The influence if the Internet has been to make more information available to more people more quickly. In that sense it has only amplified America's moral judgements, not changed them. Compared to, for example, the 18th century, sex outside of marriage is probably less accepted only in those days it wasn't published in the media. America, which is less Puritan than Southern Baptist, is more excited about the sinner than the saint, because it is the sinner who affirms their beliefs by repenting. Clinton and Spitzer only repented of their deception, not really about their sexual exploits and did not play the role of repentant. Had Clinton bit a little less popular, like Spitzer he would have suffered the same fate.

Hillary should pull out graciously now, but it's very clear she's not going to do that, so what's the point in Obama trying to stop her? Saying she's acting like a stubborn child is not going to get him any friends. Notice the subtext here. Yes, she can stay until the primaries are over, but once the last one ends, then she needs to drop out (unless some miracle has occured and she gains a lead over him).

Look, he needs her supporters, their votes and their money to win in November, and he needs her support as a Senator when he is President.

It is intellectual curiosity, not a fascination with how pretty the world is that produces good scientists. If America is going to produce the great mathemeticians and scientists it did in the past we need to delight children with learning, not with play. And believe me, children do want to learn things.

She is really clutching at straws here. If the positions were reversed I don't think she'd be making a big moral issue out of this. And if there's a moral issue here isn't it that you can't flout the rules and expect to be rewarded? The good news is that if this is what she's resorting to, she understands there is no other way she can get the nomination.

"You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run" -- The Gambler by Kenny Rogers

So women get turned on watch a man and woman, two women or two men. Heterosexual men get turned on by watching a man and a woman, two women but not two men. And the assumption is this is genetic. You don't think this has to do with social attitudes towards male homosexuality?

I would expect that being a white woman you'd think there was no racism involved in this election. Maybe you don't see the racial overtones of the Rev Wright matter. When Falwell, Hagee or Robertson says something much worse it doesn't reflect on the white politicians they associate with. Obama's patriotism has been questioned on many occasions, since he isn't the typical all-american white boy. I'm not black myself, but I can see these things, I am sure there is a lot more I don't see.

To be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the problem here is that Obama isn't all that black (he's half white, middle class and the child of an African immigrant) and Hillary is not all that female, she's tough, agressive and domineering.

Where politicians get their money is of immese importance to me and every other American. How they spend it isn't. Businesses, universities, even churches spend lots of money on consultants because they think the consultant is worth it. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. Let's face it, Mark Penn has been sacked because Hillary's campaign is about to go under. Penn's final duty, like any fired cosultant, is to accept the blame for his boss's failure.

As a person who was a Conservative in my younger years but also changed in the 60s enough to cast my first vote for George McGovern, I could follow the story, but I can't help wondering, why I still believe in those ideals but Hillary does not. What I would like to know, is not just how the Goldwater conservative became a liberal, but how the liberal became willing to let go of all her idealism to promote her personal ambition. To put it nicely, she's become a pragmatist, certainly not an idealist.

Sometimes I really enjoy reading Paglia because she is intelligent and writes interesting stuff...occasionally. But too often she simply panders to the macho-loving culture we live in. I won't even go into the erormity of blaming Lawrence King for his own murder. Her statement that homosexuality is not biological but an adaptation is a clear twisting of the truth and only gives credence to the belief that it is a (sinful) choice. Yes, indeed any manifestation of genetic difference involves adaptation to the environment. Every trait we manifest, be it physical or psychological involves an interplay between genetics and environment. Furthermore she asserts that all people are bisexual. Well, Camille, I know you are, and that your sexual preference changes according to your political beliefs at the time. Indeed I find this much more common among women, probably due to the diffuse nature of their sexuality. Yes, everyone is a little bit bisexual, but most could not carry on a sexual relationship with either sex and be happy. Most people have a very strong procivity towards one sex and no desire to interact sexually with the other.

By constantly harping on little inaccuracies in the liberal ideology, she only serves to bolster the legitimacy of the traditional patriarchal culture.

The author of this book is saying the 60s didn't achieve anything that he values. It is absurd to say the 60s were not a watershed in US cultural history. I am a 53 year old man and I can still see a huge generation gap between those my age and those who are now over 65. No cultural, social and political gap of that size has happened since then.