"If she's a lesbian but still married, then there are some questions."

AKA Smith's sexuality, like Hillary Clinton's, is inappropriate ground for you to speculate upon. Are you her sexual therapist, or even one of her confidants on her sexual issues? Even in that were the case, commenting about AKA Smith's sexuality, or Hillary Clinton's, would still be inappropriate, unless they gave you permission to comment on their sexuality.

Actually asking someone a question about their sexuality isn't a bad thing, if the question isn't designed to insinuate anything. Leftychris, your speculations, to the average reader, about AKA Smith's sexuality regarding her letter did insinuate that you had already diagnosed her as a lesbian, despite the fact that she said nothing about being sexually attracted to women, or not being sexually attracted to her husband.

Leftychris, a lot of your comments would suggest that you might be gay, but I am going to out you based solely upon my speculations. If you are gay, that's a matter that affects only you (and your lovers), unless you want to be public about your sexuality.

It people don't want to go public about their sexuality, respect their privacy (I have issues with Micheal Rogers on this one, but he was attacking their hypocrisy not their sexuality, though I still wouldn't have done what he did).

"but I am NOT going to out you based solely upon my speculations."

Yes, I will use the preview button more, but it seems like I am always in hurry.

Actually I make more than 60 grand a year, but that besides the point.

Your attack wasn't on me, it was children and pregnant mothers.

You are a bonehead, because you don't realize that without children and pregnant mothers, we have no future.

Am I willing to pay tax dollars to insure that children have a good chance to receive all they need to become high tax paying members of society when they become adults? Definitely, because unlike you, bonehead, I realize that my retirement and the health of our nation depends on the success of future generations.

AKA Smith

I will give you the full story of my user handle. It was given to me over a decade ago. Back in my youth I used to mix music at parties, and when people would ask me what my style was, I would tell them that I wanted to create an atmosphere that would get people thinking about sex (I was 20 at the time). People then called my mixes fetish mixes, and me, fetish boy (it also had something to do with the fact that back in those days I would often, without warning, sit in the laps of 200 plus pound women, and then kiss them). The name got contracted to fetboy (primarily because I was underage), and the name has stuck with me ever since.

I never got around to changing it, but what's the point? If somebody gives you a nick name, you might as keep it (and in the past 14 years nobody's given me a better nick name).

Today I just think of "fetboy" as an easy name for people to remember.

Us goths get along like bikers do. The answer to your question is, she'll never grow out of it. Once Bauhaus gets into your veins, it never leaves. Goth is a lifestyle, more than a taste for music.

To anonymous (regarding Hillary Clinton), I post comments at mydd under the same user handle. Electability depends on the opposition. If it's Senator Clinton vs. Rudy, then I think Hillary will wipe the floor with him. She makes his strengths weaknesses, and he makes her weakness a strength. Senator Clinton would kill (in the vote) Rudy in NY state, and I doubt Rudy would gain ground anywhere else. No candidate has ever lost his home state and won. For the most part I think Senator Clinton matches up well against all the GOP (poisoned Cool-aid-ican) candidates pretty well. The only fear regarding Senator Clinton is that her presence on the ballot might harm local candidates running for state and local offices, but I think hatred of the Cool-aid-ican party would negate any Senator Clinton backlash.

When looking at candidates the best question to ask yourself, is what are the candidates going to bring with them when they arrive at the White House.

In Senator Clinton's case, the answer is a pretty easy one. Knowing Bill's involvement in the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative), it's pretty obvious what he will bring as first gent (tax dollar-less NGO aid and peace negotiations everywhere). But here's another list of other political insider's that Hillary Clinton might bring with her:

@Secretary of State: Richard Holbrooke, Bill Richardson, Carlos Pascual, Prudence Bushnell

@Secretary of Defense: General(RET) Eric Ken Shinseki, Rudy de Leon, Sam Nunn, John Hamre, General(RET) Claudia J. Kennedy, General(RET) Wesley Clark, Joe Biden

@Secretary of Homeland Defense: James Lee Witt, P J Crowley

@The FCC: David Brock (wishful thinking on my part, but imagine what this man would do if ran the FCC)

@Attorney General: Lisa Madigan, Eliot Laurence Spitzer, Andrew Mark Cuomo

@Secretary of Energy: Gerald "Jerry" McNerney (yeah this is wishful thinking on my part, but a man who loves wind power so much that he named his daughter Windy, should definitely be at the Department of Energy)

@National Security Adviser/UN Ambassador: Nancy Soderberg

@Treasurer: Joseph E. Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Jack A. Markell, Alex Sink

The above list of people would probably play a role in any Democratic administration.

A large part of what got Dubya elected in 2000, and re-elected in 2004 was that he had Colin Powell at Secretary of State, and the neo-cons were not at that time a dirty word.

When you think about what the Cool-aid-icans would bring in 2008, it gives most people the creeps.