“Tonight, it will be worse, with Bill the Bloviator taking the stage.” This is totally uncalled for. You and Maureen Dowd seem to suffer the same affliction: incurable Clinton Derangement Syndrome. This Clinton hate shtick is so old. Let me remind you that Bill Clinton is the last two-term Democratic president. If by some miracle Obama wins in November, it’s highly unlikely he will get re-elected given the absolute mess the Bush Administration will leave behind. “In the meantime, it is still the Clintons’ show.” Like the rest of the lazy press corp, you’re determined, as Eric Boehlert says, to “strenuously ignor[e] facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.” You would do well to read his entire story: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808260005 And since you ask, “Where’s Obama?” it’s tradition for the nominee not to appear at the convention until the final day. But then that would have required some actual work to look that up, apparently.

There is a whole lot of harm here. Yet again, women’s right to have domain over their bodies is still being chipped away. This will definitely interfere with women’s rights and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Lorraine says: “I wouldn’t want anyone forcing me to perform some function at work that I thought was unethical or immoral, and I don’t see how we can force medical workers to do that.” If your employer tried to get you to cook the books, you would have a point. However, medical workers such as doctors and pharmacists are licensed by the state and should not be able to pick and choose whom they treat. If they have such a crisis of conscience, they need to find another line of work. k b asks “What of the woman who cannot get to another pharmacy or cannot afford another doctor to give her what she is allowed by law?” We know this is already happening, where pharmacists not only refuse to fill a scrip but will refuse to give it back to the woman so she can have it filled elsewhere. This interference must stop. And every woman must demand the right to have the final decision. Anything less is unacceptable.

Who. Cares?

Ew. Barack’s not eye candy, either. His health insurance plan would leave 38 million Americans uninsured. That’s probably a marginal improvement over McCain’s health insurance plan. Obama’s economic plan does nothing to reduce the national debt; it increases the national debt but at an amount relatively lower than in McCain’s plan. Nor is there any evidence that Obama will be any stronger on women’s reproductive rights than McCain. Neither candidate is much to brag about.

Any way you use it, it’s still a toxin that you’re injecting into your body. If you want a breast lift, go see a plastic surgeon.

OMG she was *brilliant.* Her timing’s not too shabby either.

That voters are willing to substitute Oprah’s judgment for their own is truly troubling.

I’m glad I don’t read this crap. It shows no respect for Elizabeth and their children.

Oh please. As if Obama isn’t acting more like Bush than McCain does, he’s going to do the same thing George Bush did and tap the head of his VP selection committee. And her name isn’t Caroline Kennedy. It’s Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg. She conveniently reverted back to Kennedy when she endorsed Obama. I think watching this would be like watching a pot boil. The better money is apparently on Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. But then neither Caroline Kennedy nor Kathleen Sebelius bring critical experience to the table, like foreign policy.

Claire McCaskill? The one whose 18 year old daughter told her to support Obama? Or because his PAC donated $10,000.00 to her campaign in 2006? It’s hard to tell. McCaskill would be a disastrous choice for VP. Why would she be a better choice than Hillary? She’s certainly no progressive.

Your argument is flawed. A Democratic president this year will not insure a more liberal Supreme Court. In 2005, Obama was seriously thinking about voting to confirm John Roberts as chief justice. “Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts’s intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR200708…) Good thing Chief of Staff Pete Rouse reminded him that vote would come back to bite him but it gives me absolutely no reassurance for the future of the Court under an Obama administration. Second, if it’s Roe v. Wade you’re referring to, the votes to overturn it are already there. Just look at Carhart v. Gonzales: Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. If Obama is elected and if Justice Stevens retires, it won’t matter if a raging liberal is appointed in Stevens’ place. The balance won’t shift.

“Over the past 24 hours, Internet news sites have been reporting on this week’s explosive National Enquirer story exposing a supposed John Edwards tryst in a Hollywood hotel.” And you need to ask why MSM isn’t touching this story? Let’s begin with the word “alleged.” The National Enquirer didn’t prove anything. No photos of Edwards getting out of the car at the hotel? No video? No proof at all. Why would the Enquirer hold that back? If the story is true and that explosive, put all the evidence out on the table.

“Obama last week unveiled his plan to increase women’s economic security, which includes a tax credit of up to $1,000 for families, an increase in the minimum wage and tax cuts to help working women pay for child care, among other provisions.” Equal pay is not enough. What about enforcing laws against pregnancy discrimination, which is still a problem? In Fiscal Year 2007, EEOC received 5,587 charges of pregnancy-based discrimination. How about adequate maternity leave so women don’t have to go back to work right after giving birth? Affordable child care is one thing—what about access to good child care? How many working women can afford to take a day off without hassle when their child is sick? Don’t applaud him just yet. He’s left too many things out.

You mean like this? “On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman. “The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)” Wow. Glad that’s jut a rumor.

Meh. It’s lame. Satire based on racism, sexism or other stereotypes never really come off as planned.