ChrisT

That's funny because I AM sitting in front of a fire...knitting...and posting!

You could always take up knitting - you might be old enough. I've already finished a scarf, slippers and I'm working on a blanket and socks from last winter.

link

Did you know that on Nov. 1, 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one. Here's the link.

If son of Bush can get himself elected, why is it so hard to imagine wife of Clinton getting elected? Hollywood is already on the bandwagon with "Commander in Chief". Americans will watch this show and start believing that a woman really can lead the US. TV is the great brainwasher.

I believe Clinton to be more human than you think. She hooked me with "It takes a village..." and her concern for children, something that I think could hook other mothers as well. Granted, I don't support all her ideas, mainly her willingness to send more troops to Iraq or her recent drift to the center.

Powell was the only with the balls to oppose the war...well to at least question it anyway.

yeah and there may be sufficient groups to include either one. The glass is half full from my end.

I think your view is a bit cynical. What if there is sufficient groups who *do* feel comfortable with Clinton and I count myself among them. You automatically assume that everyone in America hates her. As for Condi it's an obvious tactic by Republicans to woo black voters. I'd rather see Colin Powell.

I'm with you - the last (and only) time I got the flu shot I ended up with pneumonia!

Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher got hitched

that makes sense since we're "fighting" global terrorism...

The Next Alan Greenspan Published: October 6, 2005 The job of chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is one of the biggest and most important in Washington, and given President Bush's record of appointing his pals to fill every position from Supreme Court justice to director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it's small wonder there is a lot of fretting about who will be tapped to succeed Alan Greenspan. During his news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Bush made reassuring noises aimed at global markets. "It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics," the president said. "It's this independence of the Fed that gives people not only here in America, but the world, confidence." Sounds great. But this is also the same man who said during that same news conference that he believes that Harriet Miers, his onetime personal lawyer and present White House counsel, who has never been a judge, is the most qualified of all the people in the United States to be a Supreme Court justice. The president's aides have made it clear that he wants someone at the Fed with whom he can have a rapport. That should be the last thing on the president's mind for this job, but we know from bitter experience that Mr. Bush often places feeling comfortable with an appointee above actual competence. It's just that kind of thinking that landed America with Michael Brown at FEMA and John Snow at the Treasury Department. Mr. Snow's lackluster tenure at the Treasury, in particular, says a lot about Mr. Bush's detachment from economic policy. The hapless Mr. Snow, who thankfully is on no one's list for Fed chairman, remains completely removed from any real policy making within the administration. His biggest role at the Treasury has been as cheerleader for Mr. Bush's tax cuts and salesman for his misbegotten plan to privatize Social Security. The four names circulating around Washington are Martin Feldstein, a Bush adviser on Social Security and an economics professor at Harvard; Glenn Hubbard, Mr. Bush's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and now dean of Columbia University Business School; Lawrence Lindsey, the former director of the White House National Economic Council; and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Two of them - Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Feldstein - come with some independent credentials. Mr. Bernanke is deeply conservative, economists say, but respected for independent thinking and not inclined to wear that conservatism on his sleeve. Mr. Feldstein has pushed for Social Security privatization, but in the past criticized deficits run up by Ronald Reagan, for whom he was working at the time, to the everlasting ire of many Republicans. That hardly makes him a shoo-in for the job, but those are exactly the independent traits that Mr. Bush should be looking for if he is indeed serious about appointing a Fed chairman who isn't politically beholden to the White House. Hopes die hard, so we strongly encourage Mr. Bush to put his money where his mouth is this time around. This job is too important for another taste of cronyism.

duh! I'm so naive!

It's staggering the amount of views these threads have had in less than 24 hours. Is that for real?

I am reminded of an episode of Seinfeld in which Elaine tells Jerry that women's bodies are beautiful, works of arts, whereas men's bodies are utilitarian, like a jeep. I think she hit the nail on the head with that one.

Dead Man's Party by Oingo Boingo

Why choose? We should be able to have it all!

Don't understand your point at all PP

However, there is still a majority of judges(5) on the bench who would uphold Roe v. Wade.

It's truly annoying that Oregon voters passed the physician assisted suicide TWICE yet it's still being challenged in court. Do they think voters are morons?

Yes - it's all about politics isn't it? I respect the Supreme Court for acting independently and for being able to separate church and state. Justices don't always act as the puppets of the presidents who appoint them.

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand. FW makes some good points about abortion here. O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, is pro-Roe v. Wade...the Supreme Court has made some really UN-popular rulings in the past. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? I've become convinced recently that overturning Roe v. Wade may not alter the nature of abortions in the US all that much. Technology has come along way in 35 years - no more coathangers, women are now using a prescription Ulcer drug to induce abortions. I don't know if I'm making sense here...just some musings on the whole abortion/supreme court thing...

But she's really a centrist

picture? - YES!