I'm listening to the stream of the speech on C-Span while reading today's Salon articles and was brought up short when I heard President Obama make those comments about the hajib! I was stunned at he talked about fighting for the freedom to wear the hajib here in the U.S. using our legal system. Worse, he's making those comments while in a region where, in most countries, there is no freedom NOT to wear the hajib. Where schoolgirls were burned alive in a locked building because they didn't wear their hajibs while trying to escape! Where the morality police arrest women for showing an ankle or wrist...or a lock of hair! Where women aren't allowed outside their home without a male relative escort! Where girls are murdered by their brothers and fathers because they were raped and "disgraced" their families! Where the hajib isn't about freedom but about oppression---which shouldn't be encouraged through law or "traditional" customs in any country.

Omygod! He's now talking about women's rights! To paraphrase: It doesn't matter what they wear, but only that they get an education. Obviously he doesn't see that repressive "traditions" lead to repression in all other areas of life!

OK, that's it. I've just stopped the stream on C-Span, fearing that the next thing he's going to say is that it's OK to bind our feet and bring back the use of chastity belts!

...the burqa!!

Sorry if this aging feminist sees years and years of working hard for women's equality going right down the sewer as our president gives his blessing to repressive "customs" as a woman's choice.

The benefit of getting up late is that I missed all the early comments...and got to see the video itself without having to turn on the TV and actually watch Fixed News.

Why in the world would you have subjected yourself to that awful man, Joan? He's a vulture who truly enjoys bully around "guests" and, worse, as others have posted (I could only read a few of the 800+ posting thus far before I had to give up out of frustration) he makes the rules to fit his mood.

But the worse thing in all of this, Joan, is that it opened another venue for those opposed to abortion to spew their venom as well---both here and wherever they can write and talk. They don't want to dialog and we shouldn't provide them with opportunities to spout their propaganda.

Having said that, Joan, you kept your cool and did as good a job as possible under fire from that creep. Just don't do it again, OK?

Laurel962 hits the nail on the head when she comments about brides going for the latest trend, no matter how it looks on her, no matter what her size or shape. This is especially true of the strapeless trend. Few women really look well in strapeless gowns.

Most amazing of all is when people gush over the "beauty" of the gown. That causes me to do a doubletake because, frankly, they all look alike to me! The $200 one looks no different than the $2000 one and, more important, both look bad if the person wearing it just shouldn't be wearing that kind of style.

Ditto for bridemaids dresses. I've been to far too many weddings where I note the women pulling up or adjusting the strapeless gown she shouldn't be wearing in the first place!'

Yes, brides-to-be, people are going to say you look beautiful. That's what people are expected to say and, in the eyes of your parents and husband-to-be, the comment might actually be true. But the rest are just going through the motions of being polite when, if you could read their minds, they're really thinking "What in the world possessed her to wear strapeless with her.....?" (fill in the rest with "flat chest" or "chubby arms" or "too large bust" or " acne scars" or--one of my favorite--"those ugly tatoos!")

A quick reading of her biography on Wikipedia confirmed what I remembered learning about her when she first burst onto the national scene. Sarah has quit a political post before. This is just a repeat performance. She ran for Lt. Gov. and came in second in the primary to Loren Leman, who then went on to become the running mate of Frank Murkowski. They won the election in 2002. Murkowski, who was serving in the U.S. Senate at the time, resigned from the position in December of that year to become governor. For some reason, he is reported to have considered appointing Palin to replace him in the Senate but, instead, appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, who still holds that seat. Murkowski then tossed a little bone to Palin by appointing her to the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, which she chaired beginning 2003. A year later, citing "lack of ethics" of fellow Republican members on the commission, she resigned

She's just trying out a strategy that worked for her before because she then went on to run for Governor, defeating Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary and then winning the spot by defeating democrat Tony Knowles.

But the stakes are much higher this time. And if she does make a move for the presidency (or even that Alaska Senate seat) voters need to be reminded that she's quit political office twice already and what guarantees do we have that she won't quit once again if she gets bored, or the heat becomes too intense, or she envisions fame and fortune elsewhere?