She's tough as nails and I love her (although I love Obama just a little bit more). Maybe the new term for the womens' equiv to testicular fortitude will be something like "Hillary's Resolve" or that someone is "Hillary-tough" or has a "Lady Clinton Warrior Magic, etc.

Joan:

In response to your latest column, a few comments.

The Daily Kos got it right, I think. Clinton appeared on Fox because it is free airtime and she is out of money. She did it out of necessity: as Olberman put it, of course she did: where is she going to get an infomercial if she doesn't give these interviews? He went on to list several similar recent appearances. Her decision was practical or shrewd. This is its own justification, and good for her.

But it isn't necessarily more than that, and your description of it as a display of special courage seems to be essay-driven rather than analytical. If sitting for an interview is courageous and not merely shrewd, you can link it to an anecdote about fortitude, and now you have an organizing theme for a column. Fortitude, testicular fortitude, balls, big brass balls.

All of that imagery is inapposite if the decision to appear on O'Reilly's show was an example of common sense. Yet I don't see, and you don't establish, why it was anything other than plain common sense.

For an act to be courageous, it must pose risk. What does Clinton risk by appearing on Fox? That she will not present her ideas well? But that is what a candidate does. That he will disagree with her? It wouldn't be television if he didn't.

This is silly. Clinton had everything to gain and nothing to lose by appearing on Fox. She is in second place, she has little to spend, and the voters she needs more of are the white, Catholic working class viewers of Fox.

But you don't get to write about testicles unless you give the interview a character it doesn't have. I am under the impression that you really wanted to write a column using this sexual imagery, and forced the Fox interview to fit your theme.

It doesn't stand up under examination. I wonder why you didn't write one of two columns. If you wanted to write about courage, you could have chosen an example of a candidate who did something in spite of the risk that it entailed. Those events are rare, and you might not have been able to fit Clinton into a column about courage. I can't think of anything Clinton has done that is especially courageous. Well, yes, running as a woman, but even this is ambition, not courage: what does she risk? It's not as if she is already president and risks losing it all if she runs. Running is all upside: she might win, and if she loses she is no worse off than she was before she ran. So, no.

The other column you could have written is a closely observed comparison of Obama with Wallace and Clinton with O'Reilly. That would have been infinitely more worth reading, and useful. Who performed better under unsympathetic questioning? Who had the tougher questions? Who did a better job framing positions a conservative viewer would understand without giving ground?

But that column wouldn't have given you an occasion to write about Clinton's balls (ugh, Joan, honestly). More to the point, that column would have forced you to write that Obama did it first and did it better.

I asked a thiry something family member (I'm a boomer) why he was voting for Hillary Clinton. He said, "She's a f**king bitch. She can get s**t done." Not eloquent, but the point was made.

Is it balls or is it "I will get my way no matter the cost". Hilary doesn't have balls (fact) but she could be characterised as being more akin to a chameleon. She adopts whatever 'clothing' andor demeanour that she thinks will have to best effect with the particular demographic she is addressing. What was all the 'being under sniper fire in Bosnia' about - oh yes that's right that Hilary demonstrating her 'balls' - the tough cookie' that would 'obliterate' (read nuke) Iran if it dared to attack Isreal. Nice way with diplomacy there eh Hils? Still Rush Limbaugh knows that the electorate aren't really fooled by this female 'Walter Mitty' because he's urging republicans to vote for her in droves in upcoming primaries. You got to give credit to Rush he doesn't underestimate the electorate's 'nose' for it's ability to sniff out a posturing faker like Hillary that's why wants repubs voting for her - because if she wins McCain who has had REAL combat experience will wipe the floor with her.

Joan writes:

"On this topic, though, Obama is far more courageous, for continuing to oppose the gas-tax holiday even though pandering to fed-up voters might help him politically."

So if Obama had supported the gas tax holiday, he would be "pandering," but when Hillary supports it, she's courageous.

Wow.

"As much as I like Obama, his high road approach may make the most sense it may sadly make him the least electable."

You can say that again.

But Obama knows what he does. He's repeatedly stated that he's gambling on "you, the American people" that we're ready, nay, screaming to take the high road after eight years of Bush.

I don't know how things will turn out, but truly, we get the government we deserve.

The spouse and I were discussing Clinton's compulsive pandering and she actually had an interesting suggestion: why not hold a lottery to decide which schlub off the street gets to be president?

It could be like jury duty, nice and democratic like.

At least that way you'd cut out the middle man or in this case, woman.

But sexism rankles most when it's used to discriminate or belittle; when it's wrapped in a compliment, it's harder to be harsh about it. I thought Clinton handled it well

Really? I guess if someone said she was "working like a nigger" to imply she was working really hard, that would be okay.

If they said Obama's management of his campaign finances "would make a Jew proud", that would be okay.

If a reporter complimented her interior decorating by suggesting that a faggot couldn't have done a better job, that would be okay.

In addition to being a shill, you're an idiot.