Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

LOS ANGELES – After eHarmony – what next?

It's a question Howard Bashford pondered long and hard before launching his post-eHarmony – or Match.com or SearchYourLove – Web venture.

"Sure, those dating or romance sites can help you find Mr. or Ms. Right," says the online entrepreneur, "but there's still that uncomfortable matter of commitment. People want to get married, but there can be those nagging questions: Is he/she truly the one? How do I know for sure? What if somebody better comes along?

"People find 'til death do us part' just too … how do I put this … too confining. Look at the John Edwards case. The old 'cleave only unto her' line simply didn't work out, and the poor guy felt really bad about breaking his word."

Bashford paused as if for dramatic effect.

"This is where SafeVows.com comes in," he says. "We recognized that while values have evolved over the years, people still believe a promise is a promise. A person feels he should honor his word, even in changing circumstances, like when a really hot woman shows up at campaign headquarters.

"SafeVows.com will tailor a set of wedding vows for couples who aren't comfortable with the old – and we think outdated – absolutist approach to marriage. We can write a 'saving clause' that will cover any eventuality."

To demonstrate, he pulls up a computer file with a lengthy list of entries.

"Here's a good one," he says. "'We recognize that a quickie with an office associate truly doesn't mean anything.

"After all, a physical dalliance really doesn't mean a thing, does it? I mean, if there's no commitment to the dally-ee, it doesn't break a commitment to a spouse. We also have made a real effort to advance equality of the sexes with the 'I won't call you a heel' and 'I won't call you a slut' vow.

"Here's another. It's a promise to be faithful 'in sickness and in health, unless my spouse's illness makes me really tense.' We think this one will be quite popular."

Bashford maintains that SafeVows.com differs from the failed "open marriage" movement of the '60s and '70s.

"There were no personal computers then," he says, "no Internet, no compatibility ratings. By assessing dozens of compatibility factors, we're able to produce wedding vows that make both bride and groom feel comfortable. They can promise in full sincerity to keep those vows, because they aren't unrealistically restrictive."

Noting that former Sen. Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, had renewed their vows in July, Bashford declared, "People who are married using SafeVows vows will never have to do that. SafeVows are guaranteed to be stress-free and imperishable. They won't wear out or get tiresome."

"Is that because SafeVows are just so easy to keep?" we asked.

"In part," Bashford replied, "but SafeVows actually will serve as well as we think they will because they are perfect for the 21st century, and they're perfect for the 21st century because they aren't worth squat in the first place."

(Column continues below)

One may assess a candidate's political maturity by the thickness of his skin. Judging by Barack Obama's response to the GOP's tire-gauge lampoon, his is thin indeed. …

Whoa! Somebody throw a net over Nancy Pelosi. First the House speaker unleashed her I'm-the-boss declaration regarding oil drilling, now she's threatening Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Apparently, in Pelosi's view, nearly any criticism of Obama is "totally irresponsible," and the Connecticut legislator did criticize the Democrats' presumptive nominee. The exception is President Bill Clinton, who gets a pass.

"It's hard when you're in a primary election," Pelosi said. "Losing is very, very difficult."

This is clearly untrue. Republicans found losing all too easy two years ago.

All the news that's fit to be tied: The New York Times book reviewer assigned to deal with Jerome Corsi's latest volume, "Obama Nation" seems most upset. Clearly nettled that the book would debut at numero uno on the Times' own best seller list, said reviewer wrote, "The sensational findings in these books, true or dubious, can quickly come to dominate the larger political discussion in the news media, especially on cable television and the less readily detectable confines of talk radio and partisan websites.

"Fact-checking the books can require extensive labor and time from independent journalists, whose work often trails behind the media echo chamber." No definition is given for "independent journalists," but we would guess it means "old media." Besides, we thought fact checking was out of fashion at the Times. …

Final Obama note: Why did the Democratic Party presidential candidate bring race into current discussions? Because he thinks the topic is a winner for him. Would he have done it if he thought more people would vote against him because he is black than would vote for him – for the same reason?