Kate, time and again you post alarming articles citing some or another statistic or anecdote from a some specialty or profession and jump to the conclusion that some outrage is being committed against your sex. This only serves to discredit yourself and your credibility as a feminist writer.

From the article, "Dr. Segev says once women make it on to the waiting list they have the same chance of getting a kidney as men."

Why are older women less likely to be put on the list then older men? The study doesn't and can't say. As it points out, "Two main steps determine who is placed on the UNOS kidney transplant list: referral by a nephrologist and the patient’s acting on that referral." It's entirely possible that most or all of this difference is due to older women themselves not wanting to go through with waiting for a transplant and getting the procedure. You can hardly argue that there are no differences between older women and older men; there are a lot fewer older men to begin with due to women's much longer lifespan (talk about gender bias!)

Even if nephrologists are less likely to refer women, that could certainly be due to the patients own wishes or nondiscriminatory patient population differences. The study author is concerned about unjustified perceptions of female patient frailty, but such a preliminary and inconclusive result is worth reporting on but does not justify jumping to such damning conclusions.

I know that Broadsheet is just blogging and not real journalism, whatever it is, but how hard would it have been to pick up the phone and call Dr. Segev or any ANYONE familiar with the study and get their opinion, or if nothing else a quote?

But I guess that would make it harder to barf out the day's quota of outrage, or as others would call it, lazy journalism.

"Let me do politics my way, and I don't listen to my constituents."

Of course politics is the art of compromise. So don't criticize the left for trying to move the center to the left. The caucus has the greatest margin in both houses and the White House in recent memory, and Reid's type would like to kowtow to usual suspects and continue to let the Republican party pull its weight around. This is exactly why we need MoveOn and similar groups. Whether their methods or message is working is another question, but it sounds to me he's like he's complaining that they are being heard and that makes him uncomfortable.

even though I wanted to be.

So some people are being assholes and treating you like shit because of your last name. That certainly isn't fair. But boohoo, you sure did a good job in this self-pity piece of erasing any sympathy you might get for that.

You don't share his views, but from your own admissions you've milked a great deal of privilege from being a Limbaugh. There's millions of people out there who are discriminated against every day because of their last name or their color or some other prejudice and have nothing to show for it, much less getting paid to write about their relations. Cry me a river.

I'm not related.

WHAT?!

Clinton is STILL begging for cash to pay off her old debts?

She has far, far more than enough money in her own coffers to easily cover the deficit. She lost the election. Obama was gracious enough to put a word in for her fundraiser and appoint her SoS.

With the economy in the crapper, why doesn't she pony up and pay her just debts, instead of begging for cash from the general public? Doesn't she have enough to do representing America's foreign policy?

I believe she has paid off most or all of the vendors who were waiting for their long-overdue bills. Now why doesn't she pay off her loans herself instead of asking for a handout?

Hey Hillary, can you spare a brother a $100K bill to pay off my student loans while you're out there fundraising?

@bffoley, yes, of course she's allowed to pay off the debts with her own money. Candidates can make unlimited contributions or loans to their own campaigns. She's already loaned her own campaign millions.

And Manny, it's not her getting back money she loaned the campaign (mostly anyway), it's her getting back money her buddies loaned it. Election law limits to $250K the amount a candidate can collect in loans made to her own campaign after the election is over.

Of course Hillary is not personally liable for her campaign debts, but if she's so concerned about the credit rating of her campaign, she should be honest and pay it off herself instead of chasing after Jill Sixpack's five-dollar bills with tacky sweepstakes.

Can you read?

She's not allowed to FUNDRAISE herself, meaning like every other public servant in the country, she can't solicit gifts from the public.

That doesn't mean she can't pay off her own debt with her own money. Obviously she can but she won't, so Carville is fundraising on her behalf.

Did you read the article where it says you don't have to donate to enter the sweepstakes and it doesn't increase your chances of winning? Because otherwise it would be an illegal lottery? Or do you just like throwing your money away?

Just go to: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/3contest/

And you can enter as many times as you like (read the rules). They don't make it obvious from their home page, but since you can enter for free as many times as you want, you have a BETTER chance of winning than someone who just makes a contribution.