White Puffballs: Is a gender neutral insult. It can equally and generally is equally well used against males.

Second:

Billary: Is as dismissive of Hillary as it is of Bill Clinton - making it gender neutral. Further, it is a twist on a given candidate's name, so if you are going to criticise its use, you will have to criticise the various twistings of Obama's name too.

Insane and needing rehab - I have seen applied equally well to McCain. In fact Salon ran an article along those lines not so long ago, calling for McCain to release his psychiatric records. Again, gender neutral.

As to insults which do denigrate based on Gender, how about those people who run around claiming Obama is a Muslim?

As to votes: Hillary and Obama are very similar on the votes when it comes to the war, thus Obama comes out ahead because of his speech. Had Hillary's anti-war actions been more impressive than Obama's speech? Then Obama would be losing.

As to Roe V Wade:

That very few women have access to surgical abortions should make it more important that they don't get banned and that choice gets offered on a wider scale. If Roe V Wade gets overturned it reverses the small gains made up until now.

Further Roe V Wade and a cultural signifier also protects things like the morning after pill from the same bunch of people who see embryonic stem cell research as being murder.

While Roe V Wade being overturned may work as a wakeup call, it would only do so after the first woman dies in a back alley abortion because of it, or when the first formerly pregnant teenager gets thrown in jail for having had an abortion.

Even then, it would take years of campaigning to even begin to change the law with regards to abortions.

As to Emily's list, the trouble with it is that it is no more feminist to vote for someone purely because they are female, than it is to vote for someone purely because they are male. To do so is in itself sexist.

Of the terms you list, only one of them is actually not a gender neutral insult - and even then "bitch" has been gaining traction in a gender neutral environment.

So your claim of mysogeny on the basis of the argument you have presented is somewhat suspect.

As to refusing to accept responsibility for further deaths in Iraq: You are basically supporting someone whose campaign is about continuing the war in Iraq.

Sending letters and protesting the war won't actually stop the war in Iraq unless you lodge the most effective protest you can against it - vote against it.

As to your statement on Roe V Wade: Shouldn't that mean that you would be more likely to vote in favour of someone who is pro-choice than for someone who is pro-life?

Further, from day one of this campaign season Obama supporters have been called everything from cultists, to slackers, to sexists, to racists, to communists, to fascists, to stupid, to naive, to elitist, to latte liberals, the list goes on.

So pardon me if I don't shed too many tears and the grief of Hillary supporters who object to being called asshats. The only difference between the two sides on the name-calling issue is at least Obama's supporters don't pretend to be saints who are being abused.

Now personally, I do not put you in the same grouping with Kate-Tex because while you are voting your conscience, which you have every right to do, Kate-Tex is voting for McCain.

If you feel the need to stick yo for somebody as not being "Responsible" for another 100 years of death in Iraq, you should maybe pick somebody who isn't actively voting for it.

Lets just ignore Joan on the whole RFK thing. Okay, the bitter irony of her doing exactly what the press did for Bush for Hillary Clinton is sad in and of itself, but it won't matter in a few days time anyway.

and weren't going to vote Hillary in the first place?

Because if they were really Democrats, and they were really going to launch a protest vote, they would be threatening to vote Green. Not the guy who opposes everything they stand for.

Okay, here is how I see it:

McClellan sold his soul to the Republican machine back when he was manipulating the press. There is a tone of gloating to the book, and it doesn't speak well of him.

BUT.

What he is saying is more important and more damaging to the Republican Party for it. He does not come off as the hero here, and what he is doing is not heroic, but he does confirm what we knew was happening all along.

This means the press look like tools, the Republicans look like liars, and the timing of this, just before the general election, could prove incredibly beneficial to the country. Particularly seen as how the Republicans did it is so obvious and easy to see - by crying bias when faced with the facts going against the Republican cause.

While it is a bit late to do anything about Bush's abuses at this point, because Bush is out in November and America is so brainwashed that it actually thinks cutting communications with its enemies is a good idea, it does allow a certain degree of healing to begin.

The truth of the Bush years needs to be examined, and that is not going to happen until the mainstream press gets its ass handed to it by books like this.