As a woman and a feminist, I think your masturbation habits are your own business. I don't think you should have some huge confessional outpouring to her about everything you do. Sounds like you've been together for a while - and I agree with others who say that she probably already knows. If you feel you need to tell her because you feel you need therapy or need help living in sexual reality instead of fantasy, keep it short and sweet. "I look at porn too much." This will help keep you honest without having to involve her in confessions like "I like the Photoshopped tits more than I like yours." That is unhelpful and unnecessary. Telling your fantasies is really hot (yeah, girls are verbal), and listening to hers probably will be too. It's better than Photoshop!

One way to start a conversation about this could be to watch Sex, Lies and Videotape together. It's a really interesting and well done movie that can help you get into a discussion about fantasy and reality. If you need to tell her something, keep it matter-of-fact.

Have you guys really not heard The Big Rumor? There's allegedly a tape of Michelle Obama saying she "hates whitey" or some nonsense. Here's a recap and debunking from TPM: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/power_broker.php

Of course, by breathlessly mentioning it and yet refusing to say what It is, Fox gives it way more power than it ought to have. Typical fourth-grade insinuation mill. YAWWWWN.

Yeah, true. I thought the Jackie Kennedy comparisons were pretty cool, though. But I'm white and would be interested in what others think of this comparison. Does it attempt to erase her blackness somehow? I didn't think so, but I don't feel I'm in a position to judge.

It actually is sexist, IMHO, but primarily anti-male. The smear is against Barack, not Michelle. And it is racist as well - attempting to paint B. Obama as a typical black absentee father (read "drug dealer").

I too see the whole conversation about whether things are "sexist!" or "racist!" to be unproductive, however. It just gets us into ridiculously abstract semantic arguments. Which is why I vowed not to read Joan's column anymore, but I wanted to hear what others said about the significance of this phrase, which I had never heard before tonight.

I think it would be wise to ignore the Clinton reference, guys. The conversation you are trying to have is utterly unproductive.

I've never heard it in my life, and I'm under 40 and used to live in urban D.C. Had to read the comments at War Room to know what it meant. What do you suppose Fox viewers thought it meant? I'm not denying is was nasty, just wondering how effective it might be as a dog whistle. Are they just trying to pump more out of the failed attempt to milk the "terrorist fist jab"? I am having trouble imagining why they even did it.

and the couples to follow! Yay, California!

The twists and turns are easier to navigate if you have a larger brain than the average lab rat.

I see your point, but I don't see how Obama is answerable for every dime that goes in and out of his campaign workers' bank accounts. Sheesh. I am glad that the response brought up the sheer hypocrisy of the McCain campaign trying to "gotcha" him on this issue. Yeah, maybe this guy ought to be fired. But with McCain's entire staff made up of lobbyists/scoundrels, the double standard is absolutely staggering. Not that it helps for us to recognize that. Which is why I'm glad the Obama campaign pointed it out.

And as long as we're scrutinizing, how's about a long, hard look at the people running the entirety of McCain's campaign - not just the person who's vetting potential VPs.

Our own Joan Walsh has made the same obvious conflation between Obama and "some of his supporters," so I guess it's not too difficult a logical leap. Of course, Joan was just trying to get people to notice what they sound like without actually having to moderate the site - not directly attacking Obama. Still, I think there needs to be a much clearer line drawn between a campaign and its "surrogates." We know the White House has an army of "surrogates" it sends onto the talk shows armed with talking points every day. But I don't get that Droid Army feeling from the Obama campaign. Anyway, antisemitic Ron Paul supporters are obviously not Obama surrogates. That line is pretty durn clear.

I feel like I've seen an ad about this bill before, trying to make out as though Obama "caused" a gang death last year sometime? Does anyone else remember this?

I have loved all your election coverage (OK, except the orc line...). Even though I filled in the bubble for Obama (no levers at my polling station), I have been in almost complete agreement with you for several months now. The way people talk on the message boards, if you feel ambivalent about the candidates, you start to wonder what planet you were born on. I'm guessing ambivalence was more common that certainty this season, though.

You were obviously just freshly dug up out of deep Republican dirt, but for those who don't remember, John Edwards "suspended" his campaign too. It is a formality that allows further fundraising until the convention.

Go back to the dirt, turnip.

I can't wait to see women stepping up to the plate on a regular basis. May it become unremarkable!

Well, they are probably right on one level, but I'm afraid they're in for some disillusionment once he has to compromise about something crucial. Politics is not lightwork.