I've always felt bad that people don't like her just because she was an ambitious First Lady, versus the "stand by your man" type usually expected.

In fact, she was precisely the "stand by your man" type. And what do you know? Just like with the war and everything else, she stubbornly ignored her past statements, stubborly ignored that she had been wrong. Never confronted the fact that she responded just like Tammy Wynette. Never confronted the fact that her husband was a liar and a cheat. Never confronted that those accusing him of infidelity and lying had a case. This is rigidity of an Olympian nature. How can anyone trust such a person with the responsibility for the free world?

As First Lady, she wasn't ambitious for long. She was ambitious for the two seconds of health care. Then used her father's death to go run and hide, then went on to be a decorous wife in pink outfits.

I know you've expressed criticism of her, and have taken a lot of flack for this. So I hate to come at you from the other side. But whenever I see this rather widely accepted, and totally false, view of her, I get irritated.

She does not owe the American public the details of her marriage.

Of course she does. Just as Bush is expected (and attacked for not) being up front about his addiction issues and those of his daughters. Furthermore, she was so blind and stubborn that she could go on the Today show and chalk the whole thing up to Republican lies and never apologized for what was, in fact, a smear campaign on her part, utilizing her own failed marriage to attack the opposition. That, if nothing else, called for a statement. She chose to go public, something she did not have to do. She should have the guts to follow through on that and admit when whe is mistaken. Oh, that's right. She's physically incapable of such a thing.

I still can't get over the fact that no one called her on doing a "Stand By Your Man" after she'd maligned Tammy Wynette for just such an image. Hillary invents a reality that suits her, and it appears to be an ever-changing, contradictory "reality." And that makes her a very bad choice for leader of our country.

I don't care if Clinton is a skirt-chaser, either. And had Hillary chosen to remain private about a private issue, that would be fine. She didn't. She went on Today and charged full-throttle at the Republicans saying it was all their fault, all lies, and if people would look at the "real" story, they'd see this giant conspiracy.

Uh, no. Turns out they weren't lies, the husband was cheating, and she had just defamed an entire group of people in her efforts to ignore/evade what was going on under her very roof. So, yes, I think a retraction or update of some kind was in order, and that if she chose to go public at one point, then some sort of admission about HOW INCREDIBLY WRONG AND MISGUIDED SHE WAS was certainly called for.

And she clearly trashed Wynette. "I'm not Tammy Wynette standin' by my man" was a slap in the face not just to the singer, but clearly to any woman who allowed herself to remained attached to a man who cheated on her. I was a rude condescending comment towards a kind of woman...that Hillary herself apparently is.

I dislike Hillary. I despise Bill. And I believe he's directly responsible for Gore losing the White House. Had Gore not been made Bill's patsy, and gone out and defended him, and been a complete sucker for Bill's lies (yes, like Hillary), he would have had much more credibility I think with the general populace. I think when they saw him played for a fool, they lost respect. He deserved better.

This article starts out by satirizing her comparison of herself to Monroe, but midway through goes on to endorse it. And for good measure throws Anna Nichole in there, too. Has the media so completely lost its ability to make distinctions that a talented movie star with personal problems is lumped in with narcissits with no gifts other than self-destruction?

Paris is no savvy media manipulator. As an heiress, she is de facto going to be covered by the media, whether she binges or attends first nights at the opera. If the Hilton empire went bust tomorrow, she'd disappear from headlines, no matter how many parties she attended or bit roles in bad movies she aquired.

Why do even her detractors insist on giving her so much credit?

There is a classic Simpsons Halloween episode where the advertizing figures come to life. The only thing that sustains their existence is attention. If people will just look away, they will disappear. Why does the media insist on taking the role of Homer Simpson, so eager to salivate over the giant donut that he doesn't realize or care what he's perpetuating?

There are some issues that are very hard to introduce into a comedy and maintain the mood they are working to establish. Once you raise the issue of abortion, you put the audience in a frame of mind very different than the one you've been building. Even if you manage to get humor out of it (as in the famous epidsode of Maude) it's a very different emotional place you're putting the audience in. A place quite a few of them are unwilling to go. It's a major distraction for a movie that, as mentioned, needs the pregnancy to fulfill its premise.