I cannot believe people can be so blind. There could not have been a more perfect picture for the circumstances.

Works well for me.

Basically, I don't think this issue really boils down to gender politics/sexism. IMHO, this is much more a factor of practical solutions as opposed to politically correct aspirations.

I thought the female condom was hilarious and unlikely to contribute much to sex and contraception. OTOH, the male condom is a great solution and hugely superior to any male pill that might be marketed. It is a solution without health and hormonal balance negatives and is simple/easy to use. The attacks on male condoms as inadequate as contraception do not impress me in the least. I think they mainly reflect religious and polical agendas, not the reality of proper usage in the real world.

Yeah, loving each other is a key ingredient. Knowing that you both want the other to be happy whenever possible helps too, as does loving your kids and grandkids without reservation nor demands that they meet some level of one's own's expectations.

I think robert Reich hit it out of the park with this article.

I love to fantasize that we can restore GM to greatness and that we can rebuild an industrial economy of excellence, but the truth is that the future will be very different from the past. We are not going to restore our economy via nostalgia and the recent status quo.

Yes, we need to work hard to restore a middle class society, but we cannot return to 1967.

I agree with the idea that reporting the median is often better than reporting the average. Median is democratic in the sense that each borrower is treated equally, whether she borrows $200,000 or $1,000,000.

My guess is that in the current environment, lending to the little guy and gal is very important - lending for small business, housing, big ticket consumption, debt consolidation, etc.

I'm no fan of Palin, and I am voting for Obama. Nevertheless, there is not a lot in this article, imho. Politics is never peaches and cream. Associating with real offenders once they've been indicted can be like being pulled under by a drowning man.

More to the point now is how Palin is campaigning on lie after lie. She is a lucky woman -- lucky to be governor while gushers of money flow from $100 a barrel oil. She has often been in the right place at the right time.

However, I think her timing may be bad this time around, due to the financial collapse underway.

I doubt Obama will choose Hillary. I don't know if it will make a difference. I am a Clinton supporter, but I will vote for Obama no matter who he chooses or why he chooses that person. I live in Virginia. I do not expect Obama to win Virginia, nor North Carolina, nor West Virginia. Putting Hillary on the ticket will not change that. Even with Edwards on the ticket, I don't think Obama could win North Carolina. Four years from now, Virginia might in play, but not in 2008, imho.

OTOH, Clinton could help Obama in Florida and Michigan and Ohio. I think Obama has a chance in Ohio without Hillary, but I don't think he had a chance in Michigan or in Florida without her. It does seem that lots of Obamites have written off Michigan and Florida and intend to build a winning coalition of States without them. That probably is quite possible, but many of the Red States Obama won in the primaries and caucuses won't really be in play in the general election.

Equating the Kennedys and the Clintons borders on mental illness. The Kennedys are a very large clan with numerous office holders, more akin to the Rockefellers. The Clintons consist of Hillary, Bill and their one child. I don't see any dynasty potential on the Rodham side of the family, nor among any relatives on Bill's side.

Pyscho-dramatically playing out Clintonphobia or Clinton loathing is a mental illness that does not belong in legitimate websites, such as Salon.

pointpetre

Although the Clintons have never been big on one person one vote (remember Lani Guenier and the concept of an equal right to representation?), nor has the Democratic Party historically, yet my guess is that a majority of rank and file Democrats believe in one person one vote and a right to equal representation. This primary season has revealed the very stark contrast between caucusses and primaries. After seeing how different they can be, I, personally, have great contempt for caucasses. In Texas, many of the caucusses were outright travesties, yet the media largely ignored that. Remember that Bill Clinton was chastised in the media for complaining ahead of time that the Nevada caucus system would not fairly award delegates. Hillary won and Obama got the most delegates, as in Texas.

For us, the person how actually receives the most votes through the primary process - and throw in the caucus votes too without double counting - has a legitimate claim to take to the superdelegates that they have qualified to be the candidate.

It may be outside of the delegate selection rules, but the superdelegates exist because we know from history that the rules are always going to be far from perfect.

The real flies in this ointment are the fact that Obama was not on the Michigan ballot, and Puerto Ricans cannot vote in November. We can solve the Michigan problem to an extent by giving Obama the uncommitted 40% of the Michigan vote.

Puerto Rico is, imho, a harder problem.