As has been noted, anybody criticizing HRC in the slightest got called a "Hillary hater" by her rabid supporters--including, now, apparently, Joe Conason. Object to her war stance? Hillary hater. Question her race-baiting during the primary? Hillary hater. Dare to support anybody else? Hillary hater. Etc. etc. ad nauseam et cetera.

Now, apparently, we're supposed to "get over it." Obama, who many of you said couldn't win, won. I'm not entirely sure what we're supposed to "get over." If somebody needs to apologize, it would seem to be the people who backed race-baiting as a primary tactic and were hatin' on the big O until the day after the election.

A lot of us who questioned HRC, and were called Hillary haters, have no problem with HRC as SoS. Why? Because she's not going to be in charge. She'll be working for Obama.

And we're happy with that. The man's smart enough to use talent where he sees it.

Anybody here think that Clinton would have put Obama in her administration?

Thought not.

Obama haters, get over it.

>The smart money says that Chambliss is a slight favorite....

>According to the latest Public Policy Poll, Chambliss leads challenger Jim Martin with 53 percent to Martin's 46.

Seven percent is a "slight" lead? The only reason to argue this is to slight Obama's decision not to show up. Salon strikes again!

No, not the book, the election year. Noonan's column reminds me of a college professor friend of mine who couldn't believe that Reagan was re-elected. "Nobody I know voted for him!"

Noonan's checks keep coming; she doesn't see anybody wearing rags and patches around her; there aren't beggars lining the street corners. So everything is okay, right? Her friends are still clipping coupons and complaining about the stupidity of the help.

Meanwhile, local food pantries are begging for donations, because they've never been hit this hard before. But heck, how many people do you think Noonan knows who use food pantries?

Yes, folks, we had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.

It's never too early to point out that a clown is a clown.

It's never too early to point out that a lying hypocrite is a Republican.

It's never too late to point out that the RNC broke the law.

Regardless of what the Republican trolls on these boards say, let's take the clown out of the big tent and show her for what she is.

C=MI

Clinton was a Soviet mole; Barack can't be an American because he's black.

C=MI

>Because he has spent $800,000 defending it already and has hired another 3 lawfirms to keep defending it.

He has?

You have proof of this?

And I don't mean "what somebody has said," nor do I mean "something from a web site." Have you seen the billing records--not copies, but the records? Have you examined them yourself, held them in your hands?

And how do you know that they weren't produced by some fraud on a laser printer?

You have no proof. Because, of course, there is no proof possible. No proof of anything.

But certainly no proof of this.

"We were approached ‘pay to play.’ That, you know, he’d raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator."

What's illegal about this? "He'd raise me" is a reference to campaign contributions, not direct graft. There's no crime here--it's a promise to work for somebody, that's all. The other stuff, especially the Cubs stuff, may well be criminal--but this is BAU, SOP, not putting money into Blago's pocket--directly, at least.

As a man, I have often wondered if women have a sex drive. Seeing what passes for a sex drive in the media, I'm not convinced; "upgrade me" has no relationship to reality, for example. Ordinary women seem to rarely look at men with desire (no, I'm not talking about solely myself here; I'm an avid student of the human spectacle).

I've come to the conclusion that, at least in this culture, feminine sexual desire is deliberately depressed (assuming that it exists at all). "Sex drive" has been reduced to, at best, a "sex amble," or, perhaps, a "sex crawl." The notion that physical intimacy must be preceded by deep emotional intimacy contributes to this notion, given that most men--in this culture--have approximately the same difficulty expressing their emotions and engaging in emotional intimacy that women have feeling sexual desire.

We've been working on a paradigm since the time of Socrates and Paul that the body is, at worst, evil, at best, a distraction from higher, better concerns. As far as sex goes, in our culture, women seem to have embraced this notion (yes, I know I'm making broad generalizations, and that there will be outliers--perhaps "outlayers" would be a better term). "Girls gone Wild" is both a big seller and recognized as pure fantasy; as a rule, girls don't go wild. They rarely seem to get even to a state of mild titillation. Sex, for many of them, appears to be more of a payment for services rendered, a way of securing a relationship, and a slippery slope (so to speak) that, if one were to truly let oneself go, would lead to dissolution and destruction.

Ecstasy is not a end that is desired; dissolution of the self in the explosive moment is feared; intense desire is seen as a destroyer rather than a liberator. It's all very sad.

>Politics in Illinois stinks like a whorehouse at low tide.

1) The simile makes no sense.

2) As vs. the clean, bracing smell in every other state?

The big difference between Illinois politics and that of most other states is the pretension of "good government" in most other states. In Illinois, the corruption is acknowledged rather than ignored.

Everybody knew Blago was "corrupt"--i.e., he engaged in politics.