Dump the g/f, take the job in Toronto and get on with your life. If you're successful and have a job you love, the rest will follow. Maybe with this chick, maybe with someone more compatible, who knows? But you're young, you've got a lifetime to figure it out. Besides, Canadian women are hot...

Now, fly! Be free!

This is the price paid for handing control of the legislative and executive branches to the Republican Party. The American people have just themselves to blame. Unfortunately, the systematic dismantling of modern American constitutional law has only just begun.

Why don't Tucker and Jonah just give the guy a blowjob and spare the rest of us their homoerotic swooning?

I have a big problem with Hilary and it ain't because she's a woman (please, what century is this, the seventeenth?) or that she's a Clinton (an argument too stupid to require rebuttal).

My objections are simple ones.

She voted to approve this dauphin's woodenheaded national nightmare in Iraq and she's been strangely unrepentant about it ever since. This country doesn't need yet another President who can't admit they've made a mistake. That's precisely what got us where we are now.

Second, as this poll seems to demonstrate, she's a public figure about whom the majority of the voting public has major reservations. The whys are debatable, but frankly I don't care what they are. I personally have long had SERIOUS doubts about the nationwide electability of Hilary Clinton. My party doesn't need another seemingly acclaimed Annointed Leader to follow into glorious, preordained defeat. And I really do believe that's what will happen if she's the nominee.

For the love of God, can't we choose somebody for once who will lead us out of the mud, blood and travesty of leadership which we've come to accept as the Democratic role model into the green fields of victory beyond?

I am reminded of the breathtaking arrogance of the Athenian ultimatum to the Melians in Thucydides' The Peloponessian War-- "For you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is in question only between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Given the current sad disarray of the Democratic Party, we suffer what we must until we can become strong enough to stop such malfeasance and injustice. Although it seems a truism, in a democratic society there shouldn't be one law for the rich and powerful and another for the rest of us.

With my active support of the administration's woodenheaded policies and by placing service to my party before service to my country, 3,500 and some Americans have died for nothing and I'm afraid I won't get reelected unless it looks like I actually tried to do something to stop it.

Well, better late than never...

This is the same Congress that couldn't stop a spending bill because [gasp] the dauphin might VETO it!!!!!!

Impeachment? First, we'll need to hold a seance and conjure up the spirit of Senator Sam Ervin to take possession of Harry Reid and give him some courage.

Even so, we stand a better chance at the latter than at the former....

Much as I admire Ms. Sheehan's antiwar commitment and wish that my party shared both her zeal and focus, I can think of no more definite way to insure the election of a Republican to Pelosi's seat than by splitting the liberal vote in this manner.

Am I disgusted with the way the Democratic leaders have mishandled their party's opposition to this war? Most assuredly. But I'm also equally convinced that-- for better or worse-- the Democratic Party represents the last, best hope to pull our country back from the brink of the Republican crafted disaster we find ourself in on so many fronts, including but not limited to the war in Iraq.

How very... Nixonian.

I hope that this proposal will actually make it to a VOTE before the Democratic leadership once again abandons it's guns (and it's electorate) and declares defeat.

I fear I will be wrong, yet hope for the best.

That these people know way, way too much about each other? I mean, I've worked with a variety of bosses for decades at a time and wouldn't have the foggiest notion about their sexual proclivities. This gives the term workplace camaraderie an entirely new and kind of creepy meaning....

These two may have stumbled upon their life's mission. They should be running a home for wayward girls. Specializing in really, really bad teenage virgins who deserve a good spanking on their bare bottoms before being handcuffed to their beds for a stiff dose (yes, pun intended) of healing sexual therapy. Being employed only part time, hubby obviously has the time to devote to the task and LW is clearly motivated to lay on the healing hands... firmly and repeatedly.

After a long day of repressing societal values, regimenting social mores and just generally telling other folks how best to live their lives, nothing helps a godfearing man relax like a good hooker...

Depends. Was his mouth moving?

You wrote a flip little piece that you viewed as amusing. Unfortunately, what you assumed was an exercise in intellectual drollery was instead quite simply utterly offensive. Not only that, but it mirrors rightwing "talking points" (if you can call outright propaganda a "point" to be talked about and not shouted at those who disagree). Now you find yourself placed in the awkward position of defending your odd bit of Dowd-like character assassination as really just an intelligent, serious study (oh, please) of gender roles in politics.

Right. And the situation in Iraq is improving daily.

Look, just admit you made a mistake, resolve not to repeat it and move on. We'll understand. Or is that too feminine and unmanly for you?