A priceless bit of misandry. 100% about how women can avoid evil, good-for-nothing men; 0% about how men can avoid bad women or choose a good mate. Thanks Maureen. And of course this is all from a never-married woman. Who better to advise us? (I know she was mostly quoting a priest, but she's the one who chose what to print, not him.)

But for all its misandry, the real low point of the article is not what it says but what it doesn't say - that one thing one should do in any relationship is look at oneself if there are problems. According to Dowd and her interlocutor, the problem is always with the other, never with oneself. Needless to say, that is factually false and all but guaranteed to influence readers to continually discard mate after mate because they don't measure up - a plan for certain failure.

Here's the truth. Relationships that work do so because both people make them work; those that fail do so because both people make them fail.

It tolls for thee.

is currently, uh, refining his stance on pulling out the troops. Certain elements of the liberal media (e.g. George Packer's most recent piece in The New Yorker) are beginning to pave the way for the concept that, during an Obama administration, pulling all the troops out is not such a good idea after all. Those who fancied that he promised to do so and should keep his promise are now termed "idealistic," which is to say, not up to dealing with the hard realities of the situation in Iraq. Only elite elements of the government and the press are able to do that, you understand. Contrary to Kilgore's piece, we are now being told that things are going pretty well in Iraq now which means we must stay there until...well, they don't say when it'd be OK to leave.

This is predictable as the sunrise. Obama, if he's elected, will pull some troops out, but four years from now, we'll still have a substantial force (my guess is 25k troops at least) in Iraq on a permanent basis (as in Korea). The reports before the war about plans for permanent bases in Iraq were correct and neither Obama, McCain nor anyone else is going to change that.

In the meantime, Obama and the liberal press will continue to "educate" liberal Americans about the impossibility/inadvisability of doing what he was elected to do.

Make book on it.

he can just get tested, find out his sperm count and its motility and have a very good idea of what his chances are to father a child. It's not expensive and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson or the population of men generally.

Yes, Packer initially shilled for the war and later, when it went bad, changed his mind. Now he's changed it again. My prediction though, is that liberal media generally will begin to create the intellectual foundation for liberals to let Obama off the hook. They'll be manufacturing consent for another elite position which is at odds with that of the American people generally. That's what The New Yorker is doing with the Packer piece, IMO. We'll see.

what she did for HP, Obama may as well start planning his inaugural gala now.

It's precisely the two-party system that allows Obama to get away with this. He can count on liberals, who would normally scream bloody murder at this, to vote for him in November. Where else do they have to go? Isn't a vote for Nader a vote for McCain? etc., etc. Until liberals hold supposedly liberal candidates responsible for this type of thing, the country will continue its 40-year lurch to the right.

If you're a liberal and you don't vote that way, you're part of the problem. Remember that: you're part of the problem.

Bill Clinton made - liberals have no one else to vote for, so I can move to the right on all issues, steal a few votes in the south and among male voters, and lose none among liberals and blacks. The trouble with that approach is that Clinton never won a majority. He owes his presidency to Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

Some day Democrats will realize that it's more important to energize your base and take your chances with the opposition, than the other way around. Think of the energy and passion that Obama would have generated by a strong, principled opposition to this bill, or, for that matter, if he hadn't kowtowed to AIPAC, hadn't fudged on troop withdrawal, caved on free trade, etc. There are plenty of voters on the right whose libertarian leanings make it easy to appeal to them on exactly those issues, but Obama, like Clinton chose the low road, to his and our detriment. People all across this country are crying out for intelligent, principled leadership. Americans of all political persuasions would flock to such a candidate. Obama had a golden opportunity to capitalize on the vast discontent with Republicans generally and Bush specifically. It's never been clearer what could have been accomplished. The two-party system has failed us again.