Do you think the president's gender is going to matter once we start a war with Iran?

Tracy, you kind of lost me at the end there. So, ah, want to have coffee sometime?

All kidding aside, Mo Dowd is not to be taken seriously, here or ever. Nora Ephron's sizing up of Dems on the basis of how good they would be do date, is, hopefully, just as offensive. The sad new era of political reporting is the equasion of everything with Stars and Celebrity. Mo Dowd is simply the Hedda Hopper of our debased political world.

Are there some men who would vote for Morgan Fairchild but never Hillary? I suppose. But Chris Matthews is just one person.....

... is not because she is supposedly smart and successful but because she reminds them of their bitchy ex-wives and psycho former girlfriends.

You can't have five seconds of blank screen followed by 10 seconds of commercial for Salon and then put yourself up in a postage stamp box surrounded by Salon's artists' graphics.

Total crap.

Look, I tried to be nice to you last week, but you folks haven't learned a thing.

This time I am not going to participate in your little game of "everyone needs self-esteem". This particular episode was sheer crap.

If you want any credit, redo it, and turn it in again.

Jebus, what is this a playground?

I'd say it's very high.

No, that's not sexist. I'd also put her in the category of "women who seem more intelligent than I am."

Then again, that's most women.

Funny you mentioned the thing about men being primates, then showed a chimp. It's funny because I thought, "Hey that's George W. Bus-- ohhh, wait, that's a chimp."

Anyway, you citizens of Salonia sure do talk about Hillary and sexism a lot. I am somewhat glad because the subject of Barack and racism was getting old (where is Debra Dickerson when you need her?).

I am against sexism. I am not against Hillary but not really for her. I'm tired of Bushes and Clintons. No more dynasties, I want somebody else.

Oh Tracy Clark-Flory, you're still not giving these vlogs nude!!! Sigh,,, do you have to be so professional?

I am probably the worse person to talk to about Hillary Clinton's sex appeal, because I have been having sex dreams about her for 20 years now, starting from when she was Arkansas' first lady. What does Bill have that I don't? Well we're both married, so it is a mute point now, but back in 1998 I thought I might actually have a chance with Hillary, but dammit if she didn't feel like forgiving Bill.

What's not to lust for in Senator Clinton? She's smart, powerful, feisty, witty, liberalish, she's got those beautiful eyes, and I just want to run my hands through her hair. But I didn't start out this election season supporting my love, I mean Hillary, I started out as an Obama man, but switched when I saw Hillary kick ass on the stage despite everyone's (Democrats and Republicans) effort to gang up on her. Hillary Clinton is tough as nails, and she's the one I want fighting for me, so I am a Clinton man (and I will save my lust for my wife).

In 1988 when the first Bush ran for president and women seemed to overwhemingly oppose his candidacy, some women pundits tried to explain the gender gap by saying that he reminded women of their first husband.

Today most men oppose Hillary because she reminds them of the girl in high school they never wanted to date.

Speak for yourself. Senator Clinton would have been the kind of girl that would have made me intentionally fail my senior year of high-school, just so that I could spend another year with her.

I'm waiting for FOX or some other hair-brained network to start a reality show based on that very premise (Perhaps Brian Williams will host). That is where our political "discourse" is today and it is disturbing. No other career except journalism is protected under the Constitution due to its necessity in maintaining a healthy democracy. I can think of no better example than Dowd- and Matthews-type "media" pundits to justify our need for a publicly financed press. Only then will journalism be shielded from the inevitably corrupting influence of profits and celebrity.

It is not just that Hillary is a woman, although that's in the mix here, but also that she is the spouse of a former president, and very well-known on the public stage as a wife. We should, by now, know plenty about Hillary Clinton. And in fact, many people believe they know quite enough about her to decide whether to vote for her. She was (and continues to be) wrong on the war, and that is quite enough for me not to support her. But surely there are some men who will base their votes on more primal signals.

If I were going to engage in such a Ginger or Mary Ann contemplation about Hillary Clinton (and I take it that I am invited to do that here, by both Ms. Dowd and Ms. Clark-Flory), then primal voting would, for me, go like this: if I am considering a man to represent me, I am likely to vote for him if I can identify with him. Is he like me? Does he represent my aspirations? Is he the kind of man I want to be? Whereas, with a woman I would ask myself, will she meet my needs? Will she give me what I want? Will she do for me?

When we apply all of this calculus to Hillary, we get the following result: (1) she's not hot, (2) her husband was almost impeached because she doesn't give blow jobs, (3) she has a scolding look permanently etched on her face. Therefore, she obviously wouldn't give me what I want, but she'd constantly be giving me a ration of shit about something. Definitely not dateable. So, I wouldn't vote for her.

But I still might, if I thought she were going to "do for me" and end this foolish war.