I have been defending Hillary Clinton to any who would smear her or speak ill of her since 1992.

But she has become, in this race - by attacking our probable nominee for President and hurting our Party's chances to retake the White House - she has become the first Democratic primary candidate for whom I would seriously consider not supporting.

I never thought I could look at a Democrat and think that I wouldn't support them in the general election against a conservative Republican, but she's done it. I'm not saying for sure that I wouldn't vote for her, but she's getting there.

(And no, that doesn't mean I'd vote for a Republican.)

If she sleazes away the nomination through back room deals and threats, that would do it. No way I could support her if she did that.

The best thing she could do for her party and her reputation at this point is drop out and strongly endorse our nominee.

This article is full of a slanderous charge - misogyny - with nothing but vague innuendo to support it.

The charge: Obama supporters are closeted or subconsciously sexist.

Funny how we don't hear the same charge coming out of Obama's camp. Wouldn't it be easy to declare "Hillary Clinton supporters are closeted or subconsciously racist?"

Either charge would be baseless, or only true for a percentage of the supporters for either candidate. But somehow only Obama's camp has the class to not use it as an attack.

People can enthusiastically support Clinton and not be racist. And people can support Obama and not be sexist. Sweeping accusations like the one in this article are out of line.

Plus the ludicrous statements included here make the accusations that much more sleazy. To say that "no one would hate Bill Clinton this much" demonstrates the memory of a toddler. The statement "No one hated Chris Dodd or Joe Biden this much" clearly ignores the fact that most people couldn't pick either of them out of a lineup.

I liked and defended Hillary for 16 years, right up to the point where the sole focus of her life became bashing Obama and those of us smart enough to support him.

Kidd's season is about to be done at the hands of a superior Hornets team. And the mismatch between Chris Paul & Kidd is a huge reason why.

I think that's punishment aplenty.

I was really expecting to read an article yesterday or today on the College Football Old-timers' League having their annual Draft this weekend. We are all interested to know where our favorite players go to play exhibition ball, after all, and if they'll be well-compensated.

I think as a society we need to seriously look at and figure out how we approach (especially commercially) the sexuality of girls in the 14-18 year old range.

On the one hand, kids that age are not legally considered mature enough to consent to many things. Contracts and sexual contact being two prominent ones.

On the other hand, humanity has, until very recently, considered people that age to be perfectly capable of getting married and having babies. Longer life spans, advances in technology and the liberation of women has come a long way toward reducing teen pregnancy rates and pushing the age at which women begin having children well into the 20's.

The human body, meanwhile, unequivocably comes down on the side of people that age being sexual beings.

Our culture, while being preposterously puritanical, also holds up youth as the ideal of beauty.

Our reactions to Miley Cyrus at the age of 15 reflect this two-sided view of these kids' sexuality. And our reactions, both in terms of the "oh no, how could they do this!" that Traister so justly mocks, and the equally silly "oh my god! Her dad's a PERV!!" that Traister injects into the discussion don't allow for the fact that it's confusing.

And you don't know the answer any better than I do. Is it okay for a 15 year old boy to find her attractive? A 20 year old? A 40 year old?

(Personally, I think she looks like a little kid, but if you put Rachel Hurd-Wood [http://www.imdb.com/media/rm339515392/nm1248393] instead of Hannah Montana into the equation, I'd be as "guilty" as anyone.)

Many people in the letters section here look at that picture and see a loving family. Others see something incestuous. I'm sure both camps are comprised of intelligent, well-meaning people.

My hypothesis is that the people who grew up with parents who were physically affectionate in a non-abusive, non-sexual way see a healthy family photograph while the people who didn't have that type of healthy affection (or worse, were sexually abused) see something inappropriate.

This is the least offensive blog post I've seen from Ms. Price. But I still disagree with her.

Ironically though, I'm on the other side of her on this one. I think his comment that it takes masculine qualities to lead the country was overtly, self-evidently and offensively degrading to women, and he should be called on it.

And feminists shouldn't be afraid to call people on sexism just because it was said to prop up your candidate of choice.

All right, I was wrong. This is the best piece Catherine Price has written on BS (that I've read.) A-freaking-men, girl! Those fascists in Oklahoma need to be whacked upside their balls with a copy of the Constitution.