Girls, ladies--ya'll have it good.

I see no backlash against women--I see a hard return to the traditional gender role for men as masculine, impulsive, assertive, strong and violent.

And I see the range of options for women continue to widen--the masculinzed Hilary, the ultra feminine but "empowered" girls in heels, the leveling of the sexual playing field (whatever that means!), the proud 'One D at a time girls', the "proud stay at home Mommy" and the increase of women in all sorts of power positions from pundits to government players, and the return of the traditional date where the guy pays for everything. Which I like! Going dutch was like an foreshadowing of overthought-sex.

Honestly, I think it's pretty good. I remember things being pretty PC and rigid for women in the 1990s--and they got offended when I tried to pay for dinner. Frankly I see gender role options much more limited for men now. You're a John Wayne protege or you're not only weak, but the time you're taking to weigh consequences will let the terrorists get the drop on U.S.

Giuliani is just too alien to the middle america from which I hail. His high profile divorces, bejeweled present wife, and gay roomates. Even the blessings of 9/11 can't save this guy from looking too Big City Tabloid.

And McCain, once independent, reasonable, and maverick turned pro-Bush and hawkish at precisely the wrong time. Now he just seems bitter sitting in the back of the "Sourpuss Express."

Then there's Rommney with something too crisp and sears.com about his 'workin' blue' button down shirts. His plasticity and past flip flops aren't earning him any regular joe cred. And Mormonism? That's just plain weird to most Americans. I myself don't want to have a beer with any guy who might be wearing magic underwear.

Which leaves Fred Thompson, who despite charisma, seems oddly flaccid and unimpassioned, and ill prepared so far. He scores points in that American men would like to have a beer with him and ask the question, "how did you sack that hot wife?"

Perhaps Thompson is the sleeping elephant, playing it cool until the race is really on. He seems about as on top of world events as an non-newspaper reading American President so another point there. But that begs the question? Where's his Cheney? Condi?

Finally, let's consider combos: Guiliani and Romney? (it's like Dynasty meets Leave it to Beaver). McCain and Fred Thompson? They look too Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy.

From this motley bunch of barely front runners, you really realize how the disasterous, criminal, corrupt and constitution raping Cheney regime fronted by Forrest Bush Gump could look so good to Americans just looking for a World leader that would create a foreign and domestic policy that could make sense at just about any elevated blood alcohol level.

She's got a knack for making us look & listen, she says inane things cleverly, she's cute in a bloated-ego princess kind of way. I give us 2 years before this girl is on The View.

Maybe she has a point. Drag queens are studies in human courage--I mean the balls on these guy-gals. If only more real women would dress so trashy, we'd inhabit an earthly paradise.

Though when I wore a mini-skirt once chicks were jealous over my killer legs

which, in those shitty, baggy, guy shorts look don't look so hot. Oi.

It seems impossible that these hacks actually believe what they are saying. Obviously they do it for access, but there has to be money too. I mean, there must be some way to trace Broder/Ignatius pundits' pay raises or bonuses to especially pro Bush columns. There have got to be favors, gifts, SOMETHING that could expose these men for the lying partisan hacks they are. Dangerous to the safety of Americans as far as I'm concerned.

Or is it simply as Noam Chomsky once stated that these elite opinion makers simply don't rise to that level of prominence and access without actually believing the lies they write. If that's the case, we are in trouble.

Regardless, thank god for the liberal blogs, Salon, Krugman, Frank Rich, Democracy Now, Crooks and Liars, Keith Olberman, and others too many to name.

Is the inevitable invasion of and annexing of that gargantuan landmass Canada when things get too warm and overpopulated down here in the states. I mean, what are they going to fight back with? Hockey sticks?

The Electoral college helps keep the fringe element of the right wing in power, with Ohio ultimately having as much as sway in national policy as California.

However, switching to a purely popular vote would simply marginalize the votes of the exurban and rural populations who most support right wing foreign policy. And will, frankly, never be affected by a terrorist attack that is the blowback of the Current Occupant's adminstration policies--Think they'll go for it?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be ultimately wiser and, from a certain point of view, more fair to abolish the electoral college. I'm just saying--look at it from the point of view of the well organized, politically active mega-churches, Fox News, and a few unnamed companines that recently come into a near 300 Billion dollar windfall.

The right tied up the country fighting for two years to impeach a moderate republican Clinton for a blow job. How hard do you think they'll fight to keep the electoral college districting that keeps them in power?

It won't be civil war, but it'll be a poisonous Rovian PR campaign that will make the post 9/11 "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric seem quaint.

that the work of "liberals" (try moderates) like Al Gore show geniune love of land and country-- true Patriotism. What's more Patriotic that trying to secure a livable future for your grandkids?

Oh yeah, flag decals.