"I have no desire to align myself with a movement that would purposefully help the Republicans win another 4 years. Obama has proven to be just as strong as Clinton on women's rights, so it is nothing but vindictive politics not to support him. I'm afraid that the loud voices that claim to speak for all feminists will fracture an already damaged movement."

This brings to my mind a fascinating question, and it infuriates me that Joan Walsh hasn't mused on it. Or, if she has, it's hidden between "I fear Obama has a problem with (insert Clinton talking point here)..." missives.

What is more important to feminists, and more importantly, to feminism, and by extension, women? To have a president that fully and unequivocally supports women's causes, women's issues, and will actively advocate on behalf of women's concerns? Or is it simply having a woman in the office?

I guess the best illustration of this question would be to poll women in a theoretical matchup between Russ Feingold and Elizabeth Dole.

Now, I realize that Senator Clinton is far, far, far, far, far more progressive on women's issues than Elizabeth Dole. So is the gender issue (meaning, literally the gender of the candidate, not the candidate's position on gender issues) sort of a tiebreaker? Would women be more apt to vote for a true centritst Republican woman over a lefty man?

There's a study Geraldine Ferraro can fund, and I'd be interested. Was her candidate robbed by sexism? Not so much interested. By Ferraro's own logic, had Clinton won, it would only have been because of the "reverse sexism" that we men who voted for Obama feared. Or something like that.

I'm not buying it. I'll believe it when she ends her campaign and releases her delegates.

Not suspends. Ends. I hate that I feel like that about a fellow Democrat, but (news flash to Joan Walsh) there are some bruised feelings on this side of the Democratic party as well that need to be healed.

...the whole "sexism" thing everyone seems to be yakking about now that Hillary Clinton has stepped safely away from the White House.

Actually, I read at least a dozen poitical blogs every day, watch an hour or two of news/politics per day (yes, even some of those dreaded "cable shows"), and listen to NPR for another hour per day. I had stopped reading Salon a few weeks back, just because I couldn't stand the tone anymore. But I came back today to read King Kaufman. And I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm not making this up, but this is the only place that I've seen anyone still talking about this.

Sexism exists. Senator Clinton lost. These two facts are unrelated. I would ask Salon to please move on, but I honestly don't care that much. I'll come back again in a few weeks, I'm sure.

How on earth did you watch the game without the first down line?!?!?!? I'm completely serious, on those rare occasions when there's a game on with no first down line, I can't handle it.

sorry, can't keep it too clean:

Todd Palin, Cindy McCain, and the satellite feed through which Dick Cheney watches...

The real point of this, to me, is the mother's worry (and let's keep it neutral here-dads worry about this, too).

Of course there is no "right" amount of toys, for some kids one is too many and for others a million is not enough. And those who are offering tips on getting toys for cheap or for free, that's great stuff, but also not the point.

The point is the nagging sense that somehow, no matter what choice you make, you might be doing something wrong. You could argue for days and weeks and months why, maybe it's the fault of our culture, placing unrealistic expectations on both parents and children, or maybe it's because people are inherently whiny and insecure, but that sense is always there. What if I screw it up? It's an irrational fear...most people turn out just fine whether they have that cool-looking Fisher-Price bicycle game that hooks up to your TV or not.

My 4 year old has more toys than some, far fewer than others. But his mom and I don't really mind buying them for him, because he's appreciative of gifts, and he gets more mileage out of a toy than you could imagine. We've taught him that when he gets too many toys, or when he loses interest in a toy, he should give it to someone else, either one of our friends' younger kids, or a charity. And yet, not a day goes by when I don't wonder, does he have good toys? The right kind? Maybe we should waive the ban on toy guns, just so they're demystified. Or maybe we should take away the commercial tie-ins.

Or maybe I should just shut up and play with him and enjoy it.