I can't help but wonder if these girls might have told the "fathers" that they were on BC, after all it's hardly uncommon.

If the "fathers" were willfully deceived into making babies the girls 100% intended all along to have then it really sucks for them and their folks to be stuck paying child support for 18-22 years.

But hey "life's not fair" I suppose...

But sorryyyyy if the girls were intentionally trying to get preggers then that dog won't hunt...

Didn't one of them get knocked up by a homeless man?

Have a hunch the vegans will not be loving this article though!

is Salon still indulging the rants of HRC supporters?

HRC had pretty much every advantage going in and managed to blow it, and even if she HAD been the nominee I'd seriously have bet my house she'd lose to pretty much anyone the GOP had nominated.

who has called HIS OWN WIFE a c--t deserves to see the Supreme Court filled w/ Alitos and Scalias.

None of HRC's militant supporters, including Joan Walsh could/can look me in the eye and say if the delegate situation had been reversed that they wouldn't have been screeching for Obama to drop out for months.

Sorry ladies, no one is OWED the presidency, especially not a hypocritical divisive figure like HRC.

She just wants her debts paid off...the so-called champion of the working class liked having tens of millions in the bank I guess.

That HRC doesn't give a ---- about anyone but HRC, she still thinks she's owed this slot and she's fooled a bunch of women into somehow thinking that her not getting the nomination is an insult to women in general, which is pure nonsense.

Won't surprise me if she refuses to campaign for Obama, I think she wants to run again in 2012 against McCain, and guess what, if she does she will LOSE then too.

I want us to forceably evict all the Sunnis and Shias from Iraq and declare it the 51st state: New Texas.

Give em a week to leave the country. They can go be miserable backward murderers just as well in the surrounding countries and we can have our own source of oil for the next 100 years.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all of the other Democratic candidates competed under the same rules and Clinton lost. Now she’s trying to work the refs and is trying to change any rules that might keep her from winning. That’s understandable, but when you wrap your attempts to move the goalposts in a veneer of moral superiority and question the values of your opponents (specifically, questioning whether or not Obama supporters believe in voting rights), don’t be surprised if you piss a lot of people off.

The rationale for HRC changes weekly, it's like W's minions defending the war in Iraq...

She stuck with Bill through everything thinking it would set her up for this and now is furious.

She WAS NEVER going to win the presidency against virtually ANYONE the GOP might have nominated because she is a divisive figure. Too fing bad for her that in two terms they accomplished little and set up the failure in the 2000 election where that idiot W should never have had a chance!

She isn't going to be president, VP or majority leader, not now, not in 2012, not ever. The only logical explanation left is that she intends to try and hurt Obama thinking she can run again in 2012 against McCain or his VP but I doubt she'd even get the nomination then either.

The OCS option is not the same thing as enlisting...so the age limits may be different.

That being said she should totally dump this guy and move on.

As does her husband who spent his entire life trying to become president and then couldn't keep it in his pants.

Her sense of entitlement is simply nauseating.

There's a great made for HBO movie about how the Bradley was originally developed, starring Kelsey Grammar as a corrupt general. Olympia Dukakis and Cary Elwes are also in it.

Oh here it is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

I served in a mechanized infantry battalion equipped w/ Bradleys (named for Gen Omar Bradley) so I'm familiar with them.

Is HRC staying in TRYING to hurt Obama because she thinks she can win in 2012?

Are instead probably getting their physical jollies off with coeds who appreciate the fact that sex is pleasurable(or should be) and greatly stress-relieving for both parties.

Why on earth would I like/respect someone LESS for sharing her body with me? How does that make ANY sense?

Guess the Puritans would be proud of these girls though... :-p

Yes I know far too many married guys who get no "marital relations" from their wives which is emotional blackmail period...and/or have to earn the opportunity for a blase encounter with gifts/trips...how are the WIVES in that scenario not basically greedy "hofessionals"? And no they aren't unattractive.

Before I sold my soul to work in IT I did free-lance journalism, got kinda fascinated by the whole pay to play concept and ended up writing several articles til my various editors said "enough!" And no my research didn't involve actually purchasing services, just interviewing providers...met one woman who was putting herself through Emory Medical School, debt-free, by having a select list of clients - basically ten hours of "work" per week and she was making thousands. She'd have been better off going deeply in debt or trying to work full-time?