RichEmery:

Just to pre-empt commentary by people like "Joe", it is NOT illegal, unconstitutional or otherwise prohibited for the general public to draw negative inferences about someone "taking the Fifth."

I would go even further: the Fifth Amendment is ONLY available when the witness' testimony could be used in a criminal prosecution against her. It is not available for a witness who wishes to avoid personal emabarassment, or to avoid politically awkward responses. Of course we are to infer that the witness may have committed a crime -- because if she hasn't, then the Fifth is simply not available to her and she must testify, no immunity, no nothing.

In the wake of the Libby verdict, outright lying appears to be out of the question. The two remaining choices are: testify truthfully, or, if the Fifth is available to you because your own conduct violated the law, take the Fifth.

What Jef said: the blogger didn't "work" for Obama. He did have a six-degrees-of-separation connection to Obama, but certainly didn't "work" for Obama.

Aside from that, the article actually makes a good point. I am leaning towards either Edwards or Obama, but interestingly enough, my husband seems to prefer Senator Clinton. Go figure.

Why yes, we do have a daughter, why do you ask?

Skimming a little too quickly, I read this:

he refused to stand by the Justice Department's explanation for the 18-day gap in emails on the U.S. attorney firings

...and thought it said something about an "18-minute gap" -- and I can't quite get it out of my head that I've seen that phrase somewhere before...

I would love for Broadsheet to follow up on this story. I've always been suspicious of those places.

It really speaks volumes about the elevated paranoia level of the rabid right wing, that they believe any reference to Rice's status must obviously be a slur, in much the same way they believed that John Kerry behaved outrageously by mentioning Cheney's already-out-lesbian daughter (insert here: sputtering with righteous indignation) or that Mark Foley could not have been prevailed upon to keep his paws off the underage pages -- because that would have been homophobic.

Boxer correctly said: you and I are in the same position but for different reasons: neither of us is sending a family member (husband, wife, life partner, child) off to Iraq.

So really, who is the Post trying to manipulate with its screaming indignation? Young singles? Gays? I'm mystified at why they think this will discredit Boxer. People who hate her will continue to hate her, and people who support her will continue to support her.

It gets worse and worse: did you realize that the father of the current president is George Herbert Walker Bush? Which is the same middle name as John Walker Lindh? A direct blood connection between the "American Taliban" and the Commander in Chief?

Where is the Department of Homeland Security when you need them?

The proper question for the employer to ask, and to ask of all candidates regardless of sex or childbearing status, is this: the demands of this job are X,Y, and Z. Are you prepared to take on these responsibilities?

It is not necessary to presume that women are less capable of answering honestly. It is not necessary to presume that men don't also have outside demands that might interfere with their job performance. It is not necessary for employers to gloss over the real time demands of their job merely to ensnare the best candidate, and later surprise them with the "real" demands of the job.

"I notice your resume states you are a captain in the Air Force Reserve. How do you expect to keep and hold this job and still honor your commitment to the Air Force 20 days per year?" (or whatever reservists need to serve when they're not active)

"I notice you drive a '98 Ford Taurus, and your commute is easily an hour each direction. What reassurance can you give me that your car won't break down and leave you stranded on the freeway just when I need you the most?"

"I notice you seem to be a dog-lover. How are you going to handle the situation if you're at work and the neighbors call and complain that your dogs have gotten out and strewn trash all over their yard?"

I'm so glad to see some honest critique of that stupid article. People who get married have to expect that over time, their spouses will change, and they themselves will change. It does more harm than good to give husbands and wives the false impression that they have a "contract" or "agreement" binding their partner to one set of answers, without regard for what happens when reality starts playing out. Take, for example, the division of labor both within the household and with respect to wage-earning. Most surveys show that husbands have an exaggerated perception of how much housework they do, because they compare themselves to their fathers -- while wives feel short-changed, because they're comparing their workload to their husband's workload. So what on earth would be solved by having them agree in advance to share the load equally, when they're using two different yardsticks? Until they're in the trenches making it work, they have no clue how complex it really is. Same with wage-earning -- how can you know in advance who will be laid off? How can you know in advance who will become disabled?

Marriage is not about certainty. The more certainty you demand in advance, the less you will be able to adjust to life as it plays out.

The real problem is not that people don't understand the "ground rules" their partners set out. The problem is that one partner wants to get married more than the other, and so settles for ground rules that, over time, they discover they cannot really live with.