I can't stick around to argue this one, but its truth shines like a beacon in the dark night of the blogosphere.

I forget what the house rules are supposed to be for referencing comments in other reads, but, um, 8366.0 pwned by 8365.784885.

The premise is very true.

I think it comes from male people being the default in our society.

"non-policy-based"? You underestimate us. There is no aspect of human thought that cannot be reduced to gender politics in some fashion. Try me.

Let's also stipulate that all unflattering photographs of Obama are race-baiting.

We need a swimming and/or climbing thread in which we can take refuge from this madness.

So that's, let's see, ten posts today, the second of which is titled "Pacing."

5: You did not just call Clinton supporters hysterical, did you?

That's just the sort of thing you would say, gswift, with your unfair gender-based advantage in sports.

This post is racist.

shivbunny and I found a climbing gym that we are going to try. I've never been climbing unless you count scrambling (nontechnical sense) around rocks in Canada.

This post is racist.

Homophobe.

I went swimming on the edge of upper yosemite falls once, and then had to climb out like 30 feet up. It's cold as fuck, and you get to the edge and there's another edge like 300 feet down so you don't get to look straight down into the valley. Also, climbing while wet sucks.

Maybe it would be less controversial to argue over why American Muslims aren't more involved in politics.

Many critics of American Muslims say their leadership has failed to capitalize on their position. This criticism doesn't seem misplaced as a single-member [Rep. Keith Ellison] representation of seven million Muslims in the U.S. Congress is no match to other communities.

Six million plus American Jews have 43 members in the Congress. 13 members of the U.S. Senate are Jewish (two Republicans, nine Democrats, two Independents) while 30 are members of the U.S. House of Representatives (one Republican and 29 Democrats).

[...] Even Indian Americans, whose population is well over two million, have a governor (Bobby Jindal of Louisiana).

The presence of anti-Muslim biases and prejudices, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, cannot be discounted nor can the melancholy that engulfed the community in the face of a backlash. But there is little evidence either to suggest that Muslims are being discouraged or shunted out of mainstream politics by the state or the major political parties.

Luckily for me, a spectacular climbing gym opened up last year only 10 minutes away. The downside is that I spend a lot of time as a belay monkey for my kids.

13: Because they're prickly and litigious, unlike mainstream Americans.

I think we're going to do bouldering at first, mostly because I have a mild phobia of heights.

11: hobophobe.

Personally, I've always found Hillary to be too good at math and driving. It's off-putting.

16: remember, if your hand gets trapped and you have to self-amputate, the key is to get enough leverage that you can snap the bone.

The fact that McCain is damn sure going to use as much sexist and/or racist bullshit as he can isn't a reason to give it a pass in the meantime.

Two non-policy criticisms of Clinton that can't be *seriously* argued to be sexist (I will not concede that the deliberately ridiculous arguments which will surely be put forth by, oh, say, Tweety and Tim following this comment count):

1. Her negative campaigning against Obama has been crappy.

2. The fact that she's both using her tenure as first lady to argue that she has experience *and* firmly saying things like "that was Bill's policy, not mine" is an attempt to have it both ways, and it's annoying. Plus probably a poor political decision.

I think we're going to do bouldering at first

I almost always boulder. Don't need a partner, and it's good for developing power. The kiddies love love love the tall routes.

Holy smokes, what a frustrating article. (Not the NYT, for once.) I can't decide which is worse, this part:

"Virtually all of their 'terrorism' cases are material support cases," Professor Cole said. It is fairly easy to prove that someone provided material support to terrorists, he added, as it requires no evidence of involvement in or intent to support terrorism. Writing a check to the wrong organization to support its charitable work is enough.

or the part where it emerges that the terrorist expert appears to have done not much more than a keyword search (for one religion) in order to prove his point. Ugh.

(My favorite part of the article linked in 15 is when someone points out the obvious re: Americans' litigiousness.)

The fact that McCain is damn sure going to use as much sexist and/or racist bullshit as he can isn't a reason to give it a pass in the meantime.

I think one of the goals for both candidates is now to convince the superdelegates that the other candidate is vulnerable to sexist/racist attacks and therefore unelectable. The best way to demonstrate this is to highlight the effectiveness of those sexist/racist attacks that are already happening.

You'd think that this could be recognized as a race to the bottom that will hurt the party and help no one. But the more it happens, the more each campaign actually becomes convinced that the other is unelectable, so it becomes more and more important that the other campaign not become the inevitable doomed nominee.

That's how I see this playing out.

where it emerges that the terrorist expert appears to have done not much more than a keyword search

Shows he has what it takes to work in the Bush DOJ.

"inevitable doomed" s/b "inevitably doomed"

Let's also stipulate that all unflattering photographs of Obama are race-baiting.

Also the flattering ones. Think Mandingo!

I think one of the goals for both candidates is now to convince the superdelegates that the other candidate is vulnerable to sexist/racist attacks and therefore unelectable.

Yes, but this is basically indistinguishable from actually using racism or sexism to smear your opponent. So the implicit argument that "x isn't *really* sexist/racist; I'm just pointing out that those *other* guys will use this kind of thing" is bullshit.

I mean, yes; politics involves playing dirty. And neither Obama nor Clinton is a saint, nor should they be expected to be saintly. But recognizing that even white women and black men will do a certain amount of politicking as usual doesn't mean that we should give them a pass on it, any more than we should give the other side a pass.

20: that pretty much sums up my non-sexist non-policy problems with her.

I'm such a kidder!

the deliberately ridiculous arguments which will surely be put forth by, oh, say, Tweety and Tim following this comment count

By which you mean my references to "messiah," "cult," or "hip young black friend"?

I think we're going to do bouldering at first, mostly because I have a mild phobia of heights.

I think I've mentioned this before, but I have really horrible acrophobia, and I had absolutely no issues when I went rock climbing. Part of it is that you're completely focused on looking *up* (or in front of you). And there's not usually much slack in the belay line, so it feels a bit more secure than freestanding by an edge.

28: I think you're actually agreeing with Ned, B.

28: Oh, I never said we should give them a pass on it. I just think it's inevitable in a situation where they are trying to emphasize each other's weaknesses in the general election.

This is why one should concede to the other so as to not weaken the party like this. But each believes the other is unelectable!

And one tearing the other down by saying McCain is preferable for a variety of reasons is just awful strategery.

I don't like where this is going.

And one tearing the other down by saying McCain is preferable for a variety of reasons is just awful strategery.

Agreed. Has Obama done this too?

31: Yeah, it's really a fear of edges more than heights. It's not even conscious, just a lizardbrain freak out. So I don't mind going up, but I can never enjoy the view once I get there.

34: Here's what made me so concerned.

It doesn't seem that the Obama campaign has been doing this yet. Except attacking universal health care on principle in mailers, as mentioned in my link here.

Hmmm ... Tweety and Tim ... Unfogged "commenters" ... deliberately ridiculous arguments ... a couple of notoriously bad debate moderators from NBC ... deliberately ridiculous questions, especially to Hillary... must try to think, must try to think.

My God, what have we done here?

34: No, he hasn't. That should have been my third example of a really objectionable statement on Clinton's part.

Exaggerated a little but truish:

1) She is teh cr00ked (law firm billing records, the cattle futures thing, the tax returns shenanigans
2) She is teh stubb0rn in shortsighted ways against her own self interest (this is not a sexist thing - stubborn like GWB). Example from today's Post article about intracampaign backstabbing:

"The Clintons lent the campaign $5 million, and Solis Doyle and Henry focused resources on a dozen battleground states, mainly large ones such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as Arizona and New Mexico, with large Hispanic populations. But they essentially did not compete in smaller states holding caucuses. Clinton, feeling burned by Iowa, had become allergic to caucuses, deeming them unfair."

If she had put a couple mil into the caucus states she wouldn't be 150 delegates behind Obama.

37: Tip O'Neill made my dad a man. I hump McCain's leg. Can you hold my head up, please? It's just so much effort to keep it off the desk, and I have this terribly sore jaw.

34: As far as I can tell only Hillary has explicitly said that McCain was better/preferable/more qualified in a particular area (Commander in Chief). To me this takes understandable politicking beyond the pale in a primary contest. In particular it removes the avenue for reconciliation in the face of general election attacks on the same point of having the loser say of the nominee: "Yes I thought I was better in that area, that was one reason why why I was running, but the people/superdelegates have spoken and we're both a jillion times better than McLoser McCain ."

I think this crap Commander in Chief argument is actually pretty risky for her--her record is not much longer than Obama's, & it's susbtantively much worse, & she's done a lousy job defending it in recent debates, & there is more potential for him to make tough, fair, substantive attacks from the left. But being a bitter antiwar voter I may overestimate our influence.

It would seem to show that she STILL thinks Mark Penn is a guru about national security politics. Bite me, Mark Penn!

I agree that Clinton gets portrayed as a monster by the press & idiots like Andrew Sullivan for pretty ordinary political behavior because she's a woman, but she's getting portrayed as a monster by strong Obama supporters because they really, really, really want Obama to win & emotions run high.

||

What the fuck does a 555 timer chip need a capacitor for? I expect my ICs to be integrated, goddamit! What's your name? Integrated circuit.

|>

42: I am not worried that this tactic will actually work for her in getting the nomination, it's the potential impact on him in the general. Of course that attack would come with or without her, but when it does come, it now instantly brings her onto the other side, but more damagingly by proxy the judgment of a significant number of Dem voters. (That last is unfair, but how it will be played by our lazy, worthless press.)

41:To me this takes understandable politicking beyond the pale in a primary contest

She may sincerely believe it, believe that Obama is too dangerously inexperienced and naive to be Commander-in-Chief. IIRC, John Edwards said something along those lines, also. If so, I would say she is being responsible in alerting the American people.

The "bomb,bomb bomb, bomb Pakistan" moment and Samantha Power as an advisor give me pause.

I would so ban you if this were my blog, Bob.

I'm like that, though. I have a low tolerance for boring trolls.

46: My God, you're drunker than I am.

47: could be, could be.

Mark Schmitt has a decent idea about Mich. & Florida. Though I think this is moot, because Clinton just took the position that re-doing either state would disenfranchise the voters, and she staunchly supports the people of Michigan's right to vote in elections where her opponent's name isn't on the ballot.

Seriously: why not a caucus where they do a simple headcount (like Minnesota) & where absentee balloting is allowed (like Maine) & publicized heavily? And if her campaign thinks that even that is unfair, why aren't they actively supporting new primaries? If she managed to win both fair & square, along with Penn., she'd have a much better argument for superdelegates to override the pledged delegates, & she'd be in a much better position for the general election.

A headcount with absentee balloting?

50: Ichabod?

Remember you only get ahead once in the human race, so try not to lose it.

       -- Irving Washington

My problem here is that this all seems too serious to me at this point. I cannot tell if this post is meant as a joke, Ogged. But I'm going to answer it as if it was meant seriously.

First, nothing to do with gender or policy is that I think her vote on the Iraq war was all about calculation about her future in politics (and campaigning for president). It makes me nauseous, and is consistent with the political career that she's carved out for herself.

Second, the clusterfuck of the way she managed the health insurance effort of the first two years of the Clinton presidency suggests a really flawed approach to governing.

Third, I think a country needs its leader to be able to do the rhetoric Obama pulls off. it's been missing for years, at least from the middle-left spectrum. Hillary just does not seem able as a politician to do it.

53: My problem here is that this all seems too serious to me at this point -> 50, 51, 52

I see the brilliant Jon Chait has been thinking exactly what I have about HRC's only path to the nomination being one that would destroy her chances of winning.

Random thought about Ogged's original comment: a lot depends on how a criticism is presented. If I were to just say "I think Clinton may be too inept at actual oversight and management to be a good authority", it'd be easy as hell for that to drift into sexist diatribes about how women shouldn't bother their pretty little heads with holding power. On the other hand, recognizing that as a risk, if I were to make the argument at length, I could take the time to back it up with examples of men making exactly the same kinds of mistakes, and in contexts that would make it hard to dismiss them all as just girly men or something.

(This is, actually, my #2 complaint against Clinton, right behind just plain bad policy choices. The next president is going to have a monumentally hard job dealing with Bush/Cheney's best efforts to destroy the federal government, and needs to be someone who can run an organization smoothly through very turbulent conditions. But I see the pitfalls in it, too.)

Michael Tomasky's NYRB piece on the issue is also worth reading.

God, ogged, that entire post is complete bullshit.

Criticism one: Clinton is a triangulator; she selects her positions based on what she thinks will get her centrist votes without regard to what is right and wrong, rather than the Obama-esque approach of doing the right thing, speaking truths instead of insane assholeism, and bringing the center to him. This isn't a sexist criticism because it's behavior typical of most politicians, who are mostly male. This isn't a policy criticism because it's a meta-policy criticism and indictment of her character.

Criticism two: Clinton is waging an aggressive negative campaign, knowing that her opponent is not going to respond in kind, because she considers her ambitions more important than the good of the party or the country, and she doesn't give a damn if it weakens the eventual nominee for her to go negative. This isn't a sexist criticism because it's behavior typical of most politicians, who are mostly male. This is an indictment of her character and a claim that what she is doing is bad for the country independent of who gets to be president.

So let's not stipulate any such fucking stupid thing as "all personal criticisms of Clinton are sexist", because some are perfectly fucking legitimate.

...what she thinks will get her centrist votes without regard to what is right and wrong, rather than the Obama-esque approach of doing the right thing, speaking truths instead of insane assholeism, and bringing the center to him. This isn't a sexist criticism

It may nor be sexist but it is deranged. And if everybody else, and I could point to posts from Yggles yesterday, gets yo talk crazy, so can I.

Glanced again at Obama's legislative history. Obama doesn't care what's right, he is just trying to get votes. He just is pandering to a different demographic. That Obama opposed the Iraq War doesn't say much about why he opposed it, unless you think that "Obama speaks truth".

In 2002, it was a good guess that the only counter candidacy available would be anti-war. Obama sure wasn't gonna run a populist economic campaign out of the University of Chicago.

Just another cynical politician.

So let's not stipulate any such fucking stupid thing as "all personal criticisms of Clinton are sexist", because some are perfectly fucking legitimate.

I do believe that was Ogged's tongue-in-cheek point, Hovercraft.

I think Ogged's dead right -- not that criticizing Clinton on a personal level is necessarily sexist, but that personal criticisms of Clinton are overwhelmingly likely to be sexist.

Think about last week's conversation about that nitwit Allen; we spent three hundred comments trying to figure out what kind of epithet to use for her, with people arguing that the sexist ones would hurt more. And that's right; if you're going to criticize a woman, criticisms that use the cultural weight of the sexism that's normal and ingrained in our culture are going to hit harder. Criticizing her in a way that doesn't use cultural sexism is going to feel weak and stilted.

I don't have a lot of ideas about what to do about this, other than pointing it out when it's happening, in the hopes that if people are more selfconscious about it, that sort of thing will be less natural and less effective. I'm not calling for Powers' head for what she said; I don't think Obama needs to do anything really about disassociating himself from her, past an 'obviously, that's not the campaign's position and I deplore the journalistic irreponsibility of the reporter'. But the personal criticisms of Hillary are still very likely to be sexist.

(On the parallels with Obama: Arguing that criticisms of Hillary are likely to be sexist has no connection to arguing that criticisms of Obama are not likely to be racist. Both are true; although not in precisely similar ways.)

I'm not sure whether bob really *needs* to sign his posts.

62 to 59, of course.

pdf--that made me laugh. I was just about to say, what is that mcmanus in 59?

She's a wonky technocrat who has difficulty crafting a politically resonant theme that goes beyond, "I have experience" and "I have very good policy papers, read them", just like Gore, Dukakis and Kerry who all lost significantly for that reason.

How can that be a sexist argument, to say that she is politically flawed in the same way that three male candidates were demonstrably flawed?

65: That's not 'personal' in the sense Ogged was using it.

How can that be a sexist argument

By dint of circular reasoning, of course. I took this post in exactly the same spirit as the analogy ban.

Unfortunately I missed last night's monstrous thread. A few random thoughts:

1. Martha Nussbaum's maiden name was Craven. Changing it was a good choice.

2. If she's dating Sunnstein I like Powers less, and I was neutral before I knew that.

3. Get a grip, folks. I feel very lucky not to like either candidate, because I'm less impelled to get involved in these fights. To me the most important thing is to avoid a nasty intra-party fight, but no one else seems to think that way. Hi, President McCain! At the present moment, I blame Clinton.

4. While I think that "monstrous" probably does have a sexist load, and apparently Powers is the kind of person who might have read John Knox, and she was talking in Scotland where Knox is fairly well known, and this is all very interesting, in the context of the campaign I think it's stretching.

5. Uncoached, I would have interpreted Powers' meaning to be, "When Clinton's originally strategy failed, she started flailing around trying to improvise a backup strategy in a hurry, and the strategy she ended up choosing was a Republican strategy capable of tearing the party apart, and that's reprehensible."

6. But "reprehensible" is a fussy, little-old-lady word, and she wanted something stronger and saltier. But almost all of the strong words meaning "reprehensible" have some kind of unacceptable connotation. All I have left that's safe to use any more is "motherfucker", and one day I expect to see Motherfucker Pride coming after me.

7. If things are really as bad as people are saying within the Democratic Party, they're sure to be worse in the general electorate. You work with the electorate you have, not the one you wish you had. Representative government represents, and maybe a woman or a black man just can't represent America in its present condition. In which case, Democrats shouldn't nominate either. If, after Obama or Clinton loses the election, someone says "At least it was a big step forward for women / black Americans to get a major-party nomination for President", I will be infuriated. There's one big prize in Presidential races, and the secondary prizes aren't worht anything.

8. Most issues are neither men's nor woman's issues. Certain issues may especially be women's issues, but that doesn't mean that all the others are men's issues. No one really seriously thinks that they are, but sometimes people talk as though there's a parity.

Sure, it's personal: it's a comment on her personal character, style, method of speaking, comportment. It's not a comment on whether her plan for subsidizing alpaca ranching is a good one or not.

I missed the monstrous thread too. How is monstrous sexist? If Power had said, "She's an old bitch" or something, ok, what a giveaway. But monstrous?

Second verse! Same as the first!

Yeah, 59 was me. Apparently lost my history & cookies again.

Anybody who doesn't think Krugman is the devil incarnate would do well to read him today. The column is available at Thoma's.

65 is not a sexist argument. (However, I wouldn't say that Gore lost in 2000).

one day I expect to see Motherfucker Pride coming after me

Don't denigrate my people, John.

That Obama opposed the Iraq War doesn't say much about why he opposed it

Sir Trolly Troll, i hate to feed you, but have you actually read that 2002 speech?

Lizardbreath: The problem here lies that ogged argues that ALL criticisms of Hillary Clinton are going to be, necessarily, sexist. It's quite a bold quantifier and, while probable, is simply ignorant and is an argument from peronal incredulity. (See the first paragraph in 56)

Ogged: The logic in that post is simply embarassing. For instance, if I were to state that I think that she's blatantly dishonest and pursues policies for her own end, any ignorant schmuck (i.e. most of Fox News) could easily spin it, label me a misogynist, and ring the "Sexist Alarm." Tsk tsk.

Everyone Else: I'm sure ogged is quite ashamed of himself here. Because of this acknowledgement, I propose a Mulligan? Any takers? All of you? Good.

Now, let's move on...

So let's just stipulate for the next few months that all personal criticisms of Clinton are sexist and all her supporters are being oversensitive.

People are missing Ogged's point. He's just to subtly for you honky motherfuckers.

"too subtle"

ogged argues that ALL criticisms of Hillary Clinton are going to be, necessarily, sexist

I don't think you've read the post closely enough. He didn't say that they *are* sexist. He said they can be *argued* to be so, and therefore having said arguments are pointless.

I'm sure ogged is quite ashamed of himself here.

N00b.

So let's just stipulate for the next few months that all personal criticisms of Clinton are sexist and all her supporters are being oversensitive.

On these threads, I can't recall a complaint of sexism from a Hillary supporter. Look over the comments and I think you'll see that the preponderance of these gripes are coming from people who support Obama.

To fix the quote above, we need to cross out "her supporters" and substitute "the people who hate Hillary insufficiently."

PF, to take an example, are you suggesting that Mary Catherine is either (a) not complaining of sexism or (b) an Obama supporter? If so, you're reading differently than I (which is entirely likely, if you're also reading more than I). B has always been very much on the fence here, and I'm not sure she'd answer to 'Obama supporter' at this moment, not as a primary identifier.

82: I don't know Mary Catherine's affiliation, so you're probably right.

B has never identified herself as anything but an Obama supporter, sa far as I know.

I am not an Obama supporter.

Mary Catherine is an alien, so she can't support anyone. I am confident that she's not a Hillary supporter, however, and would suspect that she's a lukewarm Obama supporter who would really have liked to see someone better.

Pwned.

85: Ha! Was that planned? Save DS, they don't have black people in Canada, so the chance for building up a sense of affiliation isn't available. I'm guessing HRC. No an Eskimo candidate....

"No" should be "now," obv. And #87 was me.

So give my original thesis a little stretch, and MC fits: For purposes of this discussion, her key affiliation is not that she's a Hillary supporter, but that she hates Hillary insufficiently.

I'm pretty sure this thread could get more meta if we all try really hard.

90: What do we really mean by hate, mechanically? Perhaps we could tie this discussion off by reference to various chemical levels in the bloodstream.

It's amazing. I think I'm actually starting to get tired of these political threads. Someone e-mail me when november gets here.

Hate is just hat with an extra letter at the end. I wear my hate upon my head, bad luck to throw it on the bed.

1. her speaking voice is grating as is her manner of speaking. W has the same effect, but with different affect.

2. she is far too personally ambitious and willing to torpedo the party for the sake of her own success.

94 is unspeakably sexist.

93: "Hat" is just "hät" without the ä.

93: Or "ate"--ruin, folly, or delusion in Greek--with an "h" at the beginning. And a silent "h" if you're Cockney! I think no discussion is needed about gender and notions of folly. Do not let the "h" fool you, my friend.

"Hat" is just "hät" without the ä.

Mein Hut, er hat drei Ecken / drei Ecken hat mein Hut / und hätt' er nicht drei Ecken / er wäre nicht mein Hut

2. she is far too personally ambitious and willing to torpedo the party for the sake of her own success.

All politicians are too ambitious, and many will torpedo their own party. It's the Democrats' responsibility to protect themselves. Nothing unusual about Hllary.

1. her speaking voice is grating as is her manner of speaking.

Is there a speech prof in the house? Hillary belongs to a public-speaking tradition which I identify as the party faithful / union hall stump speech tradition. Whether it's specifically Democratic I don't know, but I rather think so.

It seems terribly archaic now, partly because it uses a shouting voice which is not necessary if good amplification is available. Furthermore, it physically wears the voice out, and Hillary's voice has seemed strained for weeks.

With good amplification, a speaker can speak quietly to a large crowd, as if he were speaking intimately to every individual, and that can be creepy. I think that Obama is more in that direction sometimes.

Is there a speech prof in the house? Hillary belongs to a public-speaking tradition which I identify as the party faithful forced and not particularly effective.

It's not her strength; doesn't have anything to do with any folkways.

It's both. There's a shouty style which is as Emerson describes; it's unfashionable now, but it can be effective. That's how she speaks, and she loses points both because it's unfashionable and because she's not good at it.

I don't actually think she's especially bad at it. I've heard it a moderate amount and it's never been very effective with me personally, but I've seen it work, and not necessarily because the speaker was a good speaker either. The Dean Scream was another example of the same thing.

Boy I can't stand her speaking style. Different strokes for me and everybody else who's not me and also wrong, I guess.

Well, geez, Sifu, her constituency isn't nude blue Burning Man bungee jumpers puffing on spliffs.

104: How did I know about that? I have people everywhere, Sifu.

Yeah, I don't mind the way she speaks at all. Her voice can run a little flat, especially when she's trying to project and/or is tired, which isn't especially mellifluous, but I think that's probably true of most voices in the higher registers, which is obviously going to include women's voices, at least without some kind of formal voice training.

B. supports the Democrats. However, B. voted for Obama, so strictly speaking she's an "Obama supporter." The McCain bullshit from Clinton probably puts me in the "definitely not a Clinton supporter" camp, at least unless and until something more heinous comes from Obama or shows up on the front page of the NYT and I get pissed off in the other direction.

I've actually never been body painted, nor have I bungee jumped, thus proving my point.

94 is unspeakably sexist.

I'm bringing sexist back
You mother f**kers watch how I attack
If that's your girl you better watch your back
Cause she'll burn it up for me and that's a fact

I don't know if she's a bad public speaker or it's just that her voice is so strained these days that when I hear her, I want to give her a bag of cough drops and some hot tea.

Sifu, we can't let you see the evidence, but our sources tell us that you bungee-jumped painted blue.

Your "no governing legal authority","it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", shyster Philadelphia lawyer ACLU technicalities don't cut it with us. We're professionals and have been given full authority by the President of these United States.

Your bunkmate will be "Cyclops" here, th guy with the third eye tattooed on his forehead.

109: Anyone remember poor hoarse Bill in 1992? He sounded terrible.

45 - For God's sake, how does John Edwards of all people have any credibility to say that Obama doesn't have enough foreign policy experience to be president? That's some fucking chutzpah right there.

i know it's not the point of this post, and that this thread is dead anyway, &c., but i think i have two objections to her that to my mind aren't at all sexist.

1. her way or the highway mentality (the hillarycare debacle, the semi-recent ny'er profile)

2. nepotistic credentials.

in my thinking, these are both gender-neutral.

112: I don't recall any such statement.