Let's be honest in our use of lanuage, people. Who is "trying to fend off attacks on women's reproductive rights"?? Since the Shakers died out, has anyone in the United States seriously opposed women's right to reproduce? Can anyone provide quotations or links to such advocacy?

Well, I suppose the Commonwealth of Virginia impeded the riht to reproduce back when it required certain feeble minded women (and men) to be sterilized, a practice that the Supreme Court upheld in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) (Oliver Wendell Holmes famously fulminated, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough.")

The State of Oklahoma once required persons thrice convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude, some of whom may have been women, to be rendered sterile. The Supreme Court invalidated that Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942).

What's that, now? Ms. Clark-Flory was talking, not about attacks on reproductive rights, but attacks on abortion rights? Then, for Orwell's sake, say so. Calling abortion rights, "reproductive rights" is every bit as fatuous as those on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war claiming to be "pro-life". Either makes as much sense as referring to capital punishment as the life penalty.

When George Orwell observed that "[w]hen ther is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink[,]" he was not offering praise.

Buck v. Bell and Skinner v. Oklahoma offer examples of governmental attacks or restrictions on reproductive rights. Cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (declarin unconstitutional a statute that criminalized use of contraceptive devices) and Roe v. Wade (recognizing a fundamental right to choose abortion prior to viability are in fact about the right to avoid (unwanted) reproduction. Let's be honest about our side's use of the English language.

Or perhaps Hillary said "I do", but then didn't.

You are absolutely right. I don't know. That is precisely why I said, "one wonders".

Another thing that Bill Clinton had going for him so far as public understanding was the perception that his home life may have been lacking in physical displays of affection. According to the Independent Counsel Report, Miss Lewinsky testified that, just after she first fellated President Clinton, "I think he made a joke . . . that he hadn't had that in a long time."

One wonders whether Mr. Clinton would have behaved differently if Mrs. Clinton had been more accommodating in that regard.

John McCain does for intellectual honesty what Christian Szell did for dentistry.

John McCain's association with dishonest people in fact hits a lot closer to home than Charles Keating.

See: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09-08/news/opiate-for-the-mrs/

Does anyone other than a diehard Republican want a (diverted) drug thief occupying the White House as First "Lady"?

Sarah Palin is remarkably unqualified for the job that she seeks. How can one who cannot face Rachel Maddow or Campbell Brown even hope to stand toe to toe with Vladimir Putin?

Of the nominees for president and vice president, however, only one has flown a plane, designed a building or performed surgery. That one lost five planes.

George Washington could not tell a lie. Bill Clinton could not tell the truth.

George W. Bush, John McCain and Sarah Palin cannot tell the difference.

People, leave this family alone. Those of us who support the rights of privacy and personal autonomy should respect the privacy of others. Governor Palin is a public figure; her daughter is not.

Bristol Palin has made choices. The choice to have sex as a teenager proved unfortunate, but sex happens. When sex happens, pregnancy sometime results. I suggest that it speaks well of her family that the young Miss Palin is being loved and supported in her decisionmaking.

In fact, Sarah and Todd Palin are showing a much stronger commitment to family values than John and Cindy McCain. The Palin family values are far and away preferable to the McCain family values.

The Republican at the top of the ticket openly philandered during his first marriage and dumped his first wife (a former swimsuit model) after she became disfigured and crippled, in order to marry 24-year-old Barbie beer heiress, whose family financed his initial political campaign. This prospective first lady became addicted to drugs and has acknowledged stealing from a charity in order to support her habit. John McCain is reported to have called his wife a cunt and a trollop in the presence of reporters. McCain boasted to a crowd of bikers, with his wife present on stage, that he had encouraged her to enter the group's "Miss Buffalo Chip" pageant (past contests had included a "talent competition" wherein contestants had simulated fellatio on a banana).

For that matter, when it comes to family vaules, the Obama family values far surpass the McCain family values. Can anyone imagine Barack Obama addressing his wife as "you cunt"?

Speaking as one who stongly supports the rights to privacy and personal autonomy, I would appeal to those who share these views to afford this family the privacy we would claim for our own personal decisions.

The young Miss Palin has made choices in her life. Those choices are not the subject of fair comment, and should not be used to attempt to gain a tawdry political advantage.

To quote the candidate for president whom I support: Enough!!

given all the past positions that Governor Romney was willing to abandon when he decided to run for president, I am surprised that he hasn't undergone reassignment surgery in order to be named the vice-presidential nominee.