> When will people learn that most restrictions on sexual behavior are common sense attempts to protect human health and procreation rather than the inherent evil of sex.

Bullshit. How does stopping two women from getting married "protect human health"? How does trying to restrict access to safe, reliable birth control "protect human health"? How does banning abortion even when the mother's life is at stake "protect human health"? Because social conservatives are trying to do all of those things and more in the name of "protecting" us. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with protecting anyone; it's all about social conservatism's central thesis: sex is dirty and shameful and wrong, and no one should do it ever.

And as far as protecting procreation, there's seven billion people in the world - procreation's doing fine without any help from the sex police, thank you.

> We owe the kids not to satiate ourselves in public forums where they'll wander.

Again, bullshit. This isn't Nickelodeon.com; this is a magazine for adults, read by adults, who are aware of the existence of human sexuality and won't be scarred for life if it's mentioned in a book review. Please don't try and tell me that every publication in print or on the web has to be sanitized down to the level of Dora the Explorer. And surely any teenager mature enough to want to read a book review of a historical biography is also mature enough to handle a discussion of sexual mores without being scarred for life.

Far better for Obama to stir up this kind of hype now, with a long way to go towards the primaries, because now we have a long year to figure out who he really is, rather than annointing someone as our dream candidate at the last minute and then being stuck with him (John Kerry, anyone?)

There are two possibilities for Obama:

1) He's the real deal. He'll fight off challengers all year, survive media scrutiny, win over primary voters, take on Mrs. Clinton and win. If he can do all that, then I think he will have proven he can carry the mantle in the general.

2) He isn't the real deal. If he's a flash in the pan, that will be revealed long before any primary votes are cast, and we'll end up nominating a stronger, more experienced candidate.

Either way, the Democrats win. So hype away!

How is insuring that fair elections are held "partisan"? The Republicans, after running the most viciously partisan Congress in a century, are now going to whine and cry unfair if Pelosi so much as forgets to say "Bless You" when a Republican sneezes. And Scherer's falling for their BS already. Pelosi's doing the job she was elected to do - the people's busines, and the GOP are doing everything they can to obstruct her in that task, with plenty of help from the "liberal" media.

I really thought Salon would know better than to trot out the same bullshit GOP memes you hear on Fox News. I should learn not to get my hopes up. If you want to report some actual news instead of taking dictation every time Dennis Hastert whines, here's a real story for you: the American people didn't vote for "bipartisanship." The voted, in huge numbers, for the Democrats. People didn't give the Dems the biggest midterm election win in American history because they wanted them to roll over for the Republicans. People voted for the Democratic agenda. Please don't tell us Pelosi doesn't have the right to carry out the people's will.

...and we're going to help them no matter how many tax breaks we have to give to the rich!

How does encouraging people to have more kids cause an "abortion epidemic"? Any why does the headline claim as much, but the article barely mentions, much less explains this? Who's editing this stuff?

The Giants announced their move to San Francisco in mid-season; the Dodgers didn't accept LA's offer until after the World Series that year.

I don't mean that figuratively. I'm legitimataely asking if Ms. Paglia has a psychological disorder and has gone off her meds. How else do you explain this:

> Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and 98 percent of American humanities professors to do their bidding.

What the hell country have you been living in the for the past 10 years? Every outlet you named above is part of the "liberal media" that savaged Clinton for 10 years straight for crimes against humanity including hiring a new travel agent and getting a haircut, but have merrily looked the other way as Bush commits war crimes and hammers away a this country's founding principles. The New York Times was running stories on Whitewater even after Ken Starr admitted he could find no wrongdoing! Ken Starr!!! Ken Motherfucking Starr gave up the chase, and the Times was still at it! They only took a break from "Clinton bought some land and is therefore the devil" long enough to assure us that Al Gore was an insane pathological liar, and that Bush really showed strong leadership on 9/11, because reading a children's book and pissing his pants was exactly what Winston Churchill would have done. That's your liberal media.

And humanities professors??? Does anyone besides paranoid conservative nutcases and humanities professors themselves give two shits what humanities professors think? Honestly.

And cancelling the debate on Fox was one of the best moves the Democrats have ever made. A debate should be about giving the candidates time to present themselves in a neutral setting, not fending off baseless ad hominem attacks from the host. Besides that, why reward a network that's devoted to belittling and degrading your party? It'd be like asking Pat Buchanan to host your Bar Mitzvah.