If I attacked Bush as a former alcoholic or a religious man -- nothing inherently evil in their own right -- would that make him better?

I do think there are attacks on Clinton that come from misogyny, but I think most of the criticism from the left is based on her policies. And while I don't want Clinton to lose one vote because she's a woman, the sexist attacks on her don't make her policies any better for me.

I find interest in Spears morbid and did not expect to post to this thread again (still surprised I clicked on the story in the first place). But the vicious attacks are troubling to me.

Spears has almost no control over her influences. She is an average person in a machine that none of us know. She didn't packager herself alone; she was packaged by people twice her age. She doesn't push herself in front of anyone here; corporations do -- music, television, magazines, online political sites.

Most important, she is a human in trouble who never approached anyone here with malice.

Looking at the Democratic strategies over the last few years, a clear approach becomes clear: don't fix things, complain about them. Since winning matters more to Democrats (and many of their voters) than anything that happens in the real world, they have no compunction to stop anything Bush does or wants to do, so long as the right people (e.g. candidates) can demagogue on those issues.

No doubt, the presidential candidates will talk about how they won't nominate someone like Mukasey and how they voted against him -- just like they oppose the war -- but they are fine with him getting approved, whatever the impact on law. By letting him through, they avoid any charges of "obstructionism" yet still have the issue to campaign on -- just like the war.

As long as we Democratic voters tolerate a weak party that triangulates so -- as long as we do not demand that Democrats lead -- they won't change. Why would they? They are a political party, which is akin to a sports team, and their job is to win games, not to change the world. We need to make changing the world a necessary step in winning games (in winning our votes).

Consider for a moment that no Democratic frontrunner has vowed to give up all the powers that Bush has claimed. None have vowed that we would not keep permanent bases in Iraq that maintain (perpetually?) low-grade warfare against "al Qaida in Iraq," whatever that means. Clinton actively supports this idea of permanent low-grade warfare and has even proposed to keep some of Bush's tax cuts for the super rich in place.

The Democrats should filibuster Mukasey. There are enough opposed to his nomination to do that. If they don't, they are choosing to let him through -- and will then complain about it while asking for our votes.

Since 2006, Republicans have filibustered more consistently than any other Congress in history, so if Democrats refuse to take that step through fears of charges of "obstructionism" then they should be swiftly condemned as pansies.

Can anyone defend the position that Republicans can filibuster to take healthcare away from children, but it would go to far to filibuster an Attorney General nominee who won't call "torture" an act that the US has prosecuted as torture in the past?

Take it easy on me because I'm a girl? Talk about playing it both ways. I expect supporters of Clinton who complain that critics are motivated by gender will take the Clinton campaign to task for engaging in gender excuses. I didn't see anyone on stage say anything they wouldn't have said if the frontrunner had been a man.

Clinton is using sex both ways. She is encouraging women to vote for her because she's a woman (yes, she doesn't say that, but her gender is useful in rallying women voters and the campaign knows this). She is also fending off non-gender-based attacks by citing gender as the issue. (Here I ascribe any actions of her campaign operatives to the candidate, since I'm sure no supporter would argue that she doesn't control her own message.)

I find that a little dishonest -- or at least full of mixed messages: sex doesn't matter; sex matters; sex matters or doesn't matter depending on whether it helps or hurts me.

I and most other people who have problems with Clinton have gone to pains to show how we don't care about this person's gender, yet still get attacked again and again for being sexist (just like critiques of Bush are called anti-American). It is the campaign and its supporters who are pushing gender into the foreground to attack a straw man. They appear to WANT it to be about her gender -- and are making that come to pass by "fighting" some phantom effort by others to focus on gender.

While this might be evidence of "tough/clever campaigning," that was never my problem with Clinton. My problem here is that this is evidence of poor leadership.

[Note: if Obama led the polls right now I'd be pointing out where he needs improvement -- it only makes sense that the person likely to be our nominee should receive the most scrutiny, whatever sex. To claim that it is unfair for Clinton, as the leader, to get such scrutiny is to ignore history -- unless you think that women should get a pass, which I don't think anyone here thinks.]

"The frontrunner was attacked by the trailing candidates."

It's not only gender neutral and shorter, it conveys more pertinent information -- UNLESS gender is the information you seek to convey.

You speak for me with your last post. It's about issues.