Booed or not, Hillary is a DLC agent of the same ilk as those who, like her husband, backed the death penalty, Walmart-friendly tax policies, smarmish religious confessions, and the corporate war economy, rather like Lieberman the "independent." I'm glad she can show us a nice smile and, indeed, she looks very cute, but don't get too close trying to feed her a peanut, something enjoyed more by elephants than donkeys—she'll bite your finger to the bone. If the blogosphere can be bought off so cheaply we're in more trouble that I thought.

As per the last para, yes, why blame either sex? Funny thing about the article is that it seems to be about whether or not an argument is fair to one sex or another more than whether or not an outcome is desirable for anybody. If we had done more what some Europeans had done-accept and deal with sex differences—we would probably have had a more equitable and sane outcome for all. But to do this requires that we accept some sex differences in the first place, like childbirth and lactation to be obvious, and like sex differences in styles of competition o be less so. However, this, most of our American feminists have never liked to do. G. Steinem, for instance, still regards any social science work on sex differences to be the gender-equivalence of the Tuskegee race experiments. It’s this, the dogmatic insistence that sex and race are the same, that has done us in. But to insist that race is any empty biological category works, while to insist the same for sex has always felt at least slightly false to most people. With sex, to do what is good for everybody requires the recognition of broad difference-my favorite example being Norway, I believe, where they sensibly recognized that males wouldn’t take parental leave when it was offered and preferred to stay in the office where they could be seen striving: when they forced everybody to take these leaves, it seems to have been a relief to all. So don’t be afraid of difference, and just deal with it, and then we can all have a bit of sanity.

I am an anthropologist and a historian. I do not claim special or expert knowledge of Tibet, but I have studied its language and culture. I know that the concensus among scholars of Tibet is that while China had various kinds of Imperial/Feudal relations with Tibet over centuries—including at least one occasion when Tibet was the politically superior party—China never actively controlled the territory of Tibet until the 1950's when Chinese Communist Armies actually invaded and then occupied Tibet. Tibet for centuries was itself a Buddhist polity, marked by all of the complexity—gentleness, brutality, openness, aristocratic arrogance, dynamism, potential—as any other civilization.

The political rulers of Communist China are trying to crush all of this, destory this, deny this, in the name of "progress," which is how native peoples are always destroyed. Whether or not the Dalai Lama is the best champion for Tibet's cause is an idiotic question. That nation has been ruined, ravaged, raped. He trys to help. He doesn't need to-many DL's in history have been quite divorced from practical politics. One of them spent his time drinking and writing love poems. He is also loved by the Tibetan people. But asking about whether or not the present DL has been effective is to obscenely igonore the extent to which others have had nothing to say while monks and nuns and men and women and children have been killed and tortured and raped and forced to abandon their own language and culture.

Yes, why was this published? It is very strange. Desperate. If Hillary was more popular she would be winning, no? If Obama were less popular, he would be losing, yes? We should just change the rules whenever Hillary is losing, yes? No? It depends on your point of view and, of course, whether or not you have any integrity.

Any of the three in the race right now would be hard pressed to identify through life experience with the great working class lunch bucket heroes (etc., blah, blah, backbone of the country, what made this nation great, whatever) and for any of them to try would be stupid. This is why I was so pleased to learn that Hillary and Grandpa had attacked Barack for being elitist. I immediately knew that he would strike back fast and smart, and so he did. And, as far as I can tell, the really white meat-and-potatos folks sitting behind him when he said "and some of you are bitter," smiled, bitterly, but with humor and appreciation when he said it. And, please, Joan, can you get over the potato famine and all that? It's not really you.

I began to think that some Clinton supporters had gone off the deep end when I heard some talking head ask, "would anybody say that Guiliani was arrogant or aggressive" if he had done or said something Hillary-like, and I'd thought, well, of course they would: many people said, for instance, that Guiliani was arrogant and aggressive and generally speaking an annoying person. Well, some folks feel that way about Hillary Clinton. And some of them are Obama supporters. Some folks also hang out at Hillary events and hold up signs that say "iron my shirt." Let's call the first group group #1 and the second group group #2. Group # 1 and #2 are different. There are more people in group #1, who are likely Democratic voters, than in group #2. And, by the way, how many more people in the world, when they heard, Guiianai's voice, felt "overcome by an urge to punch HIM in the face"?