What is Palin playing for? The presidency? A Senate seat? A seat on the supreme court?

Ok. I took a laugh break. I'm back now. Right. She's never getting any of those things. Her own party won't support her to run a school bake sale.

What else? A show on Fox? A reality show? Maybe. But she's got plenty of batshit crazy things to say about her own self and her family and the salmon and the fricking Alaska weather.

No. The game she is playing is "pee on the carpet and then burn the house down." "Winning" just means trying to drag as many people down as she can. For no reason (remember, she was for her so-called "death panels," and she has happily accepted federal monies for her entire governorship) than the joy she feels at wanton destruction.

Congratulations. She's your champion. But what kind of loser are you to enjoy that game?

I happen to think Obama is quite capable of handling her. (In fact, he already did. In the game I'm keeping track of, it was Obama/Biden 1, McCain/Palin 0. Unless you want to count electoral votes? States carried?).

We don't need the comparisons, the media hoops, the screeds against American royalty, or the fairy-tale worship. Let's face it: no one can fill Ted Kennedy's shoes.

I like Dukakis. I'd be thrilled to see a capable woman. I'd be touched to see Vicki take the seat for the interum (I'd *love* to see her cast the final vote the health care bill this fall).

But they all sound good. I'm glad it's the governor's choice to make (assuming the legislature makes the change).

In the last 24 hours, we've had republican representatives talk about needing a "great white hope" and wanting to buy "Obama tags" (permits to hunt and kill game). A few days before that, another republican representative embraced, and called "a true American hero," a wingnut who called himself "an American terrorist;" before that, a man brought a loaded gun to a presidential event, while wearing a t-shirt that referenced an American terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people.

Make. No. Mistake.

Though they might not consciously recognize it, there are plenty of "mainstream" Republicans who would rather Obama were dead than be their leader. And his blackness is part of the reason why.

is still, ultimately a deception.

I have no idea (and neither does Huckabee, and neither does droliver) if Kennedy's health insurance covered his operation, in part or in whole. In either case, Kennedy was independently wealthy, and could have afforded the surgery if there were no health insurance for anyone at all.

But that's not the point, is it?

A public option in a health care does not mean that no one will ever be able to have medical procedures, even when the odds are not in the patient's favor. It's complete bullsh*t that no one would "allow" a patient to pay for a procedure out-of-pocket. And Huckabee's statement assumes that medical research would stop dead. It won't. There will always be a "cutting edge", and people who can take advantage of it.

No health care reform in the world can defeat mortality. But Huckabee's statement implies that a public option would dump sick people from the hospital waiting room into the gutter. It's dishonest, even if Kennedy's cancer were not stage IV and virtually inoperable.

please familiarize yourself with the proper usage of the contraction "it's." You're not doing it right.

Well, you've certainly convinced me with all the evidence you brought to back up your statement. How could I have been so naive?

Seriously. I'm sick of the faux-good-ole-boy act that covers a pile of filth.

Huckster, under the new plan, you'd get a heart transplant. You know, to fill that gaping hole in your ribcage.

Dear God! Parents: The sex conversation isn't a single conversation with your child, but an on-going dialogue from potty training through grandparent-dom. So, treat your children with respect. Answer truthfully and specifically each question they ask, but don't offer more than they want to know. Little kids ask more concrete questions than older kids.

Example conversation with a 3yo:

"Mommy, why don't I have a penis like my brother?"

"Because boys and girls are made differently. Boys have penises and girls have vaginas."

See? I could use correct terminology with a toddler/preschooler, and nobody died!

Now, I haven't told her the Entire Story, but when she's 5, she's already comfortable with the terminology:

"Mommy, why do boys have penises and girls have vaginas?"

"Because we need both kinds of parts to make babies."

"???"

"Daddies have half the things you need to make a baby, and mommies have the other half. Together, mommies and daddies create babies, which grow in mommies' uteruses until they're ready to be born."

And so on. Some kids might want all the info early, but others might need time to digest each bit.

Kids are smart. They know when they are being patronized. They know when they're being lied to. And they remember that years later, when they are looking for a trustworthy adult they can confide in (you know, when their problems and concerns get *really * complicated). If you're too immature to discuss the basics with honesty and dignity, that person won't be you.