Wasn't she the one who recently said she wasn't allowed to anser questions, even from cute 9 year old scholastic reporters?

Close, yet. She said she doesn't. That was a part of the inspiration for this article.

J.

go jay tea go.I thought the same as #1

Yes JT. I disagreed with you the last time when I said she was fair game because she was on the campaign trail. I am just glad your going for it now. Good post. Good interpretation. ww

Jizz-B-Gon? Well, if Hillary wins at least there will be plenty of material for bloggers and late night comedians.

..so she's chosen to become a public part of the campaign. She's forfeited all the rights and respect I'd given her prior to this.

Then why was Mary Cheney out of bounds? She worked for the campaign (in addition to other political work).

I think Jay is upset over not belonging to the lucky sperm club.

Good one, Jay. Did the Clinton campaign mail you a copy of their Little Red Book, yet? You, too, can join the Hillary08 Cultural Revolution.

[sigh]

It's a good thing the State is giving us a $600 rebate. I'll need it to buy enough booze to stay drunk for the next four years.

Is anyone planning to make an C-Chip? I'd like to be able to program my TV to block all access to any TV shows, including news shows, that feature the voice, image, or quotations of either President Clinton.

Baghdadbarney - "I think Jay is upset over not belonging to the lucky sperm club."

Well then, as the head of the Jizz Club for Men I should think an invite would be in order.

"I'd like to be able to program my TV to block all access to any TV shows, including news shows, that feature the voice, image, or quotations of either President Clinton"

That'd be cool. During the Clinton years, I always had to change the channel whenever Slick Willie came on. I would usually read what he said later, but just couldn't watch it. It was too difficult to have him look me in the face and lie to me, but reading his speeches was more like reading a fiction novel so I was usually less offended.

Now Bill's wife-- when she talks, I have a similar reaction to hearing fingernails scraped across a chalkboard.

mantis, I'm going after JUST what Chelsea said in her e-mail. I don't recall Mary Cheney putting forward her lesbianism or pregnancy (or her partner's; I don't recall, and don't care) as a campaign issue.

Personally, I think Dick Cheney's positives would have skyrocketed if he'd reached over and smacked John Edwards during that "debate."

J.

mantis, I'm going after JUST what Chelsea said in her e-mail. I don't recall Mary Cheney putting forward her lesbianism or pregnancy (or her partner's; I don't recall, and don't care) as a campaign issue.

Well, you're right that she did not put forth her lesbianism as a campaign issue; she stopped being vocal such issues (as she was when she was when she worked as gay and lesbian outreach coordinator for Coors, and later on the board of the Republican Unity Coalition, until she left their board and joined the re-election campaign). So I guess, despite her work in politics and the private sector, since she did not say anything about it during the campaign, it's off limits.

But wait, I don't see anywhere in the letter you quote where Chelsea Clinton "puts forward" her college degrees as a campaign issue, yet you bring those up. Silly, I know, but you left yourself with very little wiggle room in your justifications.

Personally, I think Dick Cheney's positives would have skyrocketed if he'd reached over and smacked John Edwards during that "debate."

I think his positives would have gone up if he had stood up for his daughter, instead of riding the political fence. That would have taken some actual courage as an influential leader in the party, and I certainly would have respected him more. Not that I'm defending Edwards; he should have kept his mouth shut about it. I wasn't impressed with either side.

I thought Cheney's terse "Thank you for your concern about my family," was as good a rebuke as one could deliver without just whacking the pompous little silky pony.

mantis defends bringing up Mary Cheney, then says "not that I'm defending Edwards." Is he defending Kerry, then? If bringing her sexual orientation into the debates is defensible, who did it appropriately?

Where did I defend bringing up Mary Cheney? What I'm questioning is Jay's reasoning that some candidates' children are off limits, and some aren't, now amended to some aspects of some candidates' children's lives, but not others, depending on Jay's whim, I suppose.

I don't defend Kerry or Edwards bringing up Mary Cheney because it was obvious they were doing so to remind potential supporters that Cheney has a homosexual daughter, presumably thinking they would not support Bush/Cheney if they knew that. They didn't even try to be clever about it (not that I would defend them if they had).

However, the Cheney family's willingness over the years to talk at length about Elizabeth Cheney, her life and family, contrasted with their instant seething outrage whenever anyone brings up their other daughter (not because they are embarrassed or disapprove of her, but because it's politically dangerous for them to admit they don't care that she's a homosexual), I find objectionable. If I'm defending anyone, it would be reporters who ask about her (who, again, are met with smiles and stories when they ask about Elizabeth, and cold stares when they ask about Mary).

Bttm Ln:

Lk ll f . knw tht hlth cr s th mst crtcl, nd mprtnt ss fcng th mrcn ppl. Nw, nd n th cmng lctns. nd lk th vst mjrt f th mrcn ppl, wnt HR 676 (Mdcr Fr ll) pssd nt lw NW! "Sngl pr, Tx Spprtd, Nt Fr Prft, Tr nvrsl Hlth Cr" fr fr ll s rght. Lk vr thr dvlpd cntr n th wrld hs. S: < hrf="http://www.hs.gv/cnrs/nws_hr676.htm" rl="nfllw">http://www.hs.gv/cnrs/nws_hr676.htm

"HR 676:
Fr chrch grs: lss mn t nsr. cmpns nd mr t th chrch- lts mr.
Srs n Mdcr: sv w vr $100/wk. Bcs n mr mdgp, lng trm cr & dntl nsr. ndd. N mr drg blls."

Bt f w th mrcn ppl fl t brng ngh prssr n r crrnt pltcns t gt HR 676 pssd nt lw bfr th lctns. W wll hv t dntf, nd rplc ll th pltcns stndng n th w f pssg f HR 676. nd, thnk th bst frst plc t strt s wth th pltcns tht blckd th bprtsn SCHP blls fr th kds. Pssd b cngrss twc.

Bt wht bt th Prsdnt. t ws Bsh ftr ll tht blckd th bprtsn SCHP bll pssd b cngrss t ssr mr hlth cvrg fr mrcs kds. S whch f th prsdntl hpfls d thnk wll b mst spprtv f mplmntng th dmnd f th mjrt f th mrcn ppl t hv HR 676 (Mdcr Fr ll) pssd nt lw mmdtl!

W hv sm vr fn prsdntl cnddts wh wld mk gd prsdnts. Bt nn f th tp Prsdntl cnddts drctl spprt HR 676, th nl tr nvrsl Hlth Cr pln. S m spprtng Hllr Clntn. Sh s th nl tp cnddt tht hs vr ctll fght fr nvrsl hlth cr bfr.

hv nrms dmrtn, nd rspct fr Hllr Clntn. Sh fght ptchd bttl gnst vrwhlmng dds bck n 1993. T prvnt ths dsstrs hlth cr crss tht s nw dvsttng th mrcn ppl, nd mrc. Sh fght s hrd fr th mrcn ppl tht sh rsk lmst cmpltl dstrng hr hsbnds prsdnc. hvn't frgttn hr hrc ffrt. f n Prsdntl hpfl fr nvrsl hlth cr dsrvs m spprt, t's hr.

ls, f w th mrcn ppl fl t brng ngh prssr n r gvrnmnt t gv s HR 676 whch w ll s dsprtl nd NW! Thn w wll nd th mst sklld pltcn w cn gt n r sd t brkr th bst hlth cr pln fr th mrcn ppl tht w cn gt. Thgh t wll b lss thn w nd, nd lss thn w dsrv. Th pltcn thnk t bst d ths s Hllr Clntn. Th Clntn's r prbbl th mst sklld pltcns n mrcn hstr.

Th nsrnc ndstr, nd mdcl ndstr tht hs bn rppng ff, nd kllng hs gvn Hllr Clntn s mch mn bcs th fr hr. Th hv ls gvn Brck bm s mch mn bcs th fr Hllr Clntn. Th thnk th cn mnplt Brck bm gnst th bst ntrst f th mrcn ppl bttr thn th cn mnplt Hllr Clntn. Thr s n rc ss wth Hllr Clntn. Th Clntn's r th pstr fml fr hw frcn mrcns wnt wht ppl t b twrds frcn mrcns.

s lws, frcn mrcns r sffrng, nd dng n ths hlth cr crss t mch hghr rt thn n thr grp n mrc. Th lst tm thr ws n sgnfcnt drp n th frcn mrcn dth rt ws whn Bll Clntn ws prsdnt.

M fllw mrcns, r dng ndlssl t n stndng rt. n hghr nmbrs thn n thr ppl n th dvlpd wrld. Rch, nd pr lk. nsrd, nd nnsrd. Mn, wmn, chldrn, nd bbs. nd w th mrcn ppl mst stp t. nd fx t NW! Kp Fghtng!!! Nvr! gv p hp. Thr r mllns f lvs t stk. Blss ll... r dng grt!

Not been on awhile. Is this jackass-er-smith a for i in ner?

Anything Dick Cheney says about Mary's lifestyle will be taken out of context, analyzed wrongly and used as more fodder by Democrats to demonize Cheney as a hypocrite. Mantis, I don't think you're one of them, but there are boatloads of them that will. For all we know, Mary may have simply asked her father to stay out of it.

His jumping into the verbal fray over his daughter's lifestyle will make it all about him rather than advance her cause.

Apparently, they have an excellent relationship regardless of others' opinions of what she must think and what he must think. That seems to chafe some people.

He's flogged the same gross misrepresentations before, jhow66.