i would agree it was unfair if the drug policy of the GOP wasn't so draconian and unrelenting. (the democrats are to blame on this too, unfortunately). does john mccain feel that cindy mccain would have benefited from going to jail? or, for that matter, does he feel that W, rush limbaugh, jeb bush's daughter, or any number of fallen stars of the GOP lineup would benefit from having gone to jail from dabbling in the use of illegal drugs?

probably not. while it may not be "fair" to dig through cindy mccain's troubled (recent) past with drugs, it is entirely fair to ask why women like her end up in jail for doing the same thing just because they are less well connected, less wealthy, or less white. these are perfectly reasonable and legitimate questions to ask john mccain.

and if it's fair to ask what it says about obama that he pals around with a former terrorist, well, what does it say about john mccain that he pals around with a former illegal drug user?

Granted, we only saw a clip--I do not know what followed the 1:38 seconds that we were given on this site. And I do not have the stomach to figure out what came after it.

But this woman sat there and lied first about being taken out of context, and then about Obama's policies: dramatic tax increases? Climate tax increase that will cost trillions of dollars? TAKING AWAY THE SECRET BALLOT? WTF is she talking about? And why is the interviewer sitting there listening to it without asking her where she got this information?

I suppose The Media realizes that there is a conundrum. McCain and his operatives lie. So the media corrects it. Obama and his operatives lie too, but a lot less frequently, and a lot less viciously, but when they do, the media corrects it. McCain and his operatives make asinine charges using loose and hazy terms such as "ties" or "associations". Because these charges are somewhat ridiculous and a distraction from real issues such as the economy and the wars in the Middle East, the media neglects to display a sufficient amount of curiosity and provide evidence that Obama does indeed have "ties"or "associations" with, for example, Ayres, even though McCain et al never quite said what he meant by "associations" and claims that he doesn't care about a "washed up old terrorist" anyways.

Herein lies the game: to correct these ridiculous lies, and to explore Palin's own "ties" with AIP, a terrorist organization in its own right in many ways, is to be "in the tank" for Obama, and have neutrality questioned.

It's sort of brilliant, on one hand, but on the other, I can't help but think that it dooms Americans to a mediocre plutocracy and moneybags democracy.

lipstick on a pig is still a pig. just with lipstick on it.

you can say it's "feminist" to praise motherhood, good looks, self-deprecation (see: "i never set out to run for office" or whatever it is she always says), and sexual purity, but that doesn't make it feminist. that makes it "conservative" or "traditional". but now we're calling it feminist because of hillary clinton. or something; i'm not quite sure why.

hillary, lest these gentlemen forget, was a mother as well. so is nancy pelosi, for that matter, and michelle obama, but i doubt that they feel similarly in awe of any of these women because they can each hold their own at press conferences, don't make a show of explaining that they didn't actually WANT those fancy degrees from law schools or important jobs at the House, and don't introduce themselves as "mothers" first and "politicians" second. (yes, i know michelle obama is not technically a politician but watch her in front of the camera, and she's a natural. michelle obama 2020!)

in any case, watching hoards of screaming men adore a pretty woman and give her undeserved praise and promotions is not really new; the only new thing about it is the adoption of the word "feminist" in hopes of appealing to hillary voters. as we can see, it doesn't seem to be working.

...is it a joke? they called her "articulate". and said she defended "common sense values". this made me think it had to be a joke. but it wasn't... was it?

this is why i just about always wear what i've heard referred to as the "american burqa": a boatnecked, tailored shirt (so it can't fall away from my chest when i bend over and expose cleavage) and pants. i so rarely, if ever, wear skirts.

on the blue moons that i do wear skirts--just above-the-knee-skirts, mind you, the difference is amazing. i get whistled at, stared at, and sexually harassed at probably twice the rate, if not more, than i do in pants. it's really astonishing.

there are several problems with the argument that we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. for one thing, if we don't, and it's ok to leave the parts of us uncovered that a skirt covers, can i go to disneyland in my underwear? i mean, if a man can just look up there and it's legal, why can't i show him, or everyone else for that matter, without breaking a law, can i just skip the skirt and walk around in my underwear?