The GOP, the Neocons, and the ReligiousRighteous like to make such an issue of the liberal character, and what the consider its moral shortcomings. I think they should hold themselves to at least the same standards, don't you?

Believe it or not, there are some characters far worse than "Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, who opposes contraception but was still appointed in 2002 to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee."

Just Google up the name of Dr. W. David Hager, in particular, The Nation's lengthy profile of him and his deviant sexual history of abusing his wife... I'll spare you the details in this comment thread. Suffice to say, that heated conservative opinions on subjects like sex are sure to lead one to devastating hypocrisy... Perhaps because he was taking the high road with this story (and eloquently, I might add), Shorto doesn't even touch the Hager story.

(We posted about the NYTimes story yesterday in a new blog, Lyssa Strada (http://lyssa-strada.blogspot.com/2006/05/contra-contraception-nytimes-magazine.html), figuring that it was especially appropriate with Mother's Day approaching.)

Read this post by Digby: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114729602533760246

which links to a piece describing exactly how the right tactically moves the middle, by making what was once inconceivable, at least discussable, and eventually not so far-fetched.

...even if it's too late for me personally.

In particular, the whole issue of breastfeeding would be much simpler, because the infant can be fed directly, eliminating most of the need for pumping, storing, etc.

On the other hand, toddlers-- even though 9 months is a bit early for that name, it's useful here-- do not belong at work-- unless there is proper day care center-- but it sounds like T3 came up with a good solution there, too.

It's difficult enough to leave a baby with even a loving caregiver, but it's so much more difficult when the baby is less than six months, and is not even eating solid food yet. Allowing six months for maternity leave probably would not fly well here, even though it would certainly make the logistics much easier for mothers and babies, but the T3 solution sounds like a good one to me.

...but even though I'm a loyal Salon subscriber (and blogger!), I have to agree more with the critics of this piece.

For those of us who DID vote for Gore in 2000, because we were able to see through GWB's truly phoney persona, and had read Molly Ivins' alarming, albeit entertaining, book, "Shrub:The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush," we are complaining, not just about specific, individual things that still require clarification, but because they still get repeated.

We are complaining about the patronizing attitude of the press, in general, whenever Al Gore is being discussed, as well as many of the other candidates in 2004. (I can give you examples, but I'm trying to keep this from being too long.)

I will be the first to admit that his campaign was not perfect (tho' it was, despite the press, good enough to win the popular vote), but I still must defend him by saying that the things he was most criticized for were the results of listening to the consultants. You know, those same ones who keep saying they know how to win elections, and the netroots, the bloggers, the wacky, crazed, loony far left... they know nothing. Those same consultants are still riding on Clinton's coat tails. He would likely have won without them.

What happened in Connecticut last week...? Lamont's unexpected 33% was not result of the consultants at work. THAT was the netroots, the bloggers, and that crazy bunch of far left folks, who are actually more of a mature demographic than most politicians realize.

I would like to suggest that a best-practice policy beginning immediately, at least regarding Al Gore, since so much damage was done during the 2000 campaign, would be to check and check again every fact, opinion, etc. that you write/publish about him. In this case, the internet probably won't be enough, because the misstatements are out here all over the place. Memed to death.

We've had enough.

...not to take it and run with it and turn it into something else: REAL Lysistratas of stubble.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I'm rolling on the floor... well, I would be if I weren't at my keyboard. Again, thank you!

...and this is what I did with it:

http://lyssa-strada.blogspot.com/2006/05/sure-its-hairy-job-but-we-really.html

Thanks again, Lynn Harris!

"Save the planet-- re-elect Al Gore!"

Repeat it folks, meme it to death. Anyone who's been paying any kind of attention for the past six years, simply cannot disagree that the world, in general, and the United States, in particular, would be in far better shape if Gore, despite his so-called wooden-ness, had actually been declared the winner of the 2000 Campaign, instead of the vastly inferior species of Texas shrub with which we ended up. ;~)

That's the bottom line, and no one can say it ain't so... well, except maybe those alternate-reality folks working out of the WH, or any of their minions in the Media.

Personally, I consider 2000 as one giant footprint for the Supreme Court and many, many steps backwards for womankind. That was the net result that many of us-- who DID/COULD NOT vote for Nader-- could foresee. Too bad O'Hehir was not one of us.

(I honestly didn't realize, tho' perhaps I should have, that his piece was intended to be merely a movie review; it included so much about politics and the so-called old Gore. How was I to know?)

a fellow can dream...

Thank you! If you stop by Lyssa Strada, I hope you decide to leave a comment!

"Save the Planet-- Re-elect Al Gore!"