Yes, Faulkner Jr., I read in her phrasing of "I would hope" a wise Latina would come to "better" decisions, a certain amount of, well, not sarcasm, but subjectivity -- as in "of course, as a wise Latina, I personally would HOPE I'd have more wisdom, thanks to my diverse experiences -- but in fact, experience shows that isn't necessarily the case!"

I admit, to Readerreader and all folks of good faith who disagree with me on this one -- don't care about the bad faith hecklers, they know who they are -- that MY reading is totally subjective, too. But listening to the intimate, self-questioning, explorative tone of that speech, I don't think my personal interpretation is clearly wrong. She is speaking of the limits of subjectivity, in my opinion, not about the triumph of minority "empathy" or wisdom.

But one thing nobody can disagree with: This ain't no soundbite. It's a complicated statement that relies on tone of voice and full context, plus the body of her decisionmaking -- how bout that examination of her race-based decisions? -- to really understand what she was saying, and what it means about what kind of SC justice she'd be.

Readerreader, is that one degree of separation between you, me and Faulkner Jr., or two? I've never understood that game. Pretty impressive, given our disparate backgrounds and beliefs. I like being linked via Oscar Robertson.

Ah Faulkner Jr., the correspondences pile up: My uncle Jack McMahon coached Oscar Robertson when he was with the Cincinnati Royals. A very sweet man (to a very young child).

Calif Mike, I am actually really proud of the number of times I go back and correct or modify or amplify something I said. I'm often writing about breaking news (or breaking commentary.) I do write quickly. I think it's a sign of integrity to admit when I'm wrong, and to modify things when more information comes to light. I wouldn't say I do it "quite often;" in fact, I probably don't do it often enough.

But calling Rush Limbaugh a "has been," I'm stickin' to that one. He may have a huge audience, but honestly, they're all has-beens: angry white men of a certain age who don't see that the way the country is changing is good for everybody. I pity him, and his audience. They are the angry, unhappy, reactionary past. They will not enjoy the future.

Faulkner Jr., I'm not sure if you're saying you think Obama is making too much, or too little, of her comments. I'm saying I think he might even be making too much of them -- read in their entire context, especially with the quote about how all judges have to ultimately strive to be fair, beyond their own personal experience.

Thanks, Elephantman. Fixed. As for the rest of your point, Karl Rove is a paid and proven liar, on everything from Valerie Plame to the Iraq war (although he did recently tell the truth about knowing dummies who got into Ivy League schools, that's for sure.) So you can choose to believe him, but I don't.

KateTex, that's a pretty unbelievable claim, that you don't remember my standing up for Hillary Clinton and against media sexism. Browse the archive from last spring -- as well as the letters. I got beaten up pretty badly, even by some people who are now my friends here. You're really letting your own point of view skew your perception of my work -- I am not defending Sotomayor mainly because she's not white, I'm writing the same kind of commentary I did about the garbage projections absorbed by Hillary Clinton and other women.

Well, Faulkner Jr., when you're railing against Irish Americans, please remember it was a Walsh who took them on 2-1 defending affirmative action on MSNBC a few weeks back. You can go too far with your generalizations, my friend.

The Unlovely Truth asked why I didn't mention Obama's failure to declassify the reports Cheney claims will prove torture worked (and which Obama and Russ Feingold, who've seen the reports, say prove no such thing). Unlovely, he didn't make the decision, the CIA did, and they rejected Cheney's request under and executive order signed by...George W. Bush. Here's an excerpt from the CIA's ruling re: Cheney's request. Remember who was president in March, 2003.

"As you are aware, a request for Mandatory Declassification Review is governed by Executive Order 12958, as amended, which was signed and executed by the President on March 25, 2003. Under section 3.5.(a)(3) of that Executive Order, a document is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review if that document contains information that is the subject of pending litigation. This provision ensures that the Mandatory Declassification Review process is not used to disrupt simultaneous litigation proceedings that are already pending. In researching the information in question, we have discovered that it is currently the subject of pending FOIA litigation (Bloche v. Department of Defense, Amnesty International v. Central Intelligence Agency). Therefore, the requested document, which contains this information, is excluded from Mandatory Declassification Review."

Ah, Mr. Secrecy thwarted by secrecy. It doesn't get better than that.

Goodbye to all that was Robin Morgan, Faulkner Jr., not Gloria Steinem. Also, I deleted the idiotic post that referred to Kate Tex as Kotex; keep it up, misogynists! Sadly, nobody flagged that.

Thanks, everyone. I just updated the post to reflect that Olbermann criticized Sykes on Countdown -- I was giving him too much credit! -- and also to reflect Hitchens' Sykes putdown: "The black dyke got it wrong." Stay classy, Christopher!

Yes, RichEmery, you're right. Fixed now!

Thanks, Alpha Female! Next time I'm tempted, I'll think of you and stop myself.

Yeah, virt, I'm a ditz. Absolutely.