cooperation not only on fighting terrorism, but also on the environment and the AIDS crisis.” Ohhhkay. He makes an excellent point (or, more accurately, he alludes to an excellent point) about AIDS, but environmentalism? Eh? What does that reference even mean?

“This party’s populist bedrock message needs a new layer of gravel, but it must remain a unique selling proposition.” Wake me up when this metaphor stops.

“Let’s realize we can’t win without both wings of the party. Republicans were hungry enough to submerge their differences to win. We need to do the same. And let’s not count on disaster to bring us back. Instead, let’s stand for things we really believe and remember that we’ll never win again unless we’re willing to take risks that could cause us to lose.” Can the Dems-as-a-whole (as opposed to individual Democrats) stand for what they really believe, while accomodating both wings of their party? If not, does it matter? (Serious question. I wonder if both answers are “no.”)