And how many of those women will be running for the presidency any time soon?

Ms Kissling - skylark and others have expressed many of my own thoughts and feelings on this, and these elitist, purist notions of yours are the same kind of pie-in-the-sky, academic pipedream that got the idealist Naderites to succeed in their ploy to revolutionise the campaign and seize the presidency -- or did they? Yep, they got really far, those guys.

Clinton may not be perfect (and I disagree with some of her ideas and historical actions), but she's a damned intelligent woman who has actually gotten things done on behalf of children and education and women, and has soldiered on these past weeks -- no, years, -- no, decades -- of being subject to an extreme and unhinged hatred from both right and left wingers. I still do not get the source of this viciousness of attacks on her from these quarters. And then she's 'shrill' if she fights back or asserts herself, she's 'cold and calculating' if she holds her feelings in check, she's 'weak' if she tears up (not cry, dammit).

As for Edwards -- what was that comment he said in response to Hillary's 'emotional moment'? Here's The Nation's Katha Pollitt's take on it, with which I agree completely:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=267536 ('Hillary Shows Feeling, is Slammed')

Sexism still operates in the real world, if you didn't know it from your cushy perch in the ivory walls of academia. Keep waiting to vote for the perfect candidate (they don't exist!) -- and the boys don't seem any more perfect than Hillary, by the way -- and you'll grow cobwebs (and maggots?) long before that happens. Or hell will freeze over. Good luck.

So CP's lay opinion on HRC is a "spot on" take, you say? And how do you know that? Is she qualified to be Mrs Clinton's psychoanalyst? Does she know her that well in person? Do you? Methinks you have swallowed and incorporated too well all that vile, vituperative vitriol about the Clintons spewed by Limbaugh and his ilk that has been a staple of right wing radio and print since Clinton took office. Gimme a break.

Absolute rubbish, this piece. And agree with other posters here who say (and shall we psychoanalyse her, too? She's fair game, isn't she?) that the piece seems to have been posted just to grab some sorely needed attention for the writer.

Bill Clinton did none of these because HE DID IT! And HILLARY LET HIM. She's the wife of the RAPIST. Period.

Man, this sounds not unlike the rantings of a raving lunatic screaming at everyone in capital letters. Go take your Xanax, please.

Agreed with many of his ideas, liked his easy and likable demeanour, especially amid all the rancor among the others - a breath of fresh air with his smile and jokes. Wonder why the media never paid him much attention (which, to me, explains a lot of his lower vote/poll numbers). Shall miss him, but hope he still serves in some important capacity in the new Dem administration.

Although she's voiced her support for HRC in a previous column, in truth, I got a real headache trying to figure out what the point was of Ms Warner's current column, and still wasn't sure what it was afterwards -- that women needed to identify with her on superficial (hair, etc) issues? or with feeling similarly beaten down in their lives? Whichever it was, I disagreed with it/them (for one thing, Sen. Clinton did not look overwhelmed and beaten down during the Saturday debate).

In my opinion (and that's all it is, folks, not saying it's the gospel truth), it was most likely a rebellious response by women and men (I read several such declarations by men on message boards online - and in real life - expressing their support for Clinton, including those who don't support her as well) to the relentless bullying of Clinton by the usual media outlets, with their premature and transparently gleeful tone as they declared, without a doubt, the death of Clinton's campaign. I believe it had less to do with any sexist angle than just a cry for decency and fairness and 'Enough!' in the treatment of Clinton by these vultures in the media.

Disclaimer (for whatever it's worth, as people keep prefacing their posts with, 'I'm not a Clinton supporter, but...'): I do support Sen. Clinton.

Oops, this part in boldface got left out by mistake:

(I read several such declarations by men on message boards online - and in real life - expressing their support for Clinton, including those who don't support her as their candidate of choice as well)

Russert (aka Jerk in awe of Republicans) immediately baited Clinton and Obama with his first idiotic question about the 20-page something. And then followed up with another question about the MTP talk with Clinton. I almost threw my soda can at the teevee in anger at what Russert was so obviously trying to do - merely stir up trouble where there was none. The race story was old news, been discussed online and off, with both frontrunner camps agreeing to put it behind them. I was so glad that neither Obama nor Clinton took the bait.

Yes, Joan, I enjoyed that bit, too. It was wonderful to see them three agree against Russert's (as usual) non-nuanced declaration about their respective statements on the troops in Iraq.

Now, the candidates should continue with this trend, but be a bit more forceful about framing the debate towards more substantial issues, as they did last night. Despite ignominious efforts on the part of Russert (and to a lesser extent, Williams), the three refused to give 'em what they wanted.

Candidates: 1, Russert/media: 0