"Let's talk about Bill. I could care less if the guy gets blown by a girl scout troop every night of the week. All this morality, all this hand-wringing, all this self-righteous bullshit..."

Feminists said it was harassing for men with power to make moves on female underlings. Bill, himself, helped pass a law saying a harasser's background was fair game in lawsuits. The country said you can lie about a lot, but never to Congress.

So...Bill gets accused of harassment, balks at being asked about his past, and lies to Congress. THAT is what folks did not like about him.

Meanwhile, feminists who said it was harassment when a boss had a picture of his vacationing bikini'd wife in his office (it was "inappropriate") expected be taken seriously when then agreed with Bill that "lewinskis" weren't sex. That, of course, led thousands of 8th grade girls to start giving head because, well, it wasn't sex.

"You are all hypocrites and most of you should be put to sleep."

Regarding feminists, I couldn't agree more.

Besides, how can one seriously believe a group is equal that uses "female" as the base of its name. It's like thinking "Aryan" means all people.

"William Jefferson Clinton...we elected him twice. Why?"

Shite happens.

"Bill was the professor."

The lecherous professor feminists claim to hate (when his doesn't fondle THEM!).

"given a choice between Hope and a guy who knows how to get blown, I am going to take the scumbag anyday of the week."

Exactly why most guys treat most women the way most women SAY they hate: Because doing so gets them BJs. That is, forget feminism and what it SAYS women want. Watch how women act in reality.

For the first time in 8 years I feel real hope that we have a brilliant Democratic presidential ticket who will lead us back to real democracy. For Salon to resurrect the dead horse of a question about Hillary at this point is not merely pointless, but inane.With this column, you've sunk below serious journalistic consideration. Consider me an ex-subscriber.

I appreciate your response, however it is contradictory to suggest that Palin's pick is not tokenism if she would not have been picked had Clinton been chosen by Obama. I agree with you that McCain's picking Palin was strategy. The strategy was picking a woman because Obama did not. That was his number one primary reason for selecting her and that is tokenism.

Tokenism is the practice or policy of making no more than a token effort or gesture, as in offering opportunities to minorities equal to those of the majority. I think this fits the bill. For further proof, I offer the fact that McCain spoke to Palin once and only once before picking her as his running mate. He barely knows the woman, and that is a fact. I could give credence to the strategy being more than a token gesture to Clinton diehards if he had chosen a woman he knew well, but he didn't.

I also take issue with your criticism of Obama in his primary campaign. You say he "fought against the Clinton appeal." Ummm yeah, you see he was running against her so doesn't that make sense? In fact, if you go back and look at the debate tapes during the primaries you'll probably see other democratic candidates fighting against the Clinton appeal. It's called "trying to win the nomination," and it involves "pointing out differences between you and the front runner." This often leads to "fighting against the appeal of the other candidate."

For the record, I was an Edwards supporter before he dropped out of the race. I voted for him in the California primary even after he dropped out, because I was still unsure of who I liked. I feel like a lot of Clinton supporters want to white wash every mistake she made during the primary i.e. the sniper fire lie, white working class voters statement which was at the very least pretty tone deaf to race, and pile on Obama for any perceived transgression.

It was a tightly contested race. Both candidates made some mistakes, however politics is a full contact sport, and I personally don't think either of them deserve the harsh scrutiny they receive from the other side. Having said that, I fully expect to see the trolls out in full force over the next weeks trying to convince people that Palin is an excellent choice for Clinton supporters. My only advice to them is be ceareful what you vote for, and really look at Palin's stance on the issues before you make that decision. The same advice I would give anyone.

but like most Democratic Party men, he can't handle a strong woman either! Obama has done nothing but pay lip service to the Democratic Party and his kool-aid drinking supporters about "change" this and "change" that. He's nothing more than same old, same old.

I may not agree with Gov. Palin's political ideoology but she has as much right to stand up there with those 3 other men (hardly the stuff that makes history!), and maybe more so, as she's the only one with real executive experience.

And I got news for the Obama people. Just because McCain chose Palin doesn't mean the heat's off him with respect to being ready to be President. Obama's the one who needed to choose the experienced "adult" to make people feel good about himself.

How does Palin defy stereotypes? She's being used to maintain the staus quo, just like the Republicans used Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzalez. Palin's regressive anti-science views will set this country back 100 years.

"Any working mother in America knows how difficult it is to balance work and children...Would Palin be able to step in in a pinch? Who would attend to her kids, then?"

Hmmm. What do Madonna, Nicole Kidman, and other powerful women do when their kids conlict with their "jobs"? What do "average" women do? Why, they all farm kids out to family, daycare, nannies, etc.

Besides, weren't feminists the ones who said a womb shouldn't preclude the corner room? So why is that when women WANT to be CEOs, motherhood is no issue. But when a rival female wants the same thing, suddenly out come the "stay at home, byotch!" arguments.

Of course, this does not apply to men...whom fembots deny choice to. Feminists work forever to keep men from being equals in the home. When working-mother news anchors, etc. divorce, it's the stay-at-home dads that are told having penises keeps them from gaining custody.

Feminist hypocrisy: You gotsta love it when it comes back to bite 'em!