The ability for a woman to enact her own choices about her own body is fundamentally important and should not be denied, deferred or abolished. Period.

In an ideal world, partnerships would exist where there is a balance to the dynamics of the relationship, and where open, honest and mature communication takes place at important points in the relationship. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

I think what this men's group is adressing, albeit in a very indirect way, is the societal structure of emotional expression for men. It is the 21st Century and yet men in American society are still raised with a warped sense of their gender and their place in society. Men are discouraged from openly showing emotion, expressing their feelings and crying. Mainstream society expects men to be cold, agressive and often violent. I think this group is (whether they are consciously aware of it or not) attempting to address this.

Camille, your bashing of Hillary Clinton is one of the most sexist things I have read in a long time. You might not like her as a candidate or even as a person, but your craven cynicism about her is pretty extreme.

And then you follow up with:

"The Clintons live to campaign. It's what holds them together and gives them a glowing sense of meaning and value. Their actual political accomplishments are fairly slight."

Really? Do you really believe that? Were you asleep during most of the 90's?

Remember the robust economy- the healthiest of the 20th Century? The budget surplus? Peace and prosperity?

Policies that directly benefited working Americans?

That's not "fairly slight" in my book.

The individual who stated that our government would be cracking down if their names were Mohammed is sadly correct.

Jose Padilla had no physcial evidence linking him to his supposed terrorist plans, but we still locked him up in isolation for three years and tortured him until his mind was mush.

Yet these viejo machismos down in Florida are caught with 50 calliber weapons, machine guns, dynamite, C-4, grenades and god knows what else- and they get a slap on the wrist.

It's not surprising that the right wing extremism which colored our foreign policies for the last 30+ years is responsible for this lax enforcement of our terrorist laws. After all, one of these men aided the Sandanista rebels in Central America- the same murderous bunch Regan got all weepy about when calling them equivalent to our nation's Founding Fathers. Never mind they were raping and murdering nuns at the same time.

Regardless of our nations stance and attitudes towards Cuba (that's an old man's fight being fought by old men) blowing up an airliner full of innocent civilians or strafing a beach and killing two children are not only acts of cowardice, they're acts of murder and should be prosecuted.

As if the line that seperates church and state weren't thin and strained enough as it is.

I can't imagine a more frightening leader of this nation.

I remember reading reports a few years ago, when the Bushies were itching to drill in the coastal Alaskan wilderness that the oil they could extract from the area would have only a marginal impact on our fossil fuel reserves. In short, all of that work and destruction of habitats and species wouldn't give us much more oil, and certainly wouldn't be enough to allow us to stop buying mideast oil.

Their actions are disgusting, but completely unsurprising. This is, after all, a greed-based administration headed by ignorant men still stuck in a 1950's mentality where oil is king.

As for the quote: "The Bush administration literally has the worst record on endangered species in history", can't we just truncate that for accuracy and say, "The Bush Administration has literally been the worst in history"? Sounds about right to me.

Aren't questions usually defined as interrogative statements?

Is just a shortcut to thinking, and having to do the hard work of using logic and thoughtful, reasonable discourse.

says a great deal about your character.

Regardless of whether or not Huckabee has openly allied himself with these nutcases doesn't matter, the fact that he has forged such strong personal ties with them over the years proves that he at least holds some- if not all- of their views on how this country should be run.

The fact that this man is running for the office of President of the United States is unbelievable. This nation holds in its founding documents that all citizens are granted liberty, and the right to practice (or NOT practice) any religion they choose. That a man with Huckabee's views and pronouncements would even entertain the idea of running for President shows how little he understands the nature of that position- and how fundamentally wrong it would be for a man so biased to be President.

These men and their organizations are frighteningly reactionary and violent: "It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice ... not just influence ... not just equal time. It is dominion we are after." - Just as Jesus would have wanted, right? Actually- quite the opposite.

These sentiments and individuals would be bizarre fringe groups at best in a normally funcitoning society. That they could gain attention- and especially the attention of a Presidential candidate- proves how vigilant we must always be to ensure that our rights and liberties are protected.

Killing a fetus = wrong.

Killing an innocent Iraqi civilian = okay?

I was under the impression that our society- as least here in the United States- derives its stability from the rule of law and not the "traditional family unit".

Or am I mistaken?

Also, is the "murder" of a fetus more a crime- in your view- than the thousands of Iraqi citizens our current invasion and occupation has killed?

So NOW can we impeach him...?