I had to read so many impassioned essay papers on the subject of abortion when I taught freshmen comp. The essay papers came from both prochoice and antiabortion types. Sometimes they were succinct, but mostly they were logically all over the place. I know all the arguments pro and con. I grew so weary of them. Every time I graded a paper on abortion and gave less than a A, the student complained that the grade I gave was the result of my own views -- despite the fact that I never revealed my views in class or to any of them on this issue.

However, as someone who is used to looking at language, I have noticed that there is a certain enduring Anonymous persona whose specialty is attacking Broadsheet. This person always claims to be a feminist and has a bare acquaintance with feminist history.

Frankly, I would not give much credence to anything this person says, not because this person is posting as Anonymous but because this (rather recognizable person) is really trollish and seems to hate women and likes to stir things up with little reference to actual facts.

This person enjoys accusing others of lying and pretends that he/she has some sort of corner on THE TRUTH. Amusingly, this person will sometimes twist what other people say beyond all conscience. This person also knows little about things like paraphrasing a quote. This person will always claim that a paraphrase is a lie. This person is a waste of a rational person's breath and brain cells. My advice: Don't wear out your keyboard hoping to engage in a logical discussion. It won't happen.

In her book "Living History" on page 108, Clinton says: "Of course I meant to refer to Tammy Wynette's famous song 'Stand by Your Man,' not her as a person. . . I regretted the way I had come across, and I apologized to Tammy personally and later publicly in another television interview."

That this should somehow matter all these years later strikes me as absurd.

My own personal opinion is that Hillary Clinton should not have stood by her man. She should have put him out to pasture like the randy old goat he was and let him piss on his beard.

(You have to have been personally acquainted with actual male goats to understand the beard reference.)

However, she decided that she wanted to keep him.

That she once believed him and defended him is public record. That he let her defend him (knowing that she believed his lies) is appalling. He should never have allowed her to do so. Also, he certainly should never have lied under oath.

What is really strange to me is that, among Hillary Haters, she takes more heat for this than Bill did. Most of the Hillary Haters I know are men. I can never get a clear answer whether they hate her for defending a husband she thought was under unfair attack at the time, or whether they hate her for sticking by him.

Does this mean that men who may have cheated on their wives and been forgiven have utter contempt for their own wives for forgiving them? To me this makes little sense.

Please enlighten me if you have an opinion.

I think Bill did take him down with him.

I remember that shortly after the Monica story first broke, there was a televised gathering of the faithful (the unfaithful one was there as well). Sort of a rally 'round the asshole. Hillary was not there. Anyway, the cameras captured Gore's face. He was white, absolutely white. I think he had some clue what was coming, if only by instinct or cynicism. He was not the equivalent of a believing wife. I am pretty good at face reading. I think Gore knew or strongly suspected that Clinton was lying.

Do you dislike Gore?

How long should we punish people for being the victims (there were so many) of one uncontrolled dickhead?

See this:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtmn/is_200703/ai_n18729690

Maybe Dennis Milligan is actually planning something.

With Hillary, Bill must lordy and toady both. At least, if she becomes president, we can probably expect more toady than lordy.

If you read this, I wouldn't mind a few links on the specific narcissistic behavior you mention?

You are probably aware of how much more closely some experts are linking narcissicism and sociopathy these days.

I always thought that Bill was more narcissist with a touch of sociopath. It would be fascinating to know what kind of psychological treatment he has undergone post Monica and if it was "successful." I think Bush is strongly both. I doubt he could be helped. (Sigh) I guess we will just have to impeach him for war crimes or something.

Only, I would say that Cheney is most definitely your authoritarian sociopath. Very dangerous. We would have to impreach him first.

President Nancy . . . that has a certain ring to it.

The guy who wrote "Mask of Sanity," on psychopaths thought that that some were especially drawn to politics. There are some (of the candidates) that I think are not sociopaths. On the right, I would say McCain. Among the Dems, I would say Hillary and probably Edwards. Obama is too new for me to know. (His charisma makes me a bit nervous.) Biden is, I believe, just your usual attention-seeking blowhard. Richardson is a fantasist and probably has a touch of one or the other.

Of course that is just my amateur armchair diagnosis. Public figures are fair game. Their personal lives are sooo hanging out there.

I wish the media were just half as vigilant about real issues as they are, these days, about the gossipy side of politics. Any day now, I expect a Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan ticket, running as reformed addicts who have put it all behind them.

the gimlet-eyed Cheney now glows calf-eyed for his former staffer and personal diaper, Scooter Libby. Could they have had a prior arrangement?