I think the American Taliban, aka the Religious Right, is just looking for any good excuse to jump ship. Sort of like rats from a sinking ship. They don't like any of the candidates -- Giuliani is too liberal, and so is Mitt (plus, quelle horreur, a Mormon). Their strategy is to burn the Republican party down on the way out the door. And it's not a bad strategy at that.

They figure, probably correctly (although with Hillary's electability problems, who knows) that the Rethugs are going get their asses handed to them this year anyway. Then they can claim that the Republican failure was because they weren't conservative enough, and because they didn't kiss up to the evangelicals enough. That will increase, in their mind, their influence in 2012.

Of course, it will also pay dividends for the Democrats. It will show the swing voters, and moderate and liberal Christians (and yes, there are a few), just how beholden the Republicans are to these right wine religious nuts. And that, in the long run, can only help the Democrats.

Goldwater did not say, "Radicalism in defense of liberty is no vice." He did famously say "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

The full quote is "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Don't you people read history? Or have fact checkers?

Actually the "the worst thing about the politically distracting "General Betray Us?" hellstorm" is that 1) it was ineffective, and 2) it forseeably and foolishly alienated many potential converts in the battle of public opinion over the war that we all should be fighting. Not everyone who is against immediate withdrawal is a fool or a knave. Some are genuinely conflicted. Some just don't follow political and war news the way we do. Why do something that will predictably piss of the very people you need to bring over to your side to prevail in what is essentially a public relations campaign. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Major league, fuckin' dumb. (And I'm on your side!)

I may be treading too much of a middle line here, but I have a bit of a different take than most of the letter writers, although I concur with them that Cary's answer is very much less than satisfactory.

First the bosses behavior is not necessarily clearly sexual harassment, although if I were the employer's lawyer, I would certainly be quite concerned about it generating such a suit. He motivations are not quite clear from what has been posted. She may be trying to get into the LW's pants, but she may just be making (quite arguably inappropriate, but not illegal) small talk at work. Likewise, she may be (unwisely, no doubt) sincerely trying to mentor the LW into coming out of the closet, expecting no personal gain other than the satisfaction of having help a young person in her employ. But whether or not it's sexual harrasment per se, it is clearly both 1) unwise from the businesses stand point, and 2) unwelcome from the letter writer's.

All that being said, it does seem to me that there are two alternatives. One is for LW to just stand up on her hind legs and tell the boss how the cow ate the cabbage. Tell her what you perceive she is doing. Tell her it's going to stop or you're going to find a new job. No two ways about it, etc. This have the advantage of confronting the wrong doing and perhaps, reforming the behavior of the wrongdoer. The second option is to just find another job. The advantage of this is that it avoids the confrontation. The choice between the two, at least to me, depends on one's tastes in confronting injustice and love or dislike of confrontation. Personally, I don't have strong feelings about which would be best for someone else, although confrontation always seemed to be one of my long suits.

Nine pages and only one remotely coherent response: Jayne's. (Although several did pick up on the issue that the diagnosis of alcoholism was extremely premature.)

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a John Edwards supporter, but does this constant waiting to see which way the wind blows before taking a position strike anyone else as gutless?

I can understand that caution is sometimes a good thing, but to have to stop and think whether you will vote to confirm a guy for attorney general who won't denounce water boarding as torture AFTER even the Bush Justice department has done so is pretty much a no brainer.

But even more disturbing is Senator Clinton's slavish unwillingness to ever take a position until she has to, and her absolute paranoia not to do so until the issue has been polled and focus grouped to the hilt. That's not leadership. It's lack of leadership and moral cowardice, plain and simple.

Joan, you're not giving John Edwards his due. The only effective blows landed against Sen. Clinton, who is ultimately unelectable for reasons that Chris Dodd pointed out, were landed by John Edwards. He was the one who called her on her waffling non-answers on social security, Rep. Rangle's AMT proposel, and drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants.

Her transparent "it's a good idea, but I'm not for it" is the kind of lawyerly Cintonesque prevarication that the American people are sick of from their public servants. They also combine with her personal baggage to make her unelectable.

Sen. Obama was milquetoast, as ususal. Sen. Biden, while effective, acted as if he was the front runner and attacked Rudy Guiliani!! And it's a wonder that Sen. Dodd, while full of substance, could win an election for U.S. Senate even in a small state like Connecticut. He's just not an effective advocate for his message. In short, John Edwards is the only viable candidate in the Democratic party that can seems to have what it takes to take on Sen. Clinton.