I don't accept it.

She must not - on behalf of all women and her supporters and her campaign - she must not turn down the VP position.....

It is her destiny as far as she's come, she does not have another option - other than fighting it to the floor.

Because with Hillary - it will never be about the money, or even about her "reputation" in the senate..

It is about making history - she knows this.

Therefore - she must be the VP.

I wouldn't hold my breath thinking she would want some other position in the administration. She's already a NY Senator. No reason for her to leave the Senate unless it's to be President, or President of the Senate.

I'm joking about beer but there are serious male unique issues out there just like there are issues that are unique to women.

For example, men are falling behind in education, college enrollment, etc at the same time college and general education are more necessary than ever.

They commit crimes much more frequently than women, and I don't think just assuming that men are naturally more criminal and it will always have to be that way is the way to go.

'Women's rights are human rights' means to me that while we fight for womens rights we must also be prepared to fight for the rights of everyone, everywhere.

Go Celts!

OK, I understand. The squeaky wheel analogy surely makes sense.

It's tough because the President is only one person with only two arms and legs. And there are SO many pressing issues right now, how do we prioritize them?

Even though it looks like Hillary is not going to win, she did make one big change in the minds of people.

Example;

I'm an Obama supporter. I've been miffed with the Clintons over the past several months. But, notice above where I said, "the President is only one person." In the past I would have said, "only one man"

It has always been presumed to be a "male job".

PS: I appreciate your compliment.

Do I know you?  Ever read my diaries?

(A) Obama needs us so now is the time to press him to say he'll support our concerns.

(B) Obama gives verbal support to a wide variety of (often mutually exclusive) things.  But his verbal support now does not necessarily indicate support in action later.  Here is an example of how meaningless his words can be.

(A) and (B) are not non-sequitors.  Your use of the term is incorrect.

If you are trying to run an operation (one which has had its funding stripped in recent years below their historic levels), and someone tells you that you can't have more money, but you might get more later (if he gets elected for a second term), how much is that worth to you, from a practical standpoint?

Not much.

I do think it is misleading to say that you will double funding when what you really mean is that you will raise funding in some areas and cut funding in others.

As far as Bush, I think the opposite could be argued to some extent - that he entered the White House believing his doctrine of "compassionate conservatism" but that his thinking evolved over time, particularly in response to 09-11, and that he was deeply changed (for the worse) because of it.  Personally I think this is somewhat true (this is not to make any excuse for him).

As for Obama, I don't see how you show some gradual evolution of thought when you associate yourself with an organization and declare a man your mentor for two decades, only to feign departure while chiding those who criticize your "former" associations.

What I see instead is someone who systematically conceded the bare minimum amount of ground on this subject each time he was confronted with it.  Think of an onion with its layers being peeled.

Step 1: Well you guys are just misrepresenting him and he's really a great guy.

Step 2: He is an exceptional man, but like all people, he has good and bad.  I call on you to become bigger than this, and recognize that I can no more disown him than I could disown the entire African American community!  Let's have a real discussion about race.

Step 3: Never talk about race again.

Step 4: Well obviously I didn't know him very well after all.  And when he accused me of being a pandering politician, that crossed a line, so I'm denouncing him.  But shame on you guys for associating him with that church.  He is not a reflection of the church.

Step 5: Other people associated with the Church continue to say the exact same things.

Step 6: OK, OK, I'm leaving the Church.  But I'm only doing it because you guys insist on making a controversy out of it.

Eh?

What happened to the principles in Step 2?  How could you not know after two decades what was very clearly the consistent message of this Church day after day?  What exactly is this about?

There's only two possibilities at this point.

Either Barack disagrees with the Church's ideology, in which case he was comfortable associating himself with it purely for political gain.  Or.  This ideology resonates with him or has meaning for him or is persuasive to him.

His reluctance to leave, as evidenced by this step by step approach to handling the issue, suggest the latter.  But neither scenario is one that inspires much trust or comfort from me.

the polls here give a cool option to allow you to vote for ore than one choice!

And the brushing her off his color & walking into the Jay-Z song at a campaign rally and truthfully the outrage regarding her campaign has been much more mean spirited then, even how a real spoiler (ie a Ralph Nadar who was HURTING the party) was treated.  The blatant misogyny all over have shocked me (although I know it exists I sort of try I guess to believe we are a bit more advanced as a party), disgusted me, and disturbed. I don't know which is worse; the fact that it is still prevalent or the fact that I don't see as many bothered by it as I thought would be.

I believe Obama is on the first step to becoming a Pastafarian.

R'Amen.

Look, he doesn't have to apologize to her. But his tepid outrage signaled to a lot of us he just doesn't get it.