<<<* Study hard and earn a degree in a hard science or other important field.>>>>

What? This doesn't end sexism. Let alone being lean and fit protect a woman. Are you saying that a runner who has a degree in Chemistry, and knows how to kick box will never be judged on her sexuality? Especially if she's "hot"? Will her breasts suddenly no longer be an issue?

And anyway, while I'm not a Hillary fan, her degree is "serious", even if not in the hard sciences. Nobody accuses Cheney or Gonzales of not being taken seriously because of their lack of hard science education or that they are not "fit" enough.

Besides, Clinton's neckline was not in the slightest bit inappropriate. Had she been wearing Jeri Thompson's dress (the one that provokes the most attention) I can see that it might have raised an eyebrow or two, and even maybe a few immature twitters, but look at the outfit in question, my grandma would have approved of that outfit for church.

I tried to fix the misspelling in the title and thought I succeeded.

Oops.

I think "children" is an excuse.

My boss is a nice, attractive guy, wealthy, no kids, around 50. He's attracted to younger women in their 20's and finds it rather easy to date them. Trouble is, he's not that "into" them, they bore him and their coversations eventually annoy him. He likes (and gets along with) women closer to his own age, but has broken up with more than one because they would never be able to start a family together.

I'm guessing he'll never whatever the elusive thing he's looking for and will remain single for the rest of his life. I don't see him as spoiled, but I sure wouldn't set him up with anyone that I are about.

As for meeting men, I've found in many hobbies there are tons of single men out there doing things, cruising their sailboat, playing golf, skiing, fishing, whatever, and many are actively looking for someone to share their passion with. The single women that pursue these things are usually very big fish in little ponds. Yet I rarely see single women out there by themsleves "doing things".

Newt is good at reading the political wind and is very intelligent.

Newt started out a liberal, and "grew" into being a conservative. It worked out very well for him and he was a success story.

I think Newt is sensing another shift and is coming back to the middle so that he can remain relevant. He's too established to be able to be able to claim progressive or liberal views all of a sudden, but he can claim to be the "reasonable" voice somewhere in between.

But, I give the same credit to the communist leaders that were so quick at learning to become capitalist leaders when the shift happened. Their views (what we ever really knew of them) probably never changed, their position of power and wealth did manage to be maintained....they stayed on top.

I'm ready to throw the bums out, too....but not enough to allow a RW Republican to manage to eek out a victory in CA. Here in CA, the Republican primaries are rarely won by moderates.

That being said, I will be voting AGAINST Feinstein and willing to campaign for ANY decent opponent of hers in the primary. If she squeeks through and wins anyway, only then will she'll get my vote.

Who knows, if the heat gets turned up enough, some of these old timers might even feel the need to retire and emjoy the good life.

Webb, on the other hand, he's even more of a disappointment for some reason. It's beginning to suck that the only thing that makes Webb okay is that he's not as bad as George Allen would have been.

I see the appeal, but if anyone who remotely might have voted for Nader had done so, he might have had 20-25%, Gore 30-35% of the vote and the whole Florida debacle wouldn't have happened. Bush would have won fairly.

I think we need to target the entrenched Dino's and take control of the Democratic party. Frankly, if the vocal Christian Right can make the R's stand up and listen or feel their wrath at the polls, we (a stronger majority) should be able to do the same to our party.

"Asshole (showing up drunk once or twice a month and rapping loudly on her window after the bars close) gets welcomed into her warm bed."

This probably does work with a number of women and you get what you deserve. Just don't come crying when this woman gets too "clingy", seems a bit desperate or worse, turns into a stalker. I know that some men just want sex and not one iota more, but there is a sizable group of men that actually are looking for more.

I've never understood the whole "neg" thing. Myself, I've always liked the guys (and am happily married to one) that seemed to genuinely like and be attracted to me. Most of my girlfriends that are happy are the same.

This guy "Mystery" might be able to pull off the hint of "neg" with humor. I do know a number of mediocre looking guys whose style and humor make up for any shortcomings they have in looks, style or stability.

If you want a summary of what new bill does go over to the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Glenn is right to criticize the Dem's on this, they should know better. I've given hope on expecting any Repubs to stand up for my rights (other than the 2nd amendment, the ONLY part of the Constitution they pay more than lip service to defend), but I had held out some hope for checks and balances with the elections of 2006.

I was wrong.