Funny, all the pundit's talking about how it will be tough for Biden to debate a woman.  He debated the best female politician this country has ever seen; Hillary.  But after giving it some thought, i think i have the debate question to get every woman thinking.  It's a play on the famous question asked to Dukakis.

"Mrs. Palin, If your 13 year old daughter was raped, Do you think she should be forced to birth the rapist's child?"

With all the hullabaloo about white democrats willingness to vote for a black man, I am waiting for the hundreds of articles written about republicans willingness to vote for a women.  The party that despises the word "tolerance" and the party's major constituent, white men from the south.  Are they really happy with this pick? Does this really fire up the party's base?

In my opinion, i would imagine the group of republicans unwilling to vote for a woman is greater than any democrat unwilling to vote for a black man PLUS any disillusioned Hillary voters who voted for hillary only because she is a woman.

I was reading about the success of the Democrats passing a bill to reform ethics and lobbying, when I realized how small misleading statements could give someone false conclusions.  In the first paragraph of the article Senate Approves Tighter Rules on Ethics and Lobbying, the NYTimes write:

...with an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats agreeing to better police the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists.

I immediately thought that this was poor writing and poor storytelling.  Even though I knew it was a great moment for the Democrats, I got the impression that Republicans passed the bill and deserve the credit. By mentioning the Republicans first, the writer lets the reader think this was a republican success. In addition, by saying "an overwhelming majority" before saying Dem or Repub, one might come to the conclusion that this was a bipartisan effort and bipartisan deflection.

If i could correct the NYTimes, i would write:

... with Democrats and an overwhelming majority of Republicans agreeing to better police the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists.

Doesnt that sound better?  Isn't that closer to the truth?  Am i crazy and over reacting, or is this the subtle bias that has plagued the Democrats for years?    

Quick thought! What happened to the Party of Family Values?  I havent heard the Republicans or Media use the term since Foley, Haggert, Schiavo, Gannon or Vitter.

The Democrats flipped the script on the Republicans last week.  Its about time.  Ann Coulter made outragous statements as usual, and the Democrats made the Republicans criticize her.  This is an amazing stratagy that the republican's use all the time against the dems to turn themselves on eachother and to make them less credible.  

Now the tables have turned, but lets see if the Dems could keep it up.  The Dems need to stop just going after Bush and go after all Repubs.  the need to say "do you agree with the Republican stratagy to send soldiers to battle without the proper training and gear?".  "Do you agree with your fellow republican when he says we should avoid any and all muslims in congress?"

I have a simple idea for the democrats.  Clinton, Obama, and Biden should sit down together and work out a plan/solution/consensus.  I can't even comprehend what kind of statement this would be for the democrats.  It would show leadership and a plan from the presidential candidates and for the Democratic party.  The media would not be able to control themselves.  All the time they discuss what this means, they will be saying "the Democratic plan to end the war".  I think it could be historic and it could gain such momentum that it would put pressure on all the dems to unite, the media to report, the republicans to vote, and the voters to pay attention.