I think it would be sexist if it was a matter of agreeing with all of her policies but disagreeing with his and then not voting for her because you don't like her based at least in part on the fact she is a woman.

However, in this case where both of them have pretty much the exact same policies you gotta pick based on something. And if it is that you like him and don't like her I think that is a pretty valid way to choose and not necessarily sexist. I think it is sexist to say if you are a woman you must vote for her because she is a woman. Or you must like her because she is a woman.

Given the choice between Hillary and McCain, neither of whom I particularly like, it is no-brainer that I would vote for her. But given the choice between some one I do like and some one I don't like that is also a no-brainer.

I will be happy to vote for a woman. Just not this particular woman.

I still don't get why the networks and news agencies feel the need to "call" a state when the delegates are apportioned not winner take all. The delegate distribution is what really matters.

Not sure why the campaigns would be required to pony up the dough to pay for a revote. It was the state parties that violated the national party rules and voted when they weren't supposed to. Let the state parties pay.

To those who say "Florida already voted, just count the votes", I would ask how many people stayed away and didn't bother voting because they knew their votes weren't going to count anyway? And since there wasn't really a proper campaign there how valid are those results? With regard to Michigan, Obama had his name removed from the ballot so there's no way to apportion delegates from the previous voting there. So clearly there's no way you can use anything that happened there.

I agree this was a bad night and a bad week for Obama. I don't think he needs a radical retooling, but he should sharpen things up a bit and stick to running against her instead of looking ahead to the general. And dump Austen Goolsby overboard ASAP.

In a perverse way this could actually really help the Democrats in the end. The GOP will have to either spend resources attacking both of them in the meantime before a nominee is selected or they will have to sit on the sidelines and shut up. And McCain will be so totally overshadowed that it will be almost as if he doesn't exist. While it is true Hillary and Obama will be beating each other up a bit, I think it pales in comparison to the attacks the rightwing machine will use. They will have the stage to themselves now with more news coverage and free media than you can shake a stick at. Plus they will be able to keep on raising money at a prodigious rate because the competition is so close.

The last couple of years when I have flown Ted to Tampa they have let us get off the back exit and walk up the metal stairs into the terminal or get off the front and take the "jetway". Since I typically choose a seat near the rear to increase my chances of having an empty seat next to me it is a nice option to be able to go backwards. Of course you still have to wait forever for the luggage to get out on the belt anyway so I'm not sure how great it is to be able to get off the plane faster. I suppose if you are traveling light with no checked bag it is a good thing.

I don't think it matters which way you board the plane. People are going to be idiots and clog up the works no matter what. Either they will jump the gun and get on when they are not supposed to, or they will carry 15 carryon bags the size of a steamer trunk, or they will do as you say and put their carryon in MY bin instead of their own. If people would follow the rules and be considerate of their fellow passengers things would go a lot more smoothly. And if the plane's crew would enforce the rules that would help too. One thing I don't understand is United's bizarre boarding groups that don't seem to have any rhyme or reason. Why am I always in group 4 no matter where my seat is located? Is it because I have an aisle seat? Is it because I paid a discount price?

does that mean he was a client or he operated the thing?

That is one high class ... call girl! Was he using state money for this or his own?

But really, why are we such prudes in this country? It is the world's oldest profession after all. If these were human trafficking victims that would be one thing. But I suspect that is not the case if these girls were charging so much money.

is the real issue that he was paying somewhere between $1500-5500 AN HOUR for a prostitute? Dude could have gotten a perfectly servicable hooker for a tenth that amount. I know things are more expensive in NYC, but, c'mon.

Does this site only include American shows? I would be interested in seeing shows from other places...Canada, Australia, UK, Europe, etc.

I see. Just like the good ol' DVD region codes. Nothing like stifling international free markets. And these companies wonder why people hate them.