Author: Scott Lemieux
Dahlia Lithwick infers them:1. It’s not sexism if it's women trashing women.2. Writing by women about women need not be held to the same critical or analytical standards as writing.
That explains why there's nothing resembling a vote count in the Texas caucuses. I believe that the operative words are "in" and "ept."
You may recall John Pomfret claiming that the embarrassing Charlotte Allen editorial he published was just "tongue-in-cheek." (Exactly what the column was satirizing Pomfret left obscure.) Alas, Allen herself doesn't.
Kevin Drum, citing 1968, says that Democrat's needn't panic. I don't really buy the historical analogy for a reason that can be summed up in two words: George Wallace. Without.
It looks increasingly likely: Obama, assuming something like his 10-point lead in the Texas caucuses holds up, will win Texas by the metric that actually matters for determining the nomination.
Ohio finally called for Clinton.It also looks increasingly like she'll narrowly win the vote in the Texas primary -- when was the last time that an updated vote count significantly.
Great. I wonder how many children will get seriously ill because John McCain encouraged their parents not to vaccinate them based on crank pseudo-science?
Armando, like several commenters, isolates this passage in the Jeffrey Rosen op-ed I blogged about yesterday and uses it to reject the entire analysis:Mr. Obama . . . is not.
