If the FISA bill currently begin debated in Congress should pass with no provisions for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, this will have been achieved, in no small part, due to the efforts of Glenn Greenwald. I am sure I speak for many, Mr. Greenwald, when I say thank you for all you do - it is columns/blogs like yours that give me hope that democracy isn't completely dead in this country.

There are times when I think we liberals and progressives actually enjoy losing elections. Or perhaps we simply refuse to sacrifice our principles and ideology on the altar of politics and compromise. In a perfect world, that might be a worthy approach to governing, but we clearly don't live in a perfect world.

It seems to have become a truism here at Salon and on other liberal blogs that Hillary is not a "real" progressive or liberal, and hence, should not be supported as the Democractic nominee. Fair enough, but it's utter bullshit.

Back in 1991 and 1992, and during the first half of Bill Clinton's first term, the prevailing wisdom at that time was that Hillary was too liberal, and that this liberalism would naturally cause her husband to govern in the same way (and we all know that it simply is not acceptable to have a liberal as President). In fact, or so the conventional history goes, it was because of this liberal approach to politics and governance that the Republicans were able to sweep the Democrats out of office in the historic 1994 electoral tidal wave, blah, blah, blah. The cliches are themselves so hackneyed as to be tiresome.

Now, a mere 15 years later, we're told that Hillary actually is completely the opposite - a cold, calculating, ruthless bitch, or, as Andrew Sullivan termed her on Bill Maher the other evening, "Dick Cheny in a pantsuit." I expect that kind of crap from Sullivan, who can't help but spout incoherent, contradictory (and sexist) opinions in any forum where he speaks. I am, however, surprised by the patent sexism of Walter Shapiro's column, particularly his statement "the cameras caught Clinton glaring at Edwards with daggers darting from her eyes before turning on a smile when she was asked to respond." If this statment isn't anti-woman, I don't know what is. Would Shapiro accuse Obama or Edwards of "shooting daggers" at their opponents and then "turning on a smile?" Of course not.

In recent years, I found myself buying into the standard media narrative that Hillary is not to be trusted, that she's really a moderate, no, she's too conservative, or too liberal, or she will do anything to get elected, say anything, compromise on anything, that she's untrusworthy, dishonest, duplicitous, treacherous, dangerous. Over time, however, it has occurred to me that this is precisely the same narrative that the right wing noise machine (a/k/a - mainstream media) has employed against every Democrat in past elections, particularly Al Gore.

Even more important, such descriptions reek of sexism and male patriarchy, both of which were sickeningly on display in last night's debate. Rather than challenge it, Shapiro actualy seemed to endorse this behavior in his column.

I find it particularly ironic that last night's debate took place the day before Halloween. When a woman speaks truth to power, or, God forbid, appears to be powerful herself (does Anita Hill come to mind, anyone?), the male patriarchy roars into action and performs a modern day version of burning the witch at the stake. Despite the piling on by her fellow candidates and the two moderators, Hillary walked away last night unsinged, and for that, I salute her and her courage. Would all the Democractic nominees have acted with the same dignity.