"because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues."

Unless in "those rooms" in her capacity as a lawyer why would she need to talk about women's issues unless it pertained to the case or project she was working on? And what does "act like a man" mean? Why couldn't she just act like a lawyer?

Certainly, Edwards did not call Hillary Clinton a man, but it was snarky. I don't think anyone can question Clinton's position on women's issues, however she's running a serious campaign for the Presidency at a very sobering and critical time in our nation's history. Women's issues, like some issues that are important to me personally, are not what this election should be overly concerned with. The current administration has put this country in a dire situation and clearly they plan to keep us there and let the next administration take the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but she is correct, and smart, for keeping her campaign focused where it should be.

John Edwards, lagging in the polls and fundraising, is trying to separate himself from the pack with his "poverty tour." He seemed vaguely dismissive of Iraq when interviewed NPR. Elizabeth Edwards is trying to carve out another niche. Both Edwards seem a little too calculating and lawyerly for my taste.

...is he sent alone into a big room where a huge flaming Cheney head (like Oz) tells him what to do? Pay no attention to the Vice President behind the curtain.

18 months. That's the scary part. Bush and his followers seem loonier by the day. I think most of the country seems cringingly embarassed by it all, but we're stuck for 18 more months...that's the scariest part.

"So essentially, women's issues are the COUNTRY's issues, not some elite set of separate concerns that only half the human race cares about..."

That was the point I was trying to make (and probably not too well). I felt Elizabeth Edwards' comments were aliitle sneaky and undeserved. I don't dislike either of the Edwards, but (and I thought the same thing in 04), to me there is some darkness beneath the sunny exterior with both of them. And this just seemed like cheap shot.

Your letter hit the bullseye.

Whenever you see someone older with a person half their age its always creepy. I have to say its creepier when its an older woman with a younger man...for one reason. I went to dinner last week to one of those expensive beautifulpeople place. Sure enough, in comes a revolting older man with a leggy bombshell in a tiny dress half his age. There was a self awareness there that said "Yeah, I opened my wallet and I'm getting every penny's worth." Men know the hot young chick isn't into THEM. But an older woman...well just read alot of these letters: it's the "experience" and "wisdom" and "maturity." Bullshit. The hot young guy ain't into you, its what you can give him.

And if the young one is really into the older when...well they're usually not hot, and they usually have some freaky issues.

If the pervert who wrote that letter is having intimate problems with her marriage its most likely because her husband is disturbed by her oogling the son...and probably any other teenage boy who happens by.

My advice: age gracefully. You'll be much happier.

Sure there have been plenty of protests over the Iraq war, but they aren't the same as those over viet Nam...and I, too, say it was the draft. The Iraq war still personally affects few American citizens. I was in grammar school during the Viet Nam war and I remember neighborhood guys leaving for the war (and not coming back). It became a terror. There was real panic when guys reached draft age.

I don't like Chris Mathews, but his point is well taken. The viet Nam protests were visceral, the Iraq protests aren't. This war hasn't landed on the doorstep of many people. We have the luxury of indifference. Its a concept, not a reality.

The Bush administration wants to run out the clock and dump this mess in the lap of whoever takes office in 2009.

The congressional Republicans want to stymie the congressional Democrats any chance they get to better position themselves in the next elections.

The Democrats don't want to contribute much beyond complaining and "why I outta..." They don't want any responsiblity for any of this before the elections.

So were in limbo with a worsening situation. Don't expect anything much to happen in the next 18 months.

Good for him! I'm delighted to see that.

But I am going to find which Democrats voted with the Republicans. That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the vote tally.

Remember the old Rod Stewart story? Yes, THAT one.

Condi's probably having her stomach pumped right now.