Please re-read this and explain to us why it makes sense:

Leonhardt tries hard to be fair, but the facts are clear ...

Presenting the facts is fair. It's the all-too-common practice of "balancing" facts with opposing spin that's manifestly unfair.

I hate to break it to you, but one doesn't get to be President of the United States by coming out ahead in a Zogby poll. Your "I told you so" is -- at best -- 11 weeks early.

But then, I really don't think you'll get to say it for real, so this may be the only way you can do it.

I see that some of the folks here still pretending to be Clinton supporters are -- in their desperation -- really pushing the line that separates "deliberately misleading" from "making shit up".

Oddly similar to the McCain campaign, coincidentally.

Ahhh, but when is it appropriate to address

a gathering of males as "ladies"????

Two contexts come to mind:

1) I don't know if it's still true, but I gather it used to be appropriate -- or at least accepted -- in some contexts in the US military.

2) Ditto certain subsets of non-het/non-gender-conforming men.

I tend to lose track of the ever-growing list of things that Broadsheet writers insist we feminists should be offended by.

Given that Kate's essay amounted to a big ol' "it depends", leavened with both personal perspective and a matter-of-fact acknowledgment that not all women see it the same way, I wonder how inaccurate the rest of your list is.

I don't see that she's insisting that anyone "should be" offended by it. Are you insisting that she not be offended by it, in any context whatsoever?

It's ... convenient ... that Dan Gilgoff phrased the question in such a way that Rick Warren could honestly say that Obama supporters were "dead wrong".

Maybe I've missed it, but as far as I know, nobody claimed McCain saw the questions, just that he was in a position where he may have heard the questions ... and Obama's answers.

(And the McCain campaign response was just ... weird. Are ex-POWs somehow rendered unable to cheat?)

I'm guessing that the group of people willing to believe Corsi's "non-organic oil" blatherings overlaps significantly with the group of people who believe that fossil records are one of Satan's little practical jokes.

I've found that dress codes vary widely, even between departments in the same organization. I'd be unsurprised if there were still dress codes out there that specified at least low heels for women, and it's pretty much a given that there are unofficial dress codes that specify heels ... and makeup and so on.

Thank the gods that I don't have to deal with that. (Though I recently started a job that meant I had to start wearing ties again after 10+ years in jobs were simply wearing a shirt with a collar made me "dressier" than most of my fellow employees.)

It should be sufficient that the woman who does not wish to wear heels get a note from her doctor claiming that wearing heels is not healthy for that particular woman.

That's backwards. A woman shouldn't need some sort of official medical excuse to not wear heels. Instead, any employer that wants to be that specific about the dress code needs to officially explain why they require heels. And some vague statement about heels being "part of a professional appearance" would be bullshit. At least part of the effect of wearing high heels is arguably unprofessional, at least in most professions.

At least have her do something both chef and superspy-like, like work with brulee torch.

Yes, I can just picture that. Thanks for the laugh!

(And rkscher ... if cilantro tastes like soap to you, don't eat it.)

Next up, they'll decrease the punishment for rapists who were drunk.

Oh wait, that's probably already true, at least in some places.

Ads like this are "negative" only because the truth makes McCain look bad. Obviously, Obama is supposed to refrain from making McCain look bad. (I'm not quite sure how Obama is supposed to do that, unless he treats McCain like most reporters do ....)

I like the "Forward by George W. Bush" on the cover of the book.

But you gotta admit, when Obama suggested the solution to $4/gal gas was to inflate your tires, that's funny stuff. Rookie mistake from a rookie.

Who's the rookie? The McCain campaign ended up with egg on their face over that and quietly let go of it. Because anyone paying the least bit of attention knew that (a) Obama didn't suggested it as "'the' solution" and (b) what he did say was correct.

Maybe McCain was little confused and thought Obama was talking about the tires on Cindy McCain's private jet.

Back when I was active in the martial arts, I remember chatting with a prospective student as he watched some of my fellow students practice aiki ju-jitsu moves against mock attacks. At one point the prospective asked something like, "Why don't they punch back?"

The campaign is a little nerve-wracking to watch so far, given what we're used to seeing, but I think the Obama campaign knows exactly what they're doing.

As a relatively disinterested party ...

Thanks for the laugh!

That'd be a whole lot better than sharing a closet with Larry Craig, or a jail cell with Tom Delay.

1) Not all approaches to a "male pill" are hormonally-based.

2) The major difference between an implant and a vasectomy is that the implant is easily reversible.

But feminist blogger Echidne of the Snakes brings up one interesting potential argument, in light of the Bush administration's recent move to equate birth control with abortion: "A male pill would do the prevention inside the male body and no stretch of pro-life imagination could make that into abortion! Wouldn't it be weird if that was what made the male birth control pill a reality?"

Stretching imagination is something that religious fanatics are really, really good at.

Are you sure you wouldn't like some cheese?