This paragraph was the best addition to your argument I've seen in a while:

This doesn't mean there is a complete erosion of freedom equal to all of those societies. Free speech still basically thrives; we elect our leaders; and individuals retain a fair amount of autonomy in their personal choices. But it is simply undeniable that many of the political attributes that were always used to define the oppressive societies against which we were supposedly fighting are now explicitly vested in our own government. By itself, the scope and breadth of domestic spying is just staggering, and much of it is illegal.

It's smart to address the argument that claims our concerns as frivolous and from the far left-wing. We are not all rabid radicals hell bent on criticizing this country and its leaders. I think that average people don't realize that these actions in our government may over time result in the complete erosion of this country's founding principles. I want to protect our children and future generations from this creeping disease. There have been plenty of mistakes made by governments ... even when those in power try to serve the best interest of our people. Humans make errors, and sometimes the errors can pave a path to larger, less reversible, errors. This country is great, and we want to keep it that way. This is true democracy.

Glenn, I hope you are writing recruitment pieces that summarize for easy understanding. Mainstream media will take up this issue ... it's a critical one ... but like global warming, also so obvious, it's taken our larger population years to see the light. I really hope you can apply your unique skills to further rally those who focus on paying the bills & feeding their families ... to explain to them why this issue is so critical. It is these people who need to learn about this ... and soon. I think if this is done with calmness and a steady message .... eventually people will see the light. Support from the Dem candidates would be wonderful, too.

Michael's writing over time. But not at first. It was a smart decision to have him write brief updates, a la War Room, from the campaign trail. His insight ... or maybe just his ability to relay it ... was sadly lost on me when I read all or nearly all of his debate reports. I don't wish him ill, and try to generally regulate my (minor, I hope) "blog rage" (taking out life's frustrations on well intentioned political writers). It's just that I really have high standards for this stuff, and I really want to find a place where I can rely on cutting-edge, insightful investigative journalism. All I really care about around here is the political stuff ... but I do read and comment on other things for kicks. I did enjoy Sarah's piece about bras ... since I've never owned one (not even a Manzier or a Bro), I had no idea. Good luck Michael. Try not to take any advice from Joe Klein.

Drudge is essentially a Clinton operative. His post on this subject was, I believe, designed to lure Limbaugh-like idiots into making ludicrous and misogynist statements. And then ... a rallying of sympathetic support. This is just like Bill's statements of "those boys have been really hard on her" or whatever it was coming out of one of the debates. She is getting killed in the polls due to the notion that she is: calculating, untrustworthy, inauthentic, power greedy, etc., etc. These things may or may not be true, but these stories /do/ have those uncertain of her (and some who were formerly certain) questioning her ... some choosing to support other candidates in the process. The Clintons are masterful politicians. This whole issue is PR spin ... it's not about gender issues. The spin is designed to evoke those to inflame around gender, so that Clinton's "real" vice can also be dismissed as "unfair."

Rebecca, I like your writing, but this is ludicrous:

We are like babies first encountering a new object: a potential president who has breasts and hips and who was once pregnant and whose female skin has changed as it aged.

How did you arrive at this assessment? It's well written and interesting prose, but without substance.

I feel that I honestly evaluate Clinton based on ... yes ... her tone ... her laugh ... her mannerisms. This is for me to use to judge her honesty, integrity, and forthrightness. There are no blood tests for these things. It has nothing at all to do with Glamour or Cosmo issues that you bring up.

I think you were hoodwinked, Rebecca ... or your editor was.

On Drudge & Clinton:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2197220,00.html

you're funny. seriously. i read some other posts from you. but ... i'm in california.

heh.

The point is this: the "people" playing the gender card are the Clintons themselves. They do this because it serves their agenda ... which is to get Hillary elected. See my prior post for the how and why.