Clinton voted for the war. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman. She seems scarily intransigent the idea of talking with leaders we don't agree with. I think that's phenomenally dangerous after the last 8 years. And I deeply fear the dynastic implications of twenty plus straight years of Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton, and how that affects the way we are seen in the world. I find the candidates quite similar, and generally to my liking, on domestic policy, so my perception of how they'd handle international relations is my tiebreaker. Further, Obama's judgment in opposing the war from the outset and his sharp mind, strong speaking style, and generally even temperament seem like they'd be strong assets in the world we're facing.

Question for Ms. Traister: What part of that exactly makes me a woman-hating fanatic?

Actually, I suspect all of it does, because according to her, even my rational arguments and judgments for and against the candidates above do not preclude my inherent misogyny. As Traister writes:

"Perhaps it's because of the abundance of rational reasons to dislike Clinton -– perfect for disguising any unsightly misogynistic blemishes -– that many women described frustration at being unable to name specific instances of what they have felt as gender bias."

That's right, we women haters are cleverly disguising our sexism in the guise of--of all things--rational arguments about the candidates. Yes. You've found us out. Brilliant insight. Congratulations.

bout how Bullshit is now the number one issue in the presidential campaign?

Well, this story is some serious bullshit. Stop peddling it.

Joan, it's beyond disgusting for you to still be peddling this guilt-by-association, McCarthyist crap, this vile trash. This makes me so mad. I judge people by their own words, not by the words of people they happen to know. You'd rather judge him on this BS. You complain about Wright 's grim view of America, but you know what's really unamerican? Guilt by association.

Enough. I'm out. You hack.

Hilary made an extrordinarily insensitive comment about assasination in the context of a heated campaign, and you have the gall to blame Obama's campaign--who made at best a mild statement to the effect that comments "had no place in this campaign"--seriously, are they wrong about that???

I trust Hilary didn't intend anything sinister--but her words were unfortunate and inflammatory nevertheless to millions of people who lived through the assasinations of the 60s and to those of us who only know it through history and know of the real danger to a black presidential candidate, the potential and probable first major party nominee. To push the blame for the flap elsewhere from the woman who started it (through multiple comments) is hugely disingenuous.

Trust me when I say that the reasons for my supporting Obama over Clinton are purely substantive (ie Hilary's war vote & Kyl-Lieberman) and that I have in the past admired her for her fire & competitiveness, but she is culpable for her own misstatements, misrepresentations and triangulations nevertheless--blaming Obama for her own screwups at this point is silly and counterproductive. And the notion that Obama is "Teflon" when the media (and YOU) skewered him for weeks, Mcarthyist style, for words he didn't even say but his pastor did, is beyond laughable, and frankly, makes you seem like a sore loser rather than someone amped to help the dems win in November.

I fear you've reached a point in your remarks, Joan, where I seriously feel like you're hurting the Democrats' cause. It's just sad.

A new low, indeed.

Of course you're right about this issue, Glen. The whole system runs largely on compromises and acquiescence--always has, probably always will.

But the "partisan rancor" narrative has become pretty powerful in the media and in our politics, "bipartisanship" is the buzzword, part of the supposed "mandate", so Obama's got to nod to it, make a show of it a little, especially at the outset. The jury's still out (or more accurately, hasn't been officially seated yet) but I think there's something to be said for the practice choosing one's battles--and I suspect (could be wrong, who knows) that in the long run, Obama will choose them wisely more often than not.

I don't know, I never bought that Obama was somehow idealogically pure--and so I'm not overly disappointed/surprised by his Lieberman stance or possible bringing in of Hillary. He's progressively inclined on most issues, but tempermentally conservative and consensus-building, perhaps to a fault. Still, the two big reasons I'm super glad he's elected are the two things a president can absolutely control: 1) a more multilateral foreign policy and 2) supreme court. Those things are 100% the Prez' call, not the congress, not even the secretary of state. A third reason is that he seems to think big and mostly just seems to THINK a lot, and maybe some of his formidable intellectual curiosity can rub off on the way we do business in congress and elsewhere.

Still, I have no illusions about our legislative process or our clubby and largely unimaginative legislators of both parties. Harry Reid, in particular, strikes me as a notably meek and mediocre figure. They'll stick with the status quo unless and until enough people raise hell about it--and perhaps, still even then.