Only the hardest core, most humorless feminista would have missed the stereotyping of the male in advertising from the uber confident jerk starting the charcoaler who burns himself and half the neighborhood, to the puerile, frat-boy depictions of grown men, to the slob who can burn a hard boiled egg (by the way, your claim that females should be insulted by that ad is a real stretch. There's a difference between she is doing all the housework and she should be doing all the housework). The reality is that the advertising industry has used caricatures of stereotypes of both genders forever. The only difference I can tell is that, at least until recently apparently, the male hasn't been bitching about it.

Iran is for some reason considered a threat but have attacked no one. Israel is considered OK but they attack their neighbors on a regular basis. Iran has been subjected to sanctions for doing something that is their right and privilege under the non-proliferation treaty but Israel who is not a signatory has a nuclear weapons stockpile and are not subject to any sanctions (how, for example, did they get those weapons?). Iran is excoriated for support to Hezbollah/Hamas but they didn't spawn these organizations. The world did that when they allowed foreign invaders to force the Palestinians off their land and create the country of Israel. I could go on and on.

Clearly essentially none of the professed American objectives in the Middle East have been attained. When will someone start paying attention to what's actually happening and stop repeating the same behaviors while expecting different results?

I'll believe that the Republicans aren't going to run their classic smear machine after they don't do it, not before. I wouldn't have a problem with Republican 527s if they promoted their candidate - publicized their agenda, differentiated themselves from Democrats etc. But they don't. They engage in detestable, personal smear campaigns. They don't promote their agenda; they attack the other candidate personally. In the process, truth tends to be collateral damage.

Republicans have made it clear over the last decade or so that they are only interested in possessing and exercising power, not in governance. Anyone who thinks that they will relinquish the power they've exercised in that time frame civilly is a fool.

I have no idea why but he doesn't like the company. Did he save the American taxpayers $6B? Probably not. When you consider the attendant costs - continuing to use old aircraft for the years of delay instead of more fuel efficient modern aircraft plus the costs of the competition which are not small - will eat big holes in that $6B guesstimate. Plus given the degree of review that the government gives to the books of account for any contractor with government business (even competitively awarded contracts), the original $6B number was probably bogus.

He did succeed at two things: (1) getting EADS the contract and (2) inserting probably a decade into the whole process.

Sure Three Names got mocked for some feminine characteristics - she is, after all, female. That apparently is not OK. Talk to John Edwards or Mitt Romney about being mocked for their hair and other things not considered to be sufficiently masculine. That apparently is OK. As I see it most (but not all) of the "sexism" of this primary season had nothing to do with actual sexism but rather reflected The Media's inability to focus on issues, positions, and philosophies. Given that inability, they focus on personal characteristics. If the candidate in question is female, that's sexism, apparently. If the candidate in question is male, that's just lousy press coverage. Go figure.

The Deaniacs were furious because they saw their candidate as a fresh wind with a better approach to leading our country - very different than the "establishment" politics that have been so ruinous to our country (and represented, in their eyes, by the Senator from Massachusetts who had been in the Senate for decades). The Hillaryites can't make the same claim. Three Names was marketed as and is a political insider. They're pissed simply because a woman didn't win. That's sexism at its most naked. So if Three Names was hurt by sexist political coverage, she got one hell of a boost from sexism in the electorate.

To pick just two prominent examples, Messers Cheney and Rumsfeld both have massive experience in DC actually fulfilling secretarial roles and whatnot and look where that got us. Yet what they would do was clear from the outset by virtue of looking at their mindset.

Experience helps you know how to execute what you want to do. It does not indicate that you have the capacity to make wise decisions about what to do in the first place.

That Mr. Obama makes it to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. if for no other reason than to snap America's smug self satisfaction with itself.