Haven't we seen enough of this person?

There is no bias against step moms--there is a bias against step moms and dads.

As a single father I have faced all kinds of crap that includes constantly having to prove that I have the right to be a parent to my kids to regularly being asked--by women always--if I have a restraining order against me simply because I am male, divorced and dealing with the school, daycare and etc--wow! what an unusual situation.

Now you are saying there is a bias against step moms? Stop whining. Here are the two stereotypes we both fight against--step moms are mean and unloving vs step dads are mean, unloving, likely sexual harrassers and/or molesters, deadbeats, and on and on.

Now as a step dad, my youngest step child routinely lies to manipulate situations against my kids or to get what she wants and when I call her on it she says "Tough, get me what I want."

The means to get past this is to make sure that both parents back the other up and hold their kids accountable for being rude and mean. It's fine if the child does not feel good about the arrangement, but it is not an excuse to act out.

I remember the 1992 election well and I also remember the economic situation as well because at the time I was earning my degree in political science.

The recession was far more severe than you describe it and in some areas, such as the northeast and midwest, it was very severe and driven by a combination of massive manufacturing job losses and the floor falling out from under the real-estate market. Other areas suffered less for a variety of reasons, but it was a severe recession that took a long time to climb out of. In fact, certain areas in the midwest never did.

In terms of health care, it and the economy (including fixing the budget) were the issues Clinton ran on and they were the issues that had the strongest resonance with the plurality that elected him. Health care then was very bad (nearly as many uninsured as now) and perhaps worse because this was in the days before SCHIP and other programs to ensure children and the unemployed such as COBRA (imperfect, but better than nothing as it saved my life when I was diagnosed with cancer, and SCHIP provided insurance to my kids during that time as well).

Perot bled off votes from both sides but that year was clearly a change year and Clinton would have won with or without Perot running.

So yes, he did have a mandate to fix a seriously ailing economy and a very dysfunctional healthcare system.

I stand by: B Obama id B Clinton 2.0, which to my mind is a good thing.

Obama is essentially Bill Clinton 2.0. Clinton also came into office with a mandate to fix healthcare and a faltering economy and he promised to do it in a bipartisan way. We know how Republicans behaved.

Now Obama is in the exact same position and is being labeled as polarizing. Michelle is next, but let's hope neither she nor Barack face the same idiot left accusing them of being polarizing and etc. as H. Clinton did a year ago.

Is nothing more than the press trying to garner a scoop to a meaningless story.

The real story is not that Geithner or anybody else in government new about it. The story is that AIG has a compensation structure that pays bonuses for screwing the company, its stockholders and the world economy.

The story is a failure of capitalism to adequately provide for the least and maintain a semblance of pay for work and merit.

A little socialism would go a long way in this country.

I don't think this is analogous because Lamont was far more of a general election threat, ran on a set of issues with the Iraq war as the center piece and ran against an incumbent that had gone so far off the reservation that it was impossible to recognize him as anything near a Democrat.

I think Specter will win more easily because Republicans in the ranks--the voters--I think have tended toward a more moderate approach and away from reactionary right wing politics (not en masse, of course, but enough to swing the primary). Also, western PA has been hammered by the economy and the Republicans message of no versus Specter's willingness to do something make a good contrast among the Pittsburgh and area voters.

The Republicans will waste trillions to invace Iraq under false pretenses and then work to rebuild the country in the wake of that destruction.

But when the US and its citizens are faced with disaster--financial meltdown or Katrina--the Republicans say that government should be idle. Save the Iraqis and let the US die in flood and economic collapse.

Democrats on the other hand say no to wars like Iraq and yes to providing substantive aid to Katrina and for the financial collapse.

Not much of a choice.

Has a great column online today in which a recent appearence by Perle is critiqued. Apparently, Perle says there is no such thing as neoconservatism and he had nothing to do with anything. It's really fascinating the sociopathic mentality on display.