The the victim was male is a factor here.

Boys are supposed to manly and tough. They're expected to fight back in a way girls are not. Boys aren't supposed to be victims. Because if they are, they're not really victims. They wanted it.

Way to go O'Reilly. Way to discourage boys who are the victims of sexual predators and violence at home to just keep their mouths shut.

How many non-white non-male people have represented Iowa in their state government and in their federal delegation over the last 25 years?

How many non-white non-male people have represented the country in the Executive Branch? We only just now have the first woman Speaker of the House.

But I agree that using Iowa and New Hampshire as the bellwether for the country is pretty non-sensical.

as a sexual being does not necessarily mean having intercourse with another being.

When Bill Clinton did the Sunday Morning News Show Circuit a couple of weeks ago, he addressed this.

1. Were Hillary Clinton to be elected, in the interests of full disclosure only, he'd make public a list of Clinton Foundation donors.

2. Bill as head of the foundation is more of a broker, putting people with money together with people who want to do good. It's not as though he's padding his pockets.

3. He's reluctant to release a full list of Clinton Foundation donors now. Many donated expecting anonymity. And some are Republicans just trying to do some good work.

4. If you think someone donating to the Clinton foundation will get to Bill and thus win influence over Hillary, well, you greatly overestimate Bill's influence over Hillary.

but not much better.

Bill Owen writes: If you or I had called Matthews and threatened him or his staff, they would name names. In fact there would be recordings made of the calls, charges might be laid.

In defense of Matthews, Cheney and the White House could have him blacklisted. Calls for interviews stop getting returned. You get shut out altogether.

I guess "blackmail" might be a better word. The press has been so fearful of being shut out and losing whatever scraps of misinformation and disinformation they receive from the Bush Administration that they'll put up with anything.

You don't pay blackmailers. It gives the blackmailer the power. You put it all out in the open. If you want to retain some personal integrity.

why, why didn't he run? American wants to know

I didn't see Oprah so I can't tell the tone, but you can ask this question without it being a judgment. Just wanting to understand the circumstances better. What was going on in the kid's head. Were you tied up? Were you drugged? Were you actively brainwashed? Did the captor threaten to kill you? Threaten to kill your loved ones? Did you see what your captor did to others who tried to escape? Were you just a scared, confused and traumatized kid? It's a certain morbid curiousity, but that's what talk shows are.

Of course, Oprah has been pretty trashy of late, so maybe there was an improper tone. I'm just saying that the question itself is natural and not inherently judgmental.

More from the Sun editorial: "It has seemed to us that the American GI is the greatest force for peace in the world today, and we say that without the slightest bit of irony." And regarding certain past Nobel recipients, "They understood that true peace is earned in victory."

So, what do you mean by victory? Subjugation? Because that worked so well in Weimar Germany. Extermination? Like bombing Japan in Word War II? How about peace-keeping forces to prevent genocide? Because Conservatives have typically viewed this as a bad use of our military.

Look, at their best, soldiers do what is necessary. What the rest of us cannot do. And they sacrifice their own lives and liberties to do it. But "war" does not equal "peace."

Woodrow Wilson (though opposed at the time) advocated "Peace Without Victory." He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, and I think history proved the stubborn man right in many respects.

Anyway, wanna comment on the Sun's proposal on their website? Beware! "Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable."

Objectionable indeed.

So God programmed women to view men as disposable? I though it was Feminism and The Liberal Media!

--

I'm just being snarky and have no intention of continuing this ridiculous line of conversation.

Hillary Clinton: "I think we've got great candidates running."

She's right. And what did you expect her to say?

"Actually, it'd be great to have Al Gore run. I'm looking for someone to potentionally siphon off votes from me!"

or

"No, I think the man that served as vice president under my husband and won the popular vote in 2000 is an incompetent douchebag."

Clinton's response was right-on. Gore himself has never said he'd run, and why should he? He's already a winner. Winner of the 2000 popular vote. Vindicated on global warming. Oscar winner for "An Inconvenient Truth." Co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Why would he want to go back to the past?

Although I've gotta wonder what Gore will do now after this big win. Maybe he'll go to Disney World!

Agreed.

"Bill Clinton was almost a black man and he was a good president. Ergo his wife must be almost black and a good president." Wow. There are just so many things wrong with that justification.