Massive stupidity number one:

Clinton is a guaranteed winner, while Obama is a guaranteed loser.

There are far more voters who hate Clinton for herself than there are who decide based on either race or gender. Clinton will bring Republican voters out who would just stay home otherwise. These are people who don't really like McCain, and will only vote because they get to vote against Clinton.

Massive stupidity number two:

Anyone who claims to be a Democrat, but won't vote for Obama, is either lying or too stupid to vote.

"I am a Democrat, always have been, but I will help defeat the Democrats and insure at least four more years of ruinous policies and endless war and terrible Supreme Court Justices and all manner of other things that are bad for the country and the world because [insert stupid justification here]."

Not that massive stupidities deciding elections is surprising in any way. After all we re-elected the worst president in the history of the nation.

If the answer you get from the advice columnist sends you to therapy, you are probably asking the wrong advice columnist.

You are willing to Good, Giving, and Game, or you aren't. You either meet your partner's needs, or you give your partner permission to get needs met outside the marriage, or you split up. There is not and solution in therapy. You have to decide which of these three answers is the most palatable to you, and then stick with your decision.

Because you are not going to change your partner. If you partner needs these things to achieve satisfaction, then your partner needs these things to achieve satisfaction. No way to change that. Your partner will get these needs met, with you or without you. So you must make sure the decision is made on your terms, not in spite of you.

And if you do decide to be GGG with this, make sure your needs are met as well. Don't let your partner's needs overwhelm your needs. Make your partner agree to give you equal time, and require this, to the point of withholding if you don't get your fair share.

But you cannot pretend this will go away somehow. You can only decide how you are going to live with it.

I have only done a poor job of responding how I believe Dan Savage would have responded, based on many years of reading his columns.

Talk about a dog-bites-man story:

Media Sucks Up To McCain, Christians

Although Joan Walsh is probably surprised.

This conversation is pointless until the female candidate is one who wasn't already despised by millions when she started.

Don't let Rush Limbaugh see you like this.

More pointless talking-head video of a commentator reading a column.

Starring Joan Walsh!!

Joan, you better hang on to King Kaufman, or there is nothing on this website I want that I can't get elsewhere. And usually get elsewhere at much higher quality.

Hillary Clinton, May 14, 2008 -

I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama

There you go.

I love the new multiple-post-per-day concept. After all, if not for King Kaufman I probably would have stopped visiting Salon long ago. So the chance to read several Kaufman columns a day is a bonus.

But why do I have to click twice? Why must I click on the headline and only get the first three paragraphs? And then have to click again, only to be sent back to the beginning of the article? Why not have the front-page click send me to the entire article?

Oh, wait, page views. If you make me click twice to read a single item you get two page views from it. King, I doubt this is your fault, and I certainly don't blame you.

Joan Walsh is treating King Kaufman fans the same way the network treats die-hard sports fans: She knows I will keep coming to read your work, so she doesn't care if she treats me like shit.

Why should they make clothes that make sense, when instead they can make clothes that make money?

And no company can stay in business if no one will buy their products. Do you think it is the four-year-olds buying these hundred-dollar outfits? Actually, three hundred dollars seems a lot more likely.

(This will probably get me mis-labeled as and Obama-[insert pejorative suffix here] but that is just par for the course this primary, so I will speak anyway)

The implication behind all the "pro-Clinton" voices endlessly whining about Obama's inevitable defeat is that if Clinton hadn't squandered her huge lead, she would beat McCain.

I don't really think there is much substance to that. Yes, there are polls out there that say that Clinton beats McCain, but it is still May. November is still six months away.

While there are many like the Hortons who will never vote for a black man, there are many out there who will never vote for a woman. As well as the millions who will never vote for a Clinton.

I think the Democrats who are working so hard to defeat Obama are, just like the West Virginians, working against their own interests.

Much as it pains me, I don't Obama or Clinton will defeat McCain. Certainly not if the Democrats don't get out of the sandbox and start working together.