Couldn't disagree with you more about phase II. The sensible center still control elections and that includes folks both left and right of bill clinton. Republicans were swept into power by capturing the middle class, middle of the road centrists and were swept out of power by alienating the same. Obama was not elected based on his liberal philosophy, but as a change agent that represented anybody but Bush (McCain). The way I see it is in the electorate, there are 35% left wing nutjobs, 35% right wing nutjobs, and 30% in the middle that can go either way. If republicans recognize the folly of social policies that alienate the middle....they will be back in full force in 2012....or maybe 2016.

This article is naive to think Democrats will vote like a block of progressives. The 60 votes will certainly help on some issues, but there are plenty of moderate democrats in the Senate (and the electorate) who disagree with many of the left wing initiatives....especially on scope. I suspect those differences will be enough to keep the far left howling throughout the Obama era. It may surprise the author and many hardcore liberals to learn many of us Democrats who voted for Obama did not do so because we hoped for a Pelosi agenda....Sorry.

I guess since Ruth Bader Ginsburg is clearly liberal, what Joan is really saying is we need a conservative women nominated for the court, so it really starts to look like America. Oh snap, conservative women aren't really women (as defined by Joan's feminist echo chamber)...my bad.

Jeez....and here I thought that speculative potential was exactly what was used for drug trafficking sentences. Is there a modern legal system anywhere that doesn't use the potential for harm as a basis for sentencing? This woman, like many before her, got caught with a large quantity of a very bad drug. Can someone remind me why I should feel sorry for her ? Because, maybe it wasn't her fault ?...or maybe she got raped somehow, or maybe.....she's a woman ?

The problem is you have no credibility. Who cares if you pay too much attention or too little attention to what is happening outside our borders, when your whole movement is based on a phony premise, no one listens. Until feminists can have an honest discussion without using falsehoods and straw men to advance their agenda, no one cares. From domestic violence to the gender pay gap, from rape to family court, from childhood education to college enrollment, feminism is built on a pile of lies and misinformation. You have only minor support in this country, do you think anyone outside our borders care what american feminists think ?

This post is more about Rebecca Traister's insecurities than it is a legitimate critique of the referenced article.

Reading through the letters it becomes pretty clear that there are nuts on both sides of this issue. It so hard to decide which side is crazier...left or right ?

"the option of single parenthood ("So if you really want a baby, just have a baby! And maybe that will free you up to have real love”)"

Yes, who cares if the child doesn't get a father, as long as mom get's what she wants, everyone's happy, right ? (assuming government provided healthcare and childcare)

"the need for men to take equal responsibility in fertility ("They need to be considerate about their girlfriend or fiancee or wife’s fertility, and they should known that their fertility declines with age, too, albeit not as drastically as women’s")"

What is this, 1950 ? If your having a problem finding a man with these sensitivities, I suggest YOU are doing something wrong. This reeks of misandry.

"and the phenomenon of "instant families" (typically formed when a couple in their waning years of fertility "meet, marry and have a kid within two years," sometimes leading to "instant divorces")"

Again, is there anyone that thinks this is reasonable? The bigger problem is the complete lack of respect for a child's right to be raised by both biological parents. If you have kids, it's for better or worse.....not when it is no longer convenient for mom. Why is that feminists think mom's rights trump dad and child's rights ?

after your most convincing argument, no I don't think any women should ever be held accountable for her actions.....my bad.

What most of the country prefers, black or white, male or female, is a fair competition.... the problems arise when the far left (feminists) comes in to "make special rules" so competition no longer matters, but forced results do. You remember Joan, the same thing you tried to do to get Hillary elected. Since you are assuming Chris Matthews, et al represent all white men (how sexist), I guess I should assume you represent all white women....oh shit, you don't even speak for women, never mind white or democratic.....you keep speaking your truth, Joan, but your the one who looked overanxious tonight. I think this SCOTUS pick is stirring up some old bad feelings about how Hillary had her coronation stolen away from her by the rich white boys.

Another area where women can pay less in and take more out. Another victory for women everywhere !

As a group, don't think they're owed anything. What we do want is a level field to compete on. Clearly not something feminists want. Affirmative action is quota's.....quota's mean non-compete. Why are feminists so afraid to compete for anything ? Are you so afraid you can't win, that you need daddy government to "allocate" all your advancements ? I know my three college educated, employed, successful, democratically registered sisters don't think that way. Oh, wait if they earned their own way, that must make them.....privileged !