Since she lives in Texas, and Texas is among the reddest of states, her vote for Obama or Nader or McCain or write-in for Clinton is mostly irrelevant.

If she doesn't want to vote for Obama, that is her choice. It's not like she lives in a battleground state, and a few thousand votes here or there could make a difference.

No matter what I think about her opinions, at least she is honest.

(Good grief, where did this come from? Maybe it is sympathy for a sincere progressive in a red state. I have voted for president in Texas as well as Oklahoma, and I understand the frustration of a meaningless vote. But, damn, I need to get out of the house.)

I am so glad I quit watching this ridiculous show.

Nothing will get Republicans to the polls on election day like the chance to vote against HRC.

Once again, in case you missed it.

Nothing will get Republicans to the polls on election day like the chance to vote against HRC.

Apologies to all Clinton supporters out there. I am willing to entertain arguments to the contrary, but...

Nice try to drum up some controversy about last night's game, King, but that really was not a foul, even if it usually is a foul. Looked like a clean pick to me.

Hahahahahaha.

Really, that's hilarious.

Bryant's arm clearly impacts Pierce's side. You can see the uniform move. What you can't see is Bryant making any contact with the ball.

I didn't even think "foul" until I saw the replay and the clear hack.

But thanks for the laugh.

I hope Kamiya didn't get paid for this dreck.

It's Abysmally Stupid Day here at Salon.com.

A headline article with Gary Kamiya spouting nonsense about the presidential race being over and McCain getting mercy-ruled.

A boring and repetitive Scott Bateman cartoon about absolutely nothing.

And some drivel about Obama picking a Republican as his running mate.

Oh yeah, sign me up for a lifetime subscription.

Who decides whether it should be reviewed? Who reviews it? How long does it take?

But for Ruth's sake, don't don't don't change it midseason!

...it would (believe it or not) move the Republicans toward the center.

Really, is there anyone alive who has the slightest clue about current American politics that wouldn't believe that Lieberman would move McCain closer to the center?

Abysmally Stupid Day Part Deux.

My god, it is getting to the point that not even King Kaufman is enough to keep me coming to this site.

You harp and rant and whine and complain about sexism, so much that you turn yourself into a caricature.

Then you use a sexist term, in a way that is not obviously ironic.

Then people call you out on the use of that term.

Then you claim that people who call you out have lost their sense of humor?

It is clear to me why they have lost their sense of humor, when Joan Walsh and sexism are concerned. And if you were a competent professional journalist, it would be clear to you as well.

Understand that I am not reacting to your decision to use that term. I am reacting to your disingenuous response to others who commented on your decision to use it.

They're thoroughly under the delusion they're making a contribution by attacking you, without an inkling of the disrepute they bring upon themselves and their candidate.

I am attacking the Editor in Chief of what once used to be a high quality web magazine.

I am attacking shameless partisanship claiming to be objectivity.

I am attacking the hypocrisy of spending months crying about sexism, then saying that her sexist remark was just a joke.

I want Walsh gone. I want Salon to return to what it was back when I proudly subscribed.

Interesting how your sucking up to Walsh led to an immediate reply.

Harriet Miers was a tool used to keep Li'l Georgie in line. A tool used by Cheney and his other handlers.

George was whining to Cheney about how he was tired of people making decisions for him, wasn't he supposed to be the decider?

So Cheney said, "OK George, you pick the next Supreme Court nominee."

Clueless George pick the only lawyer he really knew and trusted, Harriet Miers. He totally lacked the depth of understanding to realize what a poor choice it was.

The nomination was immediately assailed by Republicans from all areas of public life. Cheney was able to say to Bush, "See, even Republicans don't like that choice. Now settle down, and let me do the thinking around here, OK? Just read what we put in front of you."

"OK Dick, you are right, I'll listen to you from now on. But when can I get another cool pair of glasses?"

------------------------

If you want to list other Supreme Court Justice who weren't judges, that's fine. But Harriet Miers is not a useful example.

Was my post too complicated for you? Are your reading skills and critical thinking skills that poor?

Nowhere in my post did I say a single thing even remotely implying that it was necessary to be a judge, or even a lawyer, to be a Supreme Court justice.

I only stated that Harriet Miers was a poor example of the fact that is wasn't necessary to be a judge.

Sorry it was too complicated for you.