Gordon does include this one paragraph that casts some doubt on Bergner's claims:

"Previously, Iranian officials have said that the United States is fabricating evidence to back up its accusation that Iran is sending bombs and weapons into Iraq. Some critics have cast doubt on the American military statements about the penetrator bombs, saying the evidence linking them to Iran was circumstantial and inferential."

Is it just me or am I the only one who thinks this $50 million reward business is pretty naive and self-centered? The Afghan and Pakistani people don't have the same concept of money as we Americans do. I don't think the problem is that the US wasn't offering enough money for bin Laden's head. I have a hard time imagining these people saying, "$25 million?? That's a slap in the face! Double that, then we'll talk."

Tim,

I hope you'll update your post. The figure reflects the percentage of Americans that have never lived without a Bush or Clinton in the White House as president OR vice-president. Quite different.

I don't understand your argument that Obama's use of "down" cannot be read in any other way than the one you suggest. He seems (clearly) to be referring to her recent losses, suggesting that she is "going negative" because she feels like she's losing the race and needs to make up some ground. "Feeling down" does not have to mean feeling depressed (especially in this context)-- and even if he meant it that way, why is that automatically a sexist attack? Are women the only ones who can "feel down" or react negatively to adverse situations? By reading this as a gendered attack, you yourself are reinscribing the same essentialized notions of gender that we feminists should be working against.

I also think it's somewhat disingenuous of you to suggest that because Obama is a skilled orator he obviously chose his words very carefully with the intention of belittling Clinton because of her gender. This was a response to a direct question about Clinton's negative ads, and it's very clear in the clip that he stumbles through his response quite ineloquently.

I hope you'll update your post to reflect the new information about how Gov. Spitzer's actions were exposed. It was not the "prostitution ring" that was the target of the investigation, but rather Spitzer himself, when the IRS was alerted to "suspicious" money transfers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1

And, by the way, I agree with entirely (as usual).

For all your concern over the victimized women who are driven into prostitution, you haven't suggested any ways in which keeping prostitution illegal will help these women. Remember, prostitution IS illegal in the US and has been for a long time. How does criminalizing these people do anything to solve the problem. It's a much broader issue of class, education and gender inequity that is not going to be solved by simply outlawing the practice.

On a somewhat related note, I just watched last night's Countdown, which the always wonderful Rachel Maddow hosted. In one segment she cites the recent poll that suggests 81% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek comes on to discuss the poll, and Maddow asks why these poll results are not reflected in McCain's poll numbers when he is essentially running on the platform of "four more years." Alter says it's because McCain is widely viewed as a "maverick," and that he has voted against many of Bush's policies, so it's really not so surprising that most Americans don't link him to the Bush administration.

Maddow counters that McCain has completely "flip-flopped" on many of those issues (tax cuts, immigration, torture), and he has said himself that he plans to continue Bush's policies on both the economy and the Iraq war. Why then, she asks Alter, isn't the media more critical of this perception of McCain as a maverick, when he is clearly in lock step with the president on the most important issues?

Alter responds that it is not the job of the press to change this perception. Even though he agrees that the press perpetuates this false image of McCain, he says that it is the responsibility of the Democratic party to challenge that perception, and it's their fault they haven't been able to do that since they've been too busy fighting each other. Incredible.

But that's precisely the point-- the reference was to masculine reproductive organs, not female ones. I don't believe that you're naive enough to suggest that a praise of "ovarian fortitude" would be received with the same sort of enthusiasm.

The bottom line is that the debate about assertiveness and leadership qualities is still being framed in terms of masculine and feminine, suggesting that these "Presidential" characteristics are somehow inherently masculine. A woman cannot be said to be strong, aggressive, and decisive without simultaneously being characterized as "having balls" or not being a "pansy."

I just don't see how this can be considered a "betrayal," even if I accept the flimsy premise that NARAL should automatically endorse Clinton. She has no path to the nomination. The race is essentially over, whether she stubbornly decides to stay in the race or not. I was happy to read this news this morning, because it shows NARAL's desire to move toward party unity so we can be assured of a pro-choice win in November.

Hmm... It's interesting that you mention NAFTA as if HRC hasn't done more than her fair share of pandering on the issue, despite her consistent support for it before she needed strong wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. You accuse the Obama-ites of mindless groupthink, but seem unwilling to think critically about your own candidate.