I was called "honey" by a federal judge when I was arguing a motion once. I won my motion, so no harm done.

In fact, I found that gender discrimination from other women ("I gave up having a life to get where I am, and so should you") was more problematic in terms of real-life impact.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Sweetie?

As a parent, I often find myself having "automatic" reactions to certain situations, like a crying baby or a kid pestering me with questions. My dh is the same way.

That has led both of us to mistakenly respond in "parent mode" sometimes--like, seeing an adult stumble and fall and reacting "Honey, are you OK?" without even thinking.

I could sure see Obama reacting to the interruptions of a reporter (and come on, the press had plenty of opportunity to talk to him, it's not like he was ducking them, so why interrupt the hosts?) with a knee-jerk "dad" reaction...and if he's nice enough to call his kids "sweetie" when they're being pesky, that's not a bad thing, even if it is dismissive.

I'm sure HRC has *never* been condescending or dismissive, of course.

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:39 PM in response to Sweetie?

Obama has been my first choice all along for two main reasons:

One, his consistent opposition to the War in Iraq (I was personally opposed to it from the start as well, and have a hard time getting past the votes to authorize it); and

Two, the fact that he taught Constitutional Law at one of this country's premier law schools. The Constitution is going to need a lot of expert TLC, and not just partisan patchups, in this next administration.

The fact that he's a great motivator and a great speaker is icing on the cake.

Posted at May 12, 2008 2:22 PM in response to How did you choose your favoured candidate?

Howard should try to get HRC to condemn the ad before asking McCain to do so. HRC's silence on the ad is even more embarrassing to the Dems than McCain's ineffectiveness is to the GOP.

Posted at April 24, 2008 11:30 AM in response to Howard Dean Enters Battle Over North Carolina GOP's Anti-Obama Ad

Yes, it would be sooooo "remiss" not to parrot HRC/GOP talking points. Gotta keep up those journalistic standards! lol

Posted at April 24, 2008 10:27 AM in response to Obama-McGovern-Adlai-Stevenson Reading List

And now Clinton needs 71% of all remaining pledged delegates to catch up with Obama.

The only way she could accomplish that is to utterly destroy Obama. But to do so, she has to utterly destroy the Democratic Party.

Remember, when one Democrat attacks another, that lends automatic legitimacy to the attacks. You expect a Republican to attack a Democrat; you do not expect a Democrat to attack a Democrat, and you assume that if one does, it must mean that the stuff is really, really true. Therein lies the reprehensible nature of Hillary Clinton--she will take down her own party in order to win.

She needs to take her backstabbing politics and her neocon rantings about nuking other countries into oblivion back to NY.

Posted at April 23, 2008 1:52 PM in response to Superdelegates: Maybe Hillary Clinton isn't telling you the whole story.

Missouri's in play if Obama is the nominee--he is very popular in the urban/suburban areas, and the outstate conservatives are not very fired up about McCain.

The war is a huge issue in MO. Plus, the MO GOP is suffering the effects of one of the worst governors in MO history.

I know people who are considering Obama who have probably never voted Democratic before.

Posted at April 16, 2008 5:42 PM in response to Are Kansas and Missouri in Play?

I don't think you understand the rules, yotin. If you donate to a campaign, you have to list your employer even though that information has nothing to do with your reasons for donating.

People with jobs in certain industries are still individuals with personal political convictions. I can assure you that my dh and I did not donate $$ to Obama in the interests of the industry dh works for--not by a long shot.

So the "oil money" comes from people who happen to work for oil companies--big deal. It's not the same thing as "I work for an OIL COMPANY and I want to raise money for you on behalf of OIL COMPANIES." Obama is being completely honest, and any insinuations to the contrary are intellectually DIShonest.

Posted at April 16, 2008 10:50 AM in response to Obama Facing Scrutiny On Lobbyists

What complete b.s. I looked at the list of so-called "lobbyist law firms" and it's basically just a list of big law firms with wide-ranging practice areas (including the firm where Michelle Obama worked and Barack Obama interned, ooo, big surprise that he has support from there).

Lawyers have personal convictions, too, as hard as it may seem to believe, and some of them are Democrats!

It's no more accurate to say that Obama takes lobbyist money because of these lawyers' support than it is to say that he's in the pocket of Big [Unnamed] Industry because my dh and some of his colleagues just happen to be Obama supporters quite apart from any professional considerations, or that Obama is in thrall to the textile industry because Knitters for Obama raised almost $9000 for his campaign.

Posted at April 16, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Obama Facing Scrutiny On Lobbyists

The Obama campaign has certainly shown more class than someone who secretly recorded a Q&A session with supporters in a private home. I don't believe for one single minute that Fowler acted without malice aforethought.

Posted at April 15, 2008 9:47 PM in response to Woman Who Broke "Small Town" Story Says Obama Campaign's Response Was "Classy"