You hit that nail on the head...

And I say that with no animus toward gay folks, being one myself.

But seriously: when will we stop having to listen to Peretz' sex objects being launched into the national discourse as though they have some expertise beyond having served as his muses?

and definitely not a "Veronica."

Camille -- with this one, you have shown definitively that your head is so far up your ass that you are talking out your mouth again.

Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She is a zealous, hypocrite, whose belief system has condemned her daughter to pregnany and marriage with no meaningful choice in the matter.

A feminist is not a woman who obtains power and prerogatives by denying those things to the women around her.

Grow a brain already.

Joan -- it's long past time to pull the plug on Paglia's nonsense.

I see you have no other letters on Salon at all... Hmmm...

looks like you're just sock-puppets trolling to spin for McCain. How much is Rove paying you to put your "opinions" out here? Hmmmmm?

Ferraro, remember? So the "history making" choice was made more than a decade ago -- and made by a Dem. Just because McCain is so old and sick that a completely unqualified right-wing, creationist (Dinosaurs and humans lived together in the Garden of Eden), power-abusing nut-job may be a heartbeat away from the Presidency is, I'll bet, more likely to turn off moderate voters, than turn them on.

Really? Who knew?

Please look at Salon's article on suing Bush today. It gives a very good description of some of the legal obstacles that would face a suit alleging that the FISA bill is unconstitutional on its face.

Quite simply, other than the plaintiffs in al-Hamarain, no one can show the requisite standing to challenge the FISA law. That is -- can show that he or she has been spied upon in a way that violates the constitution yet is allowed under the FISA bill.

Standing is a pre-requisite to maintaining a suit. Now it may be that the FISA bill violates the 4th Amendment in purporting to legalize unconstitutional searches. If you don't have standing -- that is, you can't show you were spied on -- you don't get your day in court.

Then there is the question of "reasonability". The 4th Amendment doesn't outlaw surveillance without a warrant, it outlaws unreasonable searches.

Courts defer greatly to Congress when it, through legislation, decides that a certain way of conducting a search is "reasonable".

It may be that a court would find the FISA bill unreasonable on its face. But I wouldn't count on it with today's federal judges.

My disappointment with the Democrats is only exceeded by my revulsion for the Republicans. I am going to do just enough (unenthusiastically) to see that Barack Obama is elected, because the consequences of a McCain presidency would be far worse.

But that's about as much enthusiasm as I can muster for someone who is as willing to compromise core legal principles that I know, as a lawyer, that he understands.

It strikes me that the entire problem with getting a court to rule on the constitutionality of the FISA bill will be difficult, if not impossible.

Before the court could rule on the substantive constitutionality of the bill, the court would have to rule that it did not have to abide by the provision forcing it to dismiss the suit based on the AG's certification.

Congress has broad power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is a closer question whether Congress can regulate the jurisdiction of state courts to hear federal questions, but the answer is probably that Congress can. That leaves the question of whether Congress can remove jurisdiction entirely to hear a federal question. That legal question is as yet unanswered.

So, in practical terms, if the Administration does not want the constitutionality of the FISA bill adjudicated, it probably won't be.

Olberman's silly hit piece on you or the fawning it got on Dkos.

if anything should (god forbid) happen to Obama is too much. I don't care how much Hagel may have bucked his party on Iraq. He should never be Obama's veep.

1. Worst Supreme Court decision of the 20/21st century: Bush v. Gore. Boumediene is a *great* decision.

2. We lost a city -- New Orleans. But it wasn't because of terrorists. It was because of Bush-based Republican incompetence.

3. Tell me where to give money to punish the Dem caucus for the FISA deal. I am itching to lighten my pockets to slap the living shit out of the Dems who think that caving is winning.

Period. And we who support him, boycott anyone who advertises there. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Go Obama.

The comment that needs no commentary.

Maybe if women quit being LAZY and started to try to run for office on their own laurels, supposed 'sexism' would magically disappear. How about we try that for once, huh?

QED.

I support Obama as the best candidate for President. No question. I voted for him in my state's primary and I look forward to the day he's inaugurated. And I think Hillary is a seriously flawed person and candidate.

None of which blinds me to the extraordinary outpouring of mysogyny about Hillary that has been thrown up by the primaries. It is, frankly, stunning to me.

Even more so that otherwise intelligent, sensitive progressives are pretending it's not there.

And talking about this mysogyny as a potent force in our political landscape is not bashing Obama or secretly trying to whip up support for Clinton -- as Traister made very, very clear in her piece. It's intelligent commentary on a very, very important matter.

So having an irrational desire to punch a woman in the face or refusing to vote for her because she's a "bitch" is not bashing? Makes me wonder what you think "bashing" is?