Don't let them fool you. There will be plenty of people around, 2.5 billion more as Leonard points out.

Anytime these faux neo-cons start complaining about baby busts and the lack of new babies, you can be assured they're only thinking about one thing: war. They're afraid they can't keep having their absurd wars (as opposed to the few, sane ones we fight) without their usual influx of new recruits.

Here from the New York Times article:

" Allan C. Carlson, president of the Rockford Institute, an Illinois-based policy group, said, "I think we're going to face serious economic trouble in our desperate attempts to sustain a welfare state.

As more resources go to health care for an aging population, he said, "It will be difficult for us to defend our immediate security interests."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1D81731F932A35751C0A96F948260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/P/Population

Not a problem for me. Maybe now you can worry about only fighting the necessary wars. Most large explosions of babies are part of a post-war boom anyway. The Baby Boomers were the children of the World War II generation, they were the children of the World War I generation and so on. Frankly I hope we do see a decline in birth rate. There are too many of us as it is and we find every excuse known to humankind to try and kill each other. Maybe fewer babies will prevent Gulf War IV in 2024.

Rebecca, why you and other Clinton supporters persist in hating Kathleen Sebelius is beyond me. I really don't get it. She's clearly the most qualified candidate for Vice President. Don't worry you've already gotten your way, the incessant whining by certain female Clinton supporters about putting Sebelius on the ticket has all but barred her as a candidate.

But is it really THAT far beyond the realm of your understanding that some of us just think she's the BEST candidate? That we want her on the ticket not because she's a woman but because she's the best governor in America.

Do you hear Janet Napolitano's name mentioned much? Claire McCaskell? Nancy Pelosi? Amy Kloubacher? No. They're all women. Why not? Because, to many of us, they're simply not as qualified for the job as Sebelius is. Period. And it has nothing to do with them having ovaries or mammaries either. Sebelius' record is second to none. Sorry but it is. If she can't have the job, fine. But don't ask those of us who honestly believe she's the best choice to pretend she's not.

As for Keith Olberman, I don't know what to tell you. That's why it's dangerous to idolize anyone. If white female progressives were head over heels in love with Keith Olberman, well that's their thing. The fact that he and Matthews were always such bosom buddies, should have clued you into something. If you couldn't see the man clearly had issues with the opposite gender, I don't see how that's anyone else's fault either. Male progressives never swooned over him this way. Possibly you shouldn't have either. We all make mistakes, but the blame must be placed inward and the lessons learned. It can't be put on others.

As for this little paragraph:

"Of course, the ease with which these kinds of stereotypes were bandied about suggests that it is women -- about to take your jobs and your college acceptance letters and your seat in the Oval Office and probably your penis! -- who are the most threatening to the established white male power structure. But it seems that that was rather cold comfort when Clinton women were being steadily assailed with images of themselves as unappealing, pruney old harpies who did all their political thinking with their ovaries. "

Funny all of this anger you speak of has been directed at everyone BUT white men. So if they screwed you over, as you seem to be arguing they did from Olberman to Bill Clinton to Mark Penn to Howard Dean, maybe it's finally time you stood up to THEM for a change. And quit blaming everyone else. Many of the more rabid, older white female Hillary supporters certainly had no problems standing up to young men (of all races), African-American men, African-American women, and any woman who didn't support Hillary.

The only group they couldn't stand up to? Older white men. So again, Rebecca, possibly they should work on this. From Bill Clinton to Mark Penn to Olberman to Dean, white men continually screwed Hillary. They sabotaged her campaign. In at least 3 cases (Bill, Penn and Keith) they were assumed to have been strong supporters of hers. So again, take your anger out on them. If many of the older white female Clinton supporters (which is the group you cite in this article) is incapable of standing up to white men in their own peer group, than I don't know what to tell you. Yes, you might never make progress. The younger generation (male and female) and African-Americans and any number of other minorities had to stand up to them in order to push through change. Possibly you should have focused on doing the same thing.