Also, a thing I've noticed is parents, in an attempt to keep their kids 'amused' during dinner, bring toys with them to the restaurant. All this does is reinforce to the child that they are here to play. Again, if your intention isn't to have a meal WITH your child, as well as anyone else with you, don't bring them to a restaurant.

So what? Are you saying a legal brief filed or case settled for a client is of more value than caring for your young, than raising children to adulthood? She represents the fulfillment of feminists' hope. She has choices. And if she chooses to care for her family why should that be seen as a negative?

The fact that people are willing to outsource to strangers the care of our infants and elderly is surely the the most obvious and saddest symptom of our decline as society.

Look no one expects you to WANT to wipe some old person's ass but you do it because family matters, you do it because someone wiped your ass and fed you when you were too young to do it for yourself.

Obama realizes that showing his hand while Bush is still in office would be counterproductive and he's playing innocent to allay Bush's fears and will start talking about investigation once he's in office and has access to the evidence.

It's our only hope for justice.

I know it's petty but I was kinda looking forward to Stevens, the brutal and vindictive powerhouse of Alaskan politics keeping his office when Palin, who threw him under the bus went back to being governor there.

Dems should seek bipartisanship from the Repubs, calling on them to help Dems prosecute those that have broken the law.

Of course 60 dems would have the discipline to all vote together. Forget it. The Dems would need like 70 seats for a majority.

Perhaps in some other state but there are just too many clips avail of him during the primaries that could be used to embarrass him mightily during the campaign. Lets not forget the big city mayor effectively mocked big city values. And also he figuratively raped the memory of 9/11 for his own (failed) benefit.

Rahm held Lindsey back while Obama made McCain, quote-"kiss my black ass"-unquote.

Let this woman continue to drive a wedge between neanderthal (social) republicans and evil (fiscal) republicans.

Your comparison of how people on the left react to male politicians vs. female politicians is flawed because you ignore the other major difference between your two groups besides gender. Ideology.

As a strong social conservative, Palin embraces and represents the kind of ideology that is constantly decrying the lack of family values of their opponents not to mention attempts to actually disenfranchise people of basic civil rights because of their failure to adhere to the Right's definition of 'family values'.

Thus Palin sets herself up to have her family life and her administration of it inspected closely, and even criticized, particularly when it may appear there is an incongruity between her life and her ideological values which she and her party would make laws to force their values on others.

Not that I disagree that sexism is rampant, I just disagree with your conclusions and value judgments based upon them you make about 'liberals' and the 'left'.

Here endeth the lesson.

As chairman of an influential committee he can start investigations against Obama. Now I'm all for investigations against the president IF they are warranted, but do you trust Lieberman to not abuse his power to trip up Obama? Some dems have made noise that they could remove Lieberman if he does do that but already senate experts have said that they couldn't.

While I agree of course with the ruling in general, it does seem that on a case by case basis certain factors could have more weight than in other cases. Specifically I would think it plausible to reason that if the groom held female virginity as an important condition of marriage (regardless of how stupid I think that is), and if the bride knew the groom held female virginity as an important condition of marriage and then lied about it (and its provable she lied, in this case she admitted it.) I don't know I'd be adverse to granting an annulment in this case.

For Dean to claim that they were avoiding petty retaliation ignores too many realities to make his position believable.

Its not retaliation, its politics. Stripping your political opponents of power is what being in the majority is all about. No one claimed it was retaliation or revenge when the Dems replaced all the committee chairs when they took over the majority.

Also it simply a good idea. Lieberman does not support Obama nor apparently Dems in general, why would you leave him in a position where he can hurt Obama or Dems? Some have claimed that Lieberman can be removed if he causes problems, but a senate expert already showed that once the congress is seated Dems could have a difficult or impossible time removing Lieberman if the Repubs decide to fight it. And you know they would. But even still, assuming Dems could remove Lieberman easily, can you imagine the hell that would be unleashed if Dems tried to remove Lieberman from his committee AFTER he started an investigation against Obama? It would look horrible even if it was an unwarranted investigation.

Bottom line, something deeper is going on than the 'lets all be friends B.S.' being spouted.

Its not about revenge. A person who campaigned against Obama and several other Dem. congressional candidates is in a position to hurt Obama and Dems from his position as chairman of a major committee. Removing Lieberman would be self-defense. It really only would have been revenge if the Dems got nothing out of removing Lieberman, but the would have gotten quite a bit.