Point out where his response is bad maybe? What else do you do other than a total disavowal?

You’re right, and I didn’t mean to sound critical of your post in particular (it makes perfect sense to me and I understand what you meant). I’m just frustrated that when normals like you and me discuss the issue in normal-people terms, the media/dum dums have to cast it as some sort of epic identity politics battle,…

That’s a fair point. I don’t mean to criticize, but given your explanation, you are advocating voting for Clinton for much more than “simply for what she represents.” It’s phrases like that contributing to this whole non-issue in the first place.

She doesn’t. This is not an incredibly intelligent and educated person we’re talking about.

Agreed. I can’t help but feel that the Clinton/Sanders identity politics morass is being driven largely by the media reporting on a few bad apples on each side (the partly-real Bernie Bro narrative vs. the partly-real “you’re a bad feminist if you don’t vote Clinton” narrative).

“I don’t remember the same kind of hand wringing and finger pointing at the notion that black people might support Obama because he was black.”

So you or your boyfriend would support voting for Fiorina over a male candidate? That would make a huge difference in our culture for the next couple decades.

No, it would be meaningful to have Clinton in the White House. Having Fiorina, “a woman in the White House,” wouldn’t do anything at all about the ongoing restriction of women’s rights.

This rules. I just bought one.

Me too. Terrific film.

one more word: BENGHAZI

The car I bought last year: E39 M5. Yummy S62 goodness.

Oh, does this car demonstrate solutions to the myriad of problems with creating an economical hydrogen fuel network? I missed that in the article.

Ugh, this. At the very least, mark these better on deadspin.com so I can avoid them completely.

The short version is that Chicago is notorious for corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political…

You can bet your buns that the Republicans will block a progressive judicial nomination as long as they control the Senate—that won’t change when President [INSERT PREFERENCE HERE] is sworn in in 2017.

Holding Senators responsible for votes doesn’t usually accomplish much. Any reasonable politician (the few that are left, at least) who spends an appreciable amount of time in the Senate ends up with a voting record that could be attacked from the left and the right.

Wow, “really super duper defensive” is not a good look for you.