So interesting to read Joan's blog right after reading/skimming Paglia's. I want to applaud both women for their voices. I agree with Paglia, at some basic level, that Palin represents a new kind of feminism that should really not scare anyone. I see it (that new/young expression of feminism) in a lot of the young women whom I work with. It is refreshing, and in my mind Palin's directness about her pro-life, pro-Jesus world view (when she's directly asked in interviews) is also refreshing to me. (Which is not to say I find Palin on the trail or ANY other evangelical refreshing on that subject.)

But, as Joan suggests, and Paglia does not, respecting these things about Palin does not necessarily lead one to think for a minute she'll ever be the kind of national leader to cheer on. Certainly not at the presidential level.

I just got back from watching "W" earlier this evening. I don't think I could have watched it with any pleasure at all before the election, but tonight, it felt darn cathartic. What an incredible and awful period of history we have lived through. "W" presents a man who is certainly likable because he is so human, but his administration and leadership are unthinkably awful as presented in the film. Never, never, never, would I vote for another leader who cannot speak sentences and who does not value intellectual curiosity. The MBA does not qualify one for the presidency--not all by itself; and neither does the charm and street smarts of someone like Palin.

It's a new world. It really is. It's not just Obama the man; it's that the country finally voted out anti-intellectual, war-mongering energy. It's been way too long coming, but thank goodness for the change.

It's "titled" not "entitled."

[And Paglia is not a journalist; not even she would make that claim.]

Oh ReaderReader,

I shouldn't take you on as I believe you're not seriously open-minded about your questions. But, having just gone to see Oliver Stone's "W" last night, a movie that has stuck with me in a surprisingly profound way, I am motivated to write that I think you are being very naive to believe for a minute that Palin would not be like Bush in her evangelical fervor to push for the Christian Right's agenda and to rely on prayer more than intelligence to guide her in her decision making.

Never again. Never can we have a president who is likable, even lovable, but who cannot think fully, intelligently and deeply about what it means to govern a nation. Never again can we have a president who happily and proudly leaves the responsibility to Jesus to guide him or her to the right door that he/she can then plow through. Enough is enough.

I won't argue with you that Palin as governor was moderate and worked well with others. But you cannot deny that when she got tapped for the VP position, she did indeed immediately and constantly rely heavily on that dog whistle, and there's no way in hell I will sit back quietly to let her rally those dogs for another run at the presidency. Never again. Enough is enough.

I'd love to see Rachel interview Joe Lieberman, but I don't see how an apology would make anything better. It would just make him seem weaker.

Why would the Democrats expect Joe to apologize or change his stripes? He's been exercising his free will to be the kind of politician he wants to be. He's been doing what he wants. That's what he should do. Why should he act like he wasn't?

So what if he gets embittered if he gets ousted from his job? So what if a Republican gets his job. The country needs to move forward, and I really don't think the way forward is to be fearful of Republicans or to feel sorry for Joe Lieberman.

Hillary is a perfectly logical and inspired choice to be appointed Sec of State. So far all the questions here about how Obama would work with her (does he like her enough, could he fire her) suggest a poor opinion of Obama...or latent sexism.

Klytus, I'm very glad you're out there. I often come to the letters section of Joan's blogs just to see what you're up to. Your posts have made me laugh or smile often over the last year. I appreciate your wit and poetry, especially since you almost always find a way to express a sensitive insight. And, I have to add, I'm always glad when Joan notices when your comments are missing.

Just a few minutes ago I copied the paragraph below, by Tim Wise, from a Recommended Diary on DailyKos. I think Wise expresses what I sometimes fear about liberal bloggers and posters: we take life politics so seriously we can forget to laugh and enjoy ourselves. I appreciate how you, Klytus, and you, Joan, keep things in balance!

The humorlessness of the far left -- to which I remain connected ideologically if not organizationally -- has always struck me as one of its greatest weaknesses. People like to laugh, they like to smile, they like to be joyful, and an awful lot of hardened leftists seem almost utterly incapable of doing any of these things. It's as if they have all taken a pledge that there should be no laughter until the revolution, or some such shit. No positivity, no hope, no happiness so long as people are still poor and exploited and being murdered by cops, and victimized by United States militarism, or performing as wage slaves for global capital, or eating meat, or driving cars. And they wonder why the left is so weak? --Tim Wise