Huh? Powerful men are sexy. That is reality. Women are attracted to power for reasons that have nothing to do with dominating men and everything to do with finding strong men to provide for them and help them raise healthy babies. Historically, being sexually involved with strong men was the only way women in most societies could achieve security and a kind of power, but they didn't dominate the men - they simply shared a bit of their power.

I doubt that race has anything to do with this. We don't know the race of the women who were fantasizing. I'm betting that any woman who is attracted to Obama is not attracted because he is black or because they wish to dominate him, but because he is charismatic and in a position of power. They are not trying to sexualize him to diminish him, but to promote themselves (at least in their imaginations) to a more powerful position in society - just below him (literally).

I know... philandering husband, loyal wife. What a cliche. A lot of women think that Hillary Clinton sold her soul by not leaving him when he cheated on her. I don't agree. I think she stood tall and stayed with the man she loved, and who obviously loves her back. He shows it in so many ways - including keeping his mouth shut about things that would hurt her politically. And I respect her for not "baking cookies".

Michelle Obama changed herself to be an asset to her husband. She gave up ways that were a bit too "militant" for the middle class and literally started dressing like Jackie Kennedy and quit her job to stay home and take care of the children. Now, she has gone from power lawyer to stay at home wife, the "Mom in Chief" (I can't tell you how much I hate that expression), taking on "worthy" causes like how women should balance family and work (like she WAS doing before she became first wife). There is nothing wrong with being a stay at home wife/mother, but I hate to see women doing it because society demands it, and Michelle Obama is obviously not a woman who chose to stay at home before her husband decided to enter politics.

I just can't see what is ideal about a marriage in which a woman completely subsumes herself to the needs of her husband and family. A man who truly loves his wife lets her be what she needs to be. He doesn't encourage her to become a prop for his career. Hillary Clinton wasn't, and was resoundingly criticized for it. Michelle Obama... is the "Mom in Chief".

...then he needs to resign and let someone be appointed who can.

Women being murdered because they were raped, mother's watching their children die of starvation or cholera or malaria, men being tortured because they stood up to authority, girls being killed because they dared go to school. These are tragedies.

Not being allowed to marry is a moral wrong, but it falls far short of "tragedy". The children of these families are happy and well-fed, in spite of the lack of marriage. Partners are often able to achieve many (certainly not all) of the benefits of married couples through civil unions. It's not something to cry over.

Meanwhile, if you want to cry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kNMC65pNsg&feature=related

Yeah, ok, sure... and 80% of Americans supported the Iraq War and around 70% thought we found WMD's and over 50% voted for Bush in his second election. So What? Statistics matter only when an election is at stake (and even then they are often shaky). People will be happy if the stimulus works, and they will be unhappy if it doesn't. Tax cuts don't work. Ergo, people will not be happy if the stimulus is loaded with tax cuts, even if that's what they think they want now.

Those were my first thoughts. 1) 10 years is a long time to make predictions about and 2) Who the hell cares... we need jobs now. I'm not worried about 10 years from now, I'm worried about whether I'm going to be standing in a soup line next year. Okay, that's hyperbole... but it's not that much of an exaggeration. Millions of Americans need a boost right now. We need an effective stimulus package.

They can't get as many booking as Republicans, because...??? No actual reason is given in that article. It just says that Dems need to be more aggressive. Does that mean that they need to be more aggressive because Republicans are being aggressive, or that they need to be more aggressive because the media are selecting Republicans out of bias?