I was expecting to hear that they personally perfected 5 of the top 10 commonly used lesbian positions.

The odds are still very good that the voters of California, whose direct will was overturned by the justices, will amend the Constitution, ending these "marriages" yet again. These "pioneers" could also be crucial in energizing a Republican base that is currently running on fumes.

But as long as their selfish demands are temporarily met, who cares about the country and the real problems America faces? Who cares how counterproductive the hype over these two and Sulu is? Their sexual urges are FAR more important than Iraq, Iran, the economy, terrorism, the environment, individual rights (not the category of "couple's rights" that the California justices pulled out of their rectums), civil liberties, Gitmo, North Korea, the prospect of a new arms race with China, Darfur, abuse of executive power, crumbling infrastructure, et al. As long as these two old women are happy, screw the consequences.

The FOX headline was pure racism. This blog was right on the mark until it veered into Clinton fantasy land. There was nothing sexist about "baby mama", it was racism, which Obama supporters have been decrying for months.

And the rumor that Dowd managed to float about Michelle Obama? According to Salon it was started by a Clinton backer.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/michelle_obama_fair/index.html

There are numerous examples of this kind of thing all over Salon today. Salon is now ruthlessly attacking Republicans for making the exact same attacks that the Clinton team did. "Oh no they didn't", indeed.

Yep.

Just find Camille Paglia's now buried article from two days ago and you can skip this gibberish.

Salon is positing itself at the forefront of the resurgence of male-bashing feminism.

Sexism goes both ways, girls.

Shyamalan's last two efforts were not the utter disasters that they are frequently made out to be. While both The Village and were fatally flawed, both were better than the critics gave them credit for being.

The Village was a wonderfully construed metaphor for the American reaction to 9/11. It didn't hold together as a film, but I would call it a noble failure. Shymalan was one of the first film makers to even attempt to tackle the xenophobia and political fear-mongering that was America in the wake of 9/11.

Lady in the Water is actually a FAR better movie than critics gave it credit for being. It is hamstrung by two hideous casting choices that ultimately wreck the film. Bryce Dallas Howard gives an absolutely horrid performance as the title character. The "fish out of water" archetype has been done better by many others (watch this film, then Splash to get a true grasp of how bad this performance was). And, of course, there is the ultimate in bad casting: the writer/director casting himself as the savior of humanity. Yes, it reeks of egomania. Yes, it takes you out of the film. But most critics seemed to base their entire reviews on this one casting choice, horrid though it is. But aside from those two casting choices, the film itself is actually quite good. Of course it loses points for bad acting, but it didn;t deserve the trashing critics gave it.

I write to defend those two because the critical thrashing they were unjustly given makes me question whether the critics are giving The Happening a fair chance or are just loking for negatives to blast Shyamalan with. I haven't seen very many reviews of this film. I have seen a lot of attacks on the decline of Shyamalan since his breakthrough. It gives the distinct impression that the critics went in looking to hate it. The Happening may not be in the same league as The Sixth Sense, but Shyamalan at his worst is still better than Michael Bay or Brett Ratner at their best, but critics give the others a pass because they don't expect a masterpiece.

Shyamalan's next film is not an original story, but an adaptation of the TV series Avatar: The Last Airbender. How about giving it a fair chance going in? I don't think his latest was given that courtesy.

So Obama made vague promises last year about what might happen if he were to be the nominee, which was considered highly unlikely as Hillary Clinton had been all but coronated the nominee by the media and huge donations. He would be a fool to not reassess the situation now given what has happened since.

Everyone but Hillary Clinton knew that Obama would be the nominee back in March. John McCain had been running his General Election campaign for 3 months before Clinton finally admitted it was over. No one could have predicted how long the Democratic battle would drag on. Obama would be a fool to not make a decision based on the facts as they are today, but on vague promises that he made a year ago.

Does anyone really believe that the McCain team was going to work with Obama to work out a fair solution that took into account his 3 month lead? No. They made it clear to the Obama team that they were not going to take the unusual circumstances into account in any discussions. And then there is the issue of 527s. Obama raised more than Clinton, but Clinton was kept afloat by outside groups running anti-Obama ads. Obama has already seen how much they corrupt the system this election. He also knows all too well that it wasn't the official Bush campaign that killed Kerry, it was the swiftboat lies.

And the Republican hate machine is already gearing up to smear Obama. Salon has posted numerous pieces on the Willie Horton ad maker working on anti-Obama smears. Obama has already had to fight a wave of internet spread rumors about his wife that Hillary-backers dreamed up and McCain backers are running with.

This is not just about raising more money, as the McCain team suggests. This is about being able to fight an effective election given the situation as it is after the extended primary season. McCain gave Obama no reason to believe that he was going to be willing to work towards a realistic solution. McCain knew that Obama was in a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't position and is just cynically taking advantage of it.

While I am disappointed that Obama is calling this bill a "compromise", I hope that he and the other Senate Democrats refuse to pass this bill unless the immunity provision is removed. I disagree with Obama on this one. I think that his decision may be the right one politically, as McCain is attacking him on security and for unfathomable reasons polls better on the issue. But it is still disappointing to see.

I think that Clinton or any of the other current officeholders who ran would have made the same decision. Well, not Kucinich, but Dennis is different. Unelectable, but different. And a big part of the blame here lies with the House leadership. They failed the nation. They also failed the party. They should have ensured that Obama didn't have to face such a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't vote at this stage. That is part of election year politics, too. This they find time for, the articles of impeachment get shoved into a drawer. The Republicans have been loathesome the last 24+ years, but it is expected of them. The Democrats have proven themselves spineless at every turn since taking power.

I was hoping to see Obama make a stronger stand than this. I still think he was the right choice for America right now, but I also hope that this is a unique situation and not the start of a pattern. I can see the Republican ads that would run if he voted against this bill. And the public has shown little ability to grasp nuanced answers on complex issues.

I am anxious to see how this one plays out.