Obviously you didn't read my letter regarding evolutionary psychology and the clitoris. I argued that women's sexual enthusiasm, stemming from their clitorises, played a bigger role in the development of society than the menstrual cycle did. Every mammal has a menstrual cycle, but only Dolphins and Humans are able to have sex recreationally. The fact that women can enjoy sex has a lot to do with how human family dynamics were developed, and it gives it good explains very well why, for the most part, we are monogamous. My belief is that the evolution of the human clitoris went hand in hand in with the evolutionary ability to walk upright. In fact you could make the argument that the clitoris was our first step towards humanity. Perhaps Lucy's grandmother or mother, who couldn't walk upright, enjoyed her clitoris, and she then passed that trait down to Lucy, which Lucy used to entice her caveman to stick around and protect her and her awkward upright walking toddler.

The quest for the female orgasm, for both men and women, has been a much more sought after and much more rewarding goal than the quest for the Holy Grail has ever been. It is odd and sad the a lot of people search for answers in a mystical book, like the bible, when the answers are in the bed with us. God has never spoken to me, but I still feel a very fulfilled man, because I have witnessed the awesome, enchanting, beautiful, and enlightening spectacle of a woman coming to orgasm. I have come to the opinion that a man who cannot help bring his lover to orgasm is not really a man at all, and I believe a woman's enthusiasm has inspired more men to do more for the common good than religious texts ever have.

Can men detect if a woman is ovulating? I don't think so (certainly not consciously), but I know all men can tell if a woman is enthusiastic or not, and nothing makes a (straight) man more genuinely happy than knowing that a woman is enthusiastic for him.

Your assessment is astute and eloquent, but point 7?

"7. Then there is the Hillary factor. Aside from her grand Health Care Plan which could never pass a divided Congress, how does she differ from the Repubican field? That's right, she's called a Democrat. Where the Neo-cons really care, Middle east imperialism, she is just as hawkish as the other side of the ledger. She has made clear that she will not stop the war with Iran and will have no choice but to impose a draft when it happens."

Congress will never impose a draft (unless Iran attacks us first), regardless of which party runs congress, so don't worry about that happening. Serious consideration of imposing a draft to fight a war in Iran alone would probably be enough to cause the nation to go into open revolt, unless Iran attacked us first. The Iraq war is so unpopular, so talk of war with Iran is going to generated very little support, unless Iran is caught red handed attacking us first. True, Clinton is hawkish, but, despite the diversion that the Iraq war caused, we are still fighting a war on terrorism, so Senator Clinton's hawkish quality is actually one of her strengths. Few people in American are going to say that they don't want the next president to be tough on Al-Qaeda, Iran and North Korea, in the same way that Reagan was tough on the Soviet Union (being tough does not mean going to war). Senator Clinton differs from the Republican field, in that she is talking about time tables for the commitment of a US troop presence in Iraq, putting pressure onto the Iraqi government to solve their own problems, working with Iraq's neighbors to stabilize the region, and redeploying US troops out of Iraq (based upon a time table). Might I remind you that is was Senator Clinton that wrote a letter to the pentagon asking if there were contingency plans for a withdraw from Iraq. With Hillary Clinton as president, there will be a change in course and strategy in the war in Iraq, which is not something that the current Republican field is offering. Hillary Clinton has never been a Neo-con.

On the issue of Universal Healthy Care, you may be right about an evenly divided congress, but a Democratic majority with Hillary Clinton as president would not have much trouble getting Dubya's feared incremental steps towards Universal Health Care passed. There are already currently enough votes in congress to pass an increase in cigarette taxes to pay for health care for the children of families the make less than $80,000 a year, so it is not unreasonable to assume that a Democratic run executive with only a small Democratic congressional majority could slowly but eventually get a Universal Health Care plan passed. Hillary Clinton's mistake in 1993 was that she pushed for too much too quickly, but now it is safe to assume that she has learned her lessons from 1993 (experience matters a lot on such issues).

Experience is Senator Clinton's greatest strength, and she has a grand combination of domestic policy experience, foreign policy experience, legislative political experience, and executive political experience, more so than any other 08 candidate in either party (her closest rival in all around experience would be Governor Bill Richardson). In safe bets for good leadership, Hillary Clinton is the safest choice that America voters will get in 08.