Oh sure, E-man, let Manny explain it himself, we have so much reason to believe him. Why didn't his GOP bosses believe him? Why didn't he keep his job? He's a self-pitying hack(er) who broke the rules and got caught, and now he's using fascinating and I'm sure not accidental imagery about the manliness of the GOP Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. I'd buy a ticket to this one, it's going to be so much fun.

TripLBee and others: I'm not praising Sotomayor by pointing to her conservative or status-quo decisions; I'm underscoring the hypocrisy of right-wing fools who call her radical and racist. As I say in the piece, I think we need a lot of grilling about abortion, privacy, executive power, state secrets etc.

Readerreader, I happen to agree with you -- which happens occasionally! But I do think far right opportunists are going to use what sensible conservatives know is a done deal to either raise money or raise their profile in the party or both. So the show will go on -- but it will hurt the GOP, in my opinion, far more than Sotomayor.

Will any Republican put his or her head down, concede to Obama on issues where he has the votes and/or is, demonstrably, either right or sensible, and use the time spent in futile destruction to come up with an actual optimistic, can-do agenda for their party? Anyone?

@had_enough, obviously, I disagree. Sotomayor did not say a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions than a "cossetted, corporate white male lackey of privilege" -- that, I might be able to get behind!

Using "white man" as any kind of short hand for close-minded and less open to the rights of others is, well, wrong. On many levels. And Sotomayor is smart enough to admit, therefore, to a poor choice of words.

@ceolaf, can you point us to evidence that she's been hard on defendants in race-discrimination cases? Thanks.

skylerdexter, you're hopeless if you're going to continue this, but thanks for reading!

Amity, you know my penchant for optimism! Also, it was a year ago that the Democratic primary ended, and my optimism -- that Clinton wouldn't split the party or destroy Obama -- was proven correct. Just give me this day to hope for the best, I beg of you!

Signed,

Pollyanna

lateagain, we're so alike, it's funny.

I saw your post saying Sotomayor misspoke. That was what I thought when I saw the post out of context. I felt better about it in context. But now, having mulled it for over a week, I still think it's just probably never right to say [whatever race or gender] is better at anything than [the opposite race or gender].

It's still not a federal case, as my mom used to say.

@tangerine: I said on Rachel Maddow, and here, that Newt will never be president. Never. That doesn't mean he won't run, and I agree, it would be fun to watch him get trounced by Obama.

@skylerdexter, I was a huge critic of Obama supporters' sexism v. Hillary. Somehow I don't think that's what you're holding against Sotomayor.

@Amity, I know you're right. My job requires belief in the ability to change people's minds -- or sense of their own self-interest, at least. Newt saw his own racism might harm his presidential ambitions; he dialed it back. Maybe we can show him other ways his support for the Overdog, worldwide, could put him on the losing side? Yeah, you're right, probably not.

@AKA Smith, it's nice to see you again!

@Xanthro, I thought about the headline a long time before I wrote it. First of all dianeremarx disagrees with you and agrees with me, Obama IS more destructive than al-Qaida! I've seen this on a lot of Web sites; Rush's acolytes agree.

Second, on exactly what Rush said, even if we're not Dittoheads: If you're destroying this country faster than al-Qaida can, then you're more destructive. A fast-growing cancer is more dangerous than a slow-growing cancer, in most cases. I think it's time to focus on how close Limbaugh is getting to calling the president a terrorist and therefore someone who can and should be taken out by any means necessary - and past time parsing my words. But you're free to disagree.

reallynow, I was going to say the inane sexism is beneath you, but it's not.

@fecklesswench: Can I ask whom you're addressing in your post? Can't quite read it right...might be me at the end of a long week. Thank you!

Readerreader, two things you'll be happy about:

I Twittered/Tweeted (?) about Evan Thomas calling Obama God; it was wrong.

Likewise, I just T'd about KO and Lawrence O'Donnell comparing Palin to Paris Hilton. Totally sexist. Is Jindal a MENSA member? Is Tim Pawlenty? There's something shady about the left's particular kind of obsession with Palin. Even though I think she'd be a terrible, awful, no-good, very bad president.

NotOrbitBoy, please don't waste your time filling up these pages with "sexist" takes on Palin, without Paglia's tributes. It's just dumb. I don't agree with everything I print -- whether Kamiya or Paglia. Salon writers have more freedom than most, and both Camille and Gary would tell you that. I'm interested in the mix of ideas, not in imposing mine. (As you all know from my liberal policy towards deleting comments here.) Every once in a while I admit to deleting people whose confirmed stupidity and lack of respect has worn me out; I almost always regret it.

Thanks, David Geelan. I said in the post that the transcript was Drudge's, not mine, but ideologues don't read.

Thanks, CTLiberal, I appreciate that. I thought I did good.

Oh, and I know my father would be proud.

Thanks, stozzel!