I am really surprised by the number of letters that say they have no trouble with a woman being president, but not Hillary because it’s her: her shrillness, her ambition, her drive, her compromises. Anyone else, these writers imply, but not Hillary because they take a personal dislike to her. Do any of them know her personally? Which of the 23 or so other candidates — both Republican and Democratic — has not been shrill, has no ambition, no drive, and has survived a career in politics without compromise? Which of the other candidates whose marriages hit some rough patches stuck it out, worked on the problem, and honored their commitment before God? Hillary prays with Republicans, we learn: it was at one of these prayer meetings that Sen Sam Brownback of Kansas asked Hillary to forgive him for (in his words) “hating her.” Why would he hate a woman he had never met? Because it was politically expedient? Because it was easy? Because a good Christian man felt comfortable letting his hatred of “that woman” be known, aware that no one would challenge his hatred in this civility-bereft nation? This worked out well for everyone because then this type of baseless hatred could be used as further evidence of why she should be hated.

In the end, all talk about Sen Clinton that purports to be about principles and ideals but whose subtext is clearly misogynist, boils down to this: “Who the hell does that bitch think she is?”

The LW says that he has had a “colorful past,” and has seen some nasty stuff happen when drugs are involved. Sounds to me like he just barely escaped a ruinous path of his own, and now he wants to shepherd someone else down the path? Get away from that part of your life immediately, because even if (and that is a gargantuan “if”)your GF simply experiments, she will have drug-taking friends who will know drug-dealing people, and you will live in a drug-infested home. Cary is right: dissuade her or cut her loose. I love shades of grays in debates, but this is one I think is fairly cut-and-dried.

Before I go back and read one more word I have to vent: the continued use of "Mommy" in this discussion is infuriating. I know it's meant to denote that we are talking about mothers with young children, but when adults use it to refer to other adults — no matter what side of the debate one is taking — it ends up infantalizing the women discussing the issue, the women deciding which path to take, and the women in the audience. If women view themselves in such spectacularly immature terms, then how can they possibly be expected to make mature choices? "Mommy wars"? Please. How about "societal change," or "career choices," or "deciding what is best for one's family"?

And I mean everyone. I, too, go to a beautiful summer cottage on a lake with the same crew every year. At happy hour, everone gathers on the porch to tell the same stories, to remember faded youth, and to strengthen the bonds we've forged over twenty years of vacationing together. But bring a pushy, opinionated, domineering, and yet somehow self-servingly sensitive person into the party and the dynamic is poisoned. Conversations that revolve around familiar topics will be dismissed as exclusionary, simultaneous conversations will be discounted as purposefully rude to the speaker (guess who), and friendly disagreements will become fury-laden contests of will. Do I sound bitter? Damn straight. It was from that one summer that I said adios to anyone in my life — past, present, and future — who knew instinctively how to ruin any occasion by being pushy. The LW should too. You get one vacation a year with your family; don't let her intrusive gall ruin this one.

President Bush may be the luckiest man alive: not only does he attain the highest office in the land by skating towards it on the skimpiest of resumes, but he is placed there by a one-vote majority of the Supreme Court. He is protected by various media who like his fraternity-level bestowal of nicknames and backslapping demeanor. His catastrophic administration goes from failure to failure, abetted by journalists who weekly prove that they have no ear for what Americans are feeling and thinking.

To top it off, his offenses surely meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. Because, however, the nation went through the charade perpetrated by the Republicans barely a decade ago, we really have no taste for it again (or so think our endo-Beltway mandarins -- who have yet to do the necessary work of putting the whole shameful spectacle of 1998 into perspective). That they are as wrong about this as they were about how avid we were for Clinton's impeachment is indicative how inept they are and how ill-served we are. Even should the Congress manage to rouse itself, it will be endlessly spun as Democratic payback, signifying nothing but a little muscle-flexing. Once again, George W Bush, doomed to be deemed and damned as one of our worst presidents, escapes the harsh comeuppance in the short run.