If you think your goddess Hillary didn't cut those same deals, you're an even bigger damn fool than I think you are. And if that's the case, check yourself immediately into the nearest mental health care facility before you hurt someone. Please.

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," Kevin Martin, the executive director of Peace Action, told the Times.

Obama-as-Messiah has, up until now, been a GOP talking point.

Nice to see the "antiwar" crowd have no scruples.

If the rumors are right, Senator Clinton will be missed in the Senate, as she places her personal career path ahead of her responsibilities as an elected representative. This recent legislative maneuver is little more than political theater - not only don't they have the votes, as others have pointed out the "moral position" has been upheld in the courts (and is a position liberals oddly agree with when it comes to things like war) - but it does demonstrate that by choosing not to break through the Senate glass ceiling (no woman has ever been Senate Majority Leader) and by taking the path of least resistance (two previous women have been Sec. of State), Clinton is demonstrating that the complaints of many of her critics are true: she places herself above country, above duty, and above responsibility. If you think you can count on her support, guess again: her vote, influence, and leadership in Congress will be sacrificed on the altar of her career.

I know you Broadsheet writers aren't big on facts, but there have been two women who have previously occupied the position of Secretary of State. Hardly any "long-excluded group" as far as that goes.

But: were your writers aware of history, they'd know the position of Senate Majority Leader has never been held by a woman. That position would likely be Clinton's for the asking; Harry Reid would be glad to step aside for her. But that's not as headline grabbing - nor does it place Hillary in primo positioning for 2012 (for the VP slot when Biden retires due to his health) or 2016. It would be hard work to stay in the Senate, and she couldn't be on TV every night. The choice is obvious if you've a mind like Senator Clinton: self comes first, while the people who voted for you a probably distant second.

You are now praising Hillary for deciding against breaking through more glass ceilings, lauding her for walking away from the job she was elected to do. Not because of any particular foreign policy experience she has (virtually none); not because of any compelling evidence that she's perfectly suited for the job; not because David Paterson is strong enough politically to guarantee no "moderate Democrat" in sheep's clothing won't get appointed to fill her seat.

No, you laud the appointment for one reason alone: it's Hillary, a woman. Even though two women have held the job before, you pretend this is some great achievement for some "long-excluded group."

Not that we should expect much out of a crew of lazy minds whose writing more and more resembles something from a teen fan magazine.

But at least we get the laughable spectacle of Traister and Company proving their most knuckle-headed critics are right: it's all about gender, and nothing else, with these pseudo-feminists would-be writers.

...and that's what drives the feeling of panic you can detect in their frantic apologies for Church practices and policies.

To wit: the Church - or more specifically, it's governing hierarchy, is more lenient on men who rape children than on men who express ideas contrary to Vatican policy.

It's an undeniable truth, one which no Catholic can ignore. They can attempt to explain it away by claiming that the alleged victims are liars, or pointing to non-Catholic molestations, or by simply denying the prevalence of child-rape among Catholic priests.

But they know: it is evident in the manner in which the Catholic Church punishes dissent - swiftly and severely - as compared to the manner it pursues claims of rape-by-priest - slowly, denying everything along the way, then finally paying huge settlements to silence the truth.

You can always tell the crimes taken seriously by an organization or nation: these crimes are punished most severely, and often with the most swiftness.

This leads me (and many others) to suspect that child-rape must be Vatican policy.

Thousands, perhaps millions, of Catholics secretly fear this is the truth.

And that's why their so "sensitive" to these issues. They know: their priests rape their children, and their bishops cover it up, and in the end the Church itself pays for silence. They silence those accusing the priests of rape, and then very often put the priest right back in the lineup.

When facing those who dissent, the Church pursues the same end result, with vigilance and dedication: they silence the dissenters, by whatever means necessary.

Silence. Not truth.

One of the intellectually laziest things to do is blame "hormones" when discussing the motivations of teens. The stupidity of this statement is made clear by asking one question:

What is it when adults take nudie shots of themselves, send them to friends, post them online?

Then further: Which came first - teens doing this or adults?

Then finally, the revelation that may shock Broadsheet feminists: kids learn from adults.

Of course, the job of a Broadsheet writers is made easier when their are straw-folk to blame.

(And of course, I'm a fool if I expect different.)