"Courage" of his what-what? If that man had any serious "convictions", he would have sent ten times as many troops to Iraq and made every effort to turn it into the Paradise of Democracy (tm) that we and the Iraqis were promised. After all, "decisive ideological struggle" requires the utmost from those who engage in it. If that man had any "courage" whatsoever, he would have looked the nation in the face, admitted that the Decider has fucked up and asked for our forgiveness and a chance to make it right. Better yet, he would have responded to criticism himself, rather than rely on his cronies to smear opposition. Better YET, he would have realized that in order to uphold his convictions, a significant change of plan is necessary. Better YET, he would realize that he is not the man for the job and decide to courageously stand down.

This is not "courage of convictions" that the man has. It's "hysterical blindness". Or perhaps "lack of touch with reality". Or, most likely, "absolute lunacy". Take your pick.

Well, we all knew she was going to do this, right? We've been speculating since the day after W. "won" the 2004 election. And we all saw what she was doing, and we all figured it was pandering.

What's sad is that Hillary does not have the universal support of women. Some tell me that they'll vote for her because they just want to see a female President, for once, which strikes me as somewhat reactionary. Others say they wish it was some other woman, who could raise the banner of sisterhood firmly and not try to kiss the arse of the religious right. And I think nobody in this nation, male or female, would like a candidate who voted for the Iraq war before they spoke out against it.

I think I see what most of the commenters here are afraid of: the Bryan effect. That Hillary would win the nomination and then spectacularly lose to John McCain (shudder!). That, indeed, would be a worse-case scenario. But is that a foregone conclusion? McCain, as Sydney Blumenthal has noted, is rapidly establishing himself as a much worse panderer than Clinton: he panders to Bush and the neocon nutjobs, and he is most vigorous supporter of the Surge. Do you think the voters in this country would choose a crazy warmonger who wants to throw more and more kids into the Maw of Hell (tm), or someone, shall we say, less crazy? Not to mention McCain's own voting record (e.g. the Torture Bill) will capsize him if played right by the opposition. So. Let Hillary run. Believe you me, she is a smart woman (smarter than Bill; she WAS after all the power behind his governorship) and she knows how to win elections. This won't be her first or her second.

(And trust me, if anything, her "adjustable" behavior will be a blessing rather than a curse. If she needs must kiss babies to get the Presidency, then well, she'll kiss them babies. Just you watch.)

What's sad this kind of handwringing over the fact that women are not falling in universal lockstep behind a candidate based solely on her sex, rather than her politics.

That's not at all what I meant. I was not bemoaning the lack of zombie-like female support for a female (any female, as long as it's a female) candidate for President. Not at all. I meant that it's sad that the first-ever viable female candidate for President is already failing to energize American women, before even starting the campaign proper. A female candidate who, upon announcing her candidacy, gets a lukewarm response from FEMINISTS who have been WAITING for just such a candidate, is not a good candidate. That's very sad, or I must be really confused.

All right, permit me to roll my eyes for a bit here, especially at this blog which is dissing the pundits and, in a scary meta fashion, doing the same thing: speculating about the impact of Hillary's gender and Barack's race. Come ON. Let's talk about issues! Clinton's pro-war vote. Obama's anti-war vote. For example. Or hmm, Clinton's "prayin' woman" rhetoric which, thank Booji, fooled nobody. Or hey, Obama's lack of insider experience and whether that's a good thing (I think so) or a bad thing (I don't think so).

Above all, let's for a moment luxuriate in the hope that for once, perhaps, the American people will finally find candidates they can get behind FOR WHATEVER REASON, rather than sigh and head to the polls to vote for a lesser of two evils. Let's fervently hope that perhaps the American people will get their collective cranium out of their collective arse and vote for a candidate that at the very least promises to solve problems, rather than "sounds like the guy/gal you can have beer with."

What I, as an American citizen, would like is a candidate who can firmly, without equivocations, promise me a) the end of American involvement in Iraq, ASAP, b) repeal of the tax cuts, c) an effort to end our dependence on oil, d) an effort to REBUILD NEW ORLEANS that everyone seems to have forgotten about, e) a reversal of each and every scary Big Brother initiative by this administration, and f) other things I have no time to list. If they can at least firmly promise, I'll be happy, because it'll be a start, don't you think?

If a candidate can promise me that and convince me (oh, sweet hope!) that they can actually do at least one of those things, well, maybe two, I will vote for them without reservations, be they male, female or Klingon. Wouldn't you?