Has sexism had an effect on this contest? Of course. Has it had a divisive effect? Some. Has it had a decisive effect? Not clear.

Why is it being pushed -- it's obviously a coordinated push-- right now? Also not clear.

Sure, people should speak out against sexism. But excuse me if I don't think that's the primary motivation here.

MCCAIN: Oh I thin -- Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map ...

Of course, those aren't Ahmadinejad's words. Those are the Bush Administration's loose translation of Ahmadinejad quoting Khomeini. And according to at least some experts in the language, it's a very loose translation.

Not that either Ahmadinejad or Khomeini are very nice people, or would miss Israel if it "vanish[ed] from the page of time" (a rather different translation). But either McCain is badly informed on the situation, or he doesn't care that he's perpetuating an conveniently inaccurate misunderstanding of the situation.

Either way, he's not presidential material.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would have the strength to overcome most Rovian tactics, which are already starting up...

An Obama-Clinton ticket would be more vulnerable to Rovian tactics than nearly any other Obama pair-up, with the possible exception of Obama-Muhammed.

SHE SHOULD DEFINITELY STAY AND WIN.

She can't win without the magic pony delegates, and they haven't shown any signs of picking a favorite this year. Perhaps Mark Penn has internal polling numbers that say otherwise?

If she drops out, a bunch of people lose their multi-million buck gigs. Mark Penn has made 11 million screwing Hillary's campaign. If she quits, he has to make an honest living.

It's not (just) about the money, it's about the access-to-power. They think that the longer she stays in, the bigger her payoff position will have to be, and the more influence they'll have.

(The vice-presidency is a nowhere spot. Cheney is a glaring exception, but somehow I can't see Obama playing Bush to Hillary's Cheney.)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if an attack on Iran was in the works, but this report is pretty useless.

Uh, inbreeding is the result of small communities not large marriages

Funny how the two go together, innit?

If they did, it wouldn't be.

Small, in-bred communities can be -- and very often have been -- very strict about monogamy. And there are polygamous relationships in at least several large metropolitan areas that I'm aware of. (And smaller cities and towns and ...)

You are drawing simplistic conclusions from insufficient data.

Perhaps people will change, and if polygamy were legalized women would marry multiple men as often as men would marry multiple women; but that's not the usual pattern. Or if the polygamists were a tiny percentage of the population, they'd be insignificant. I don't think it wise to count on that though.

I suppose it's a little unfair of me to draw on actual knowledge, but your "usual pattern" is only the "usual pattern" for biblical history and the few religious sects that have caught media attention. The "usual pattern" based on the examples that I actually know personally means that I know this concern of yours is unfounded.

I think it's far more of a powder keg than we should leap into. Plus, as a previous poster mentioned, it would be extremely complicated. Family law would be even more of a tangle than it is now.

"It would be extremely complicated" doesn't strike me as a very good reason to meddle with other people's life choices.

Uh, inbreeding is the result of small communities not large marriages.

Can states get around this clause simply by passing laws allowing themselves to not give full faith and credit for certain acts of other states? Is DOMA constitutional in this provision that allows states to deny full faith and credit?

As far as I know, it hasn't been put to that test yet.

"Supreme Court nominations" is high on my list of "Reasons not to vote for McCain".

But let's be clear that it is really nothing more than a capitulation to a heckler's veto by the hysterical religious right and the cynical politicians who exploit them. [Emphasis added]

I'm with Derbig Mooser. That's a great way of putting it.

Yeah, yeah, we shouldn't have legal recognition of polygamy because it's complicated and because sometimes people in those relationships break laws or take advantage of government benefits and sometimes they treat people badly.

By the same reasoning, no more than two people should ever be allowed to start a business together. (And before you go on about how businesses don't affect children's lives, you might want to take a careful look at the world.)

Hell, by the same reasoning, Bill and Melinda Gates shouldn't have been allowed to get married.

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one...there IS such a thing as Common Law Marriage. Granted it IS different in each state, but the point is the same...if a man and a woman live together as man and wife for a specified period of time, they are married by common law...and if the man wants to leave the woman, she CAN divorce him and get alimony and child support.

Actually, I don't think it's simply a specified period of time in any states anymore. I think you have to at least present yourselves as married to be considered such, even in those places that still have such a thing as common law marriage. (And the alimony and child support thing varies wildly from place to place -- even from judge to judge -- and sometimes has nothing to do with marital status, official or common.)

You cannot change a man's faith...you would have an easier time stopping the tide coming in.

One can't change a person's faith directly, but one can certainly influence a conversion. That's the point of missionaries and other proselytizers.