home

Lugar Announces Support For Sotomayor

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:14:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar released the following statement on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I have listened to the testimony of Judge Sonia Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee, carefully reviewed her public service record, and reviewed recommendations from Indiana constituents and colleagues here in the Senate. Judge Sotomayor is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and she has demonstrated a judicial temperament during her week-long nomination hearing. Judge Sotomayor has had a distinguished career of public service. She is well regarded in the legal community and by her peers. I will vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

< Ritz-Carlton, J.W. Marriott in Jakarta Bombed | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lugar Announces Support For Sotomayor | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Amazingly, in the current Senate R conference (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    Lugar is probably the 3rd most liberal member, after the ladies from Maine.

    But that has more to say about the Republican conference than Lugar.

    And, Indiana's Bayh--is he the 4th most liberal (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 03:42:14 PM EST
    among Republicans?  

    Parent
    Are you suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    that Lugar is more liberal than Bayh?  Not in my book!

    Parent
    Well, sometimes it can be hard to tell (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:18:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Okay, Bayh is the most liberal (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    when considered side-by-side with the Republicans--or maybe the second most liberal after Snowe.

    His poor dad.

    Parent

    Did the GOP members of Senata judiciary (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    committe "draw a line in the sand" as to Obama's next SCOTUS nominee?  This is the theory of AP analysis and NYT front page article (both yesterday).  The theory is it will be harder for Pres. Obama to nominate a more liberal person than Sotomayor next time around due to the GOP boxing in Sotomayor.  

    They have 60 votes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    The only thing preventing Pres. Obama from nominating a more liberal justice in the future is his own concern for bipartisanship.

    Parent
    It would help (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:47:52 AM EST
    to have Teddy Kennedy around, but otherwise, yeah.

    Parent
    You Are Forgetting (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    Apart from Kennedy and Byrd (has been ill), there is Nelson and Spector and other Ds who would not support anyone just because they are a Dem.

    Parent
    Sen. Specter will vote for Sotomayor's (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    confirmation, IMO.

    Parent
    The Question Was (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    A hypothetical about nominating someone more liberal then Sotomayer, next time. It is a given that Sotomayer will be confirmed.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#45)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    Pres. Obama will not nominate a wild-eyed liberal, because that would cause problems in the Dem caucus as you suggest.  But he could nominate someone who is very well qualified and liberal, and those Senators you cite will fall in line.

    We're not going to get Lawrence Tribe no matter what.  But we can still get a liberal.

    Parent

    Disagree? (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    There are not enough D votes to nominate an extreme liberal. Saying we have 60 votes is a strawman.

    Nothing to do with Obama and bipartisanship, imo.

     

    Parent

    I don't really know (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    what "extreme liberal" means.  Would it be difficult to find 60 votes for Justice Michael Moore, sure.  But I'm pretty sure we could get Thurgood Marshall confirmed, and that's plenty liberal enough for me.

    Parent
    Funny image. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:10:35 AM EST


    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    The strawman was about Obamas bipartisanship because we have 60 D votes as a given. Sorry to have changed the terms of Democratic Cat's original statement.

    He or she proposed someone more liberal than Sotomayer. So correct my above statement to read 'more liberal than Sotomayer' and scratch 'extreme liberal'.

    Parent

    "Sotomayor" (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:15:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Well ok (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    I believe there would be enough votes to confirm someone more liberal than Sotomayor... but I guess it depends how liberal you think Sotomayor is.  You and I might disagree on that.

    Parent
    How liberal do you think she is? (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    I couldn't really tell.

    Parent
    My impression (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    is that she is too much of a technician and a fan of precedent to aggressively move the law in any sort of leftward direction.  I still think I'll be generally pleased by her voting record, just as I'm generally pleased by Justice Breyer's votes, even though he's no wild-eyed liberal.

    All the great liberal Justices (moment of honesty here) have been willing to "just make it up" on occasion.  Sotomayor doesn't strike me as a "just make it up" kind of judge, not at all.

    Parent

    That was my impression also. But we (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    may be surprised.  She has such an amazing memory I doubt she strayed far from the advice of her coaches.

    Parent
    Well, as you know, (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    TM was an historic first pick, and was made in a liberal New Deal era and was just a couple of yrs from Congress passing those 2 major pieces of CR legislation.

    Even with that momentum behind the nom, it still took 2.5 months to get him confirmed -- quite unusual for the time.

    But Marshall's 1967 nom was, unless I'm forgetting someone, the last time a true-blue lib was picked for the Court.

    42 years.  That's a long time to go between picking a through and through liberal, and I'm skeptical Obama will go that route for pick #2.

    THough I'd be happy to have him prove me wrong ...

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:22:01 AM EST
    I saw your "42 years" argument yesterday, but I had trouble buying it, because aren't we simply noting that it's been 42 years since a Democratic President got to make a Supreme Court nomination with a big Democratic majority in the Senate?

    I mean, the only real precedents here are Clinton's 2 picks.  I think it's more pertinent to analyze whether the factors that led Clinton to seek consensus nominees are still present today, as opposed to just noting that it's been 42 years.

    Parent

    In addition, there is (none / 0) (#68)
    by dk on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    the matter of Justice Ginsburg. She may not be considered an "extreme" liberal across the board, but for her contribution, both as a lawyer and on the bench, regarding the jurisprudence of gender alone has been substantial.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#70)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    When Orrin Hatch tells you who you can nominate, you are going to get, at best, mainstream liberalish Justices.
    With 60 Dems and enough Republican Senators unlikely to vote against cloture, we have an opportunity.

    Unfortunately Obama is a centrist and corporatist himself as well as someone who wants the imprimateur of bipartisanship. I wish he'd throw caution to the wind and just go for it - but he won't.

    Additionally, the most likely next Justices to die or step down are Stephens and Ginsburg, our already most liberal Justices. That precludes the change we need.

    Parent

    I think it's always (none / 0) (#71)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    relevant to note how few have been the true-lib nominees for the Court, really going back a half century or so.  I count only TM and Arthur Goldberg who were from nom to the end of their Ct tenures, consistently lib.  Fortas, LBJ's crony, was somewhat more conservative on certain issues.

    That doesn't present much by way of strong precedent for a president considering making a true lib pick.

    As for Clinton's circumstances, there are similarities to Obama in that both were/are inclined to seek bipartisan agreement and/or avoid political confrontations with a "controversial" pick.  Though it also should be noted here that Bill initially wanted true lib Cuomo  -- and it's likely he would have cleared the senate had he not waffled and then declined the offer.

    But the senate makeup isn't substantially dissimilar from 1993 to today, except we have a few more nominal Ds.  Still plenty of corporatist centrist types who would be reluctant to offend their big financial benefactors by backing someone perceived to be anti-corporation.

    Biggest difference I see is that since Clinton, the Ct has gone steadily rightward, as Kennedy emerged as a conservative-inclined swing vote, and so the need for more ideological balance from the liberal side is far more apparent today than when Bill made his picks.

    Parent

    Brennan, Marshall and Douglas--the last (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    of the liberal Supreme Court Justices....

    I'd love to see someone like the Ninth Circuit's Richard Paez nominated....A real liberal who practiced poverty law....Perhaps now too old at 62....

    He once ruled that American companies could be held liable for human rights abuses by its overseas partners....How would he come out on torture, I wonder?

    Or, Kim Wardlaw of the Ninth Circuit.  Former O'Melveny partner.  Her mom is Mexican American.  Good paper trial on feminist issues....At 55, still young enough.

    You want real liberals, we got a deep bull pen of them here on the Ninth Circuit.

    Parent

    I do not think I used the word (none / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    "extreme."  If he nominates an "extreme" liberal then, yes, I agree the nominee would not get through.  But not all liberals are as liberal as I am, so I'm confident he could find a well-qualified one for whom the caucus would vote.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    More coffee for me..  see above correction.

    Parent
    No worries (none / 0) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    In the end, even some of the Republicans on the committee pronounced her as "mainstream" (to cover themselves on their vote, certainly), so I think maybe we can push a bit more leftward.

    Parent
    Agree about little chance (none / 0) (#52)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    of what I would call a "lefty" liberal -- not only because of too many timid and corporatist Nelsons and DiFi's in the Dem caucus, but because Obama doesn't strike me so far as a president willing to go for the very bold stroke.

    As for Larry Tribe, we're not going to get him not because of his ideology -- which has been increasingly moderate and centrist and uncontroversial in recent years -- but because of his age.

    Parent

    How so? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    They said Sotomayor is the most liberal judge since Douglas.

    Parent
    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    I'll be happy if she's as liberal (and thoughtful) as Souter.

    Parent
    Don't they always say that? (none / 0) (#9)
    by coigue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:43:09 AM EST


    Parent
    My point exactly (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    What in the hell are they going to say if Obama picks Pam Karlan next?

    Why "most liberal activist pick ever."

    Elena Kagan? Same.

    Hell, CASS SUNSTEIN. Same.


    Parent

    All caps, aaaaaah! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:48:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Apparently Sunstein is not "he will (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    not be named."

    Parent
    Like Voldemort? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    <snark>

    Parent
    Like Linda Chavez. I'm not an HP fan. (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    Although I the actor who plays Voldemort played Lucky in Waiting for Godot, which I just saw. What a sad sack.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:37:04 AM EST
    I think yoi're missing a great story!  Written for children, but a whole lot of adult material and political intrigue within the subtext.  Can be read on several different levels by different ages of readers.  :)

    Parent
    I listened to the first book on CD and (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    enjoyed it.  

    Parent
    Hell, Americans voted for (none / 0) (#20)
    by coigue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT ever!!

    What did they expect?

    I think their record is broken.

    Parent

    I'm wondering if the AP and NYT (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:08:39 AM EST
    writers actually watched the hrgs. or just watched the GOP Senate committee members talking on CNN during the breaks.  I did not perceive the GOP questioners drew any lines in the sand.  

    Parent
    craig crawford (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    says the opposite.  I think he might me right.

    President Obama is free to go hard left with his next Supreme Court appointment. That's the lesson of the failed attacks on nominee Sonia Sotomayor during this week's Senate confirmation hearing.

    Parent

    Who is "they"? (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10:28 AM EST


    Parent
    They have little power in this matter (none / 0) (#11)
    by coigue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:43:54 AM EST
    at present. They can draw all the lines they want.

    Parent
    From the Salt Lake Tribune (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    home paper for Sen. Orrin Hatch....

    Link

    That was a very good cartoon (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:13:33 AM EST
    and oh so true.

    Parent
    I was (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    actually amazed that the SLC paper printed it....

    Parent
    The Salt Lake Tribune is the liberal paper (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:33:03 PM EST
    in Utah.  The Mormon Church owns the Deseret News...

    Parent
    LAT: today's article on the hearings (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    made a good point re empathy.  Near the end of the hrg. yesterday, after the NRA reps. testified, the Senators were asking Sotomayor to remember their gun-toting constituents when she decides whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the states.

    Parent
    Graham (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:15:36 AM EST
    will be next

    And no attempt will be made to block her (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:17:34 AM EST
    Senate Republicans announced they will not attempt to block the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The full Senate confirmation vote is expected by August 7.

    The committee has scheduled a Tuesday meeting to begin considering the nomination, with a formal vote likely the following week because Republicans expect to ask for extra time to review answers to written follow-up questions they will submit to her today. The committee's vote serves as a recommendation for the rest of the Senate, which is likely to hold its final roll call on Sotomayor by Aug. 7.


    I wouldn't be surprised if at (none / 0) (#4)
    by dk on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:19:18 AM EST
    least half of the Republicans senators ended up voting for her.

    agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:20:32 AM EST


    Parent
    42 voted against Alito, though (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    that was a symbolic vote, because many of those 42 voted for cloture.

    Parent
    Well, 42 Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by dk on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    rightfully voted against Alito because he is a far-right conservative.  It's just too bad more didn't.

    Sotomayor seems quite middle of the road.  I would imagine that other than the die-hard racists (which, astoundingly, could be up to about half of the Republicans in the senate) the rest realize this.

    Parent

    More should have voted against cloture (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    But then, more should have opposed Roberts.

    Parent
    that was terribly (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by coigue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    disappointing.

    Parent
    Once they voted for cloture, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    their vote against Alito was pretty useless. Symbolic votes did nothing to keep the SCOTUS from having a far-right conservative majority.

    Parent
    Regional Party (none / 0) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    In spite of the Southern Republican's, there are some within the party that have realized that (with the ever changing demographics in the country), the Republican party is in serious jeopardy of becoming a totally marginized party.

    The hearings were an embarassment to their party. I just hope the voters around the country paid attention.

    It's summer! The voters (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oldpro on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    around the country are not 'paying attention.'

    You can take that to the bank.

    Paying attention all year long used to be the job of the press...in my youth...

    Never thought I'd hear myself say this but I am beginning to hate 'change.'

    Parent

    Rep. Serrano (D-NY) sd. his (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    aide told him people in his district were having "watching" parties.  Lots of Latino pride.  

    Parent
    I think that Latinos (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    around the country are paying attention to this and that is the group that the GOP needed not to offend. Poor judgement on their part but I guess they couldn't help themselves.

    I'd be interested in how Spanish speaking U.S. TV and radio stations are covering this. Anyone know?

    Parent

    I plan to debrief the 11 year old Latino (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    boy I tutor.  I'm sure he wasn't glued to the TV during the hearings as I was but I'm wondering if the nomination is on his radar. Hope so.  

    Parent
    Women too (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:44:17 AM EST
    The women I know are also paying close attention. The republican Senators have hurt themselves with women with their condescending attitude.
    It is funny to me: I expect Graham with end up voting for her but he came across as so smarmy that he will have to stay a southern Senator for the rest of his life.

    Actually, I believe all minorities have taken note of the attitude that white males are unbiased and that any minority Judge is suspect.

    Parent

    Oh, yes. Women's listservs (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    are having interesting exchanges, you bet.  And for academics among us, it's all more material for courses on women's history this summer and to come -- as if we needed more for discussions of relevance after all of the riches bestowed upon us by Obama and others in the 2008 campaign.  

    At the same time, btw, there was a decided drop in enrollments in gender studies courses, nationwide.

    The next generation got the clear message that women don't matter.  (But, btw, Af-Am and other race studies areas went up.  The next generation also got the message that race matters.  As to whether ethnicity matters, a la the Sotomayor hearings, it will be interested to watch  enrollment in Hispanic studies.)

    Enjoying your comments here, Carolyn.

    Parent

    IMO too many women helped (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    create and reinforce the message that women don't matter. When women attack other women based on their gender or stand by quietly while the attacks are going on, they share part of the blame.

    We have seen the pride in the AA and hispanic communities. It is a shame that the same level of pride is not shared among women.

    Parent

    Well, certainly. But to be fair (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    it's simply unrealistic to get more than half of all of the people in the country to act in concert, isn't it?  Even all males don't all do so, and there are fewer of them than there of women.  Even all white males don't all do so, thank heavens, and there are even fewer of them.  So few, of course, as some of those Senators and witnesses remind us, that white males are an endangered species.:-)

    Then again, those are the sorts of white males who may want to see women acting in lockstep, like The Stepford Wives.  If we're going to celebrate diversity, we have to accept that there will be diverse views among women.  That's fine.

    I think what you're talking about is actually attacking other women, as women?  That's different.  And the reasons why some women do so. . .   But again, I certainly know AAs and Hispanics who do so against their own, sadly, and for as many strange and sometimes psychological reasons, I suppose.

    Parent

    Here's an article for your women's (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    studies class: NYT on Hillary Clinton

    Query:  is a picture worth a thousand words?

    Parent

    Thanks, yes, that "kerfuffle" (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    the other day already has been bookmarked for my files.

    So once again, with Gibbs' "oops," we are faced with the question of whether the Obama White House is dissing Clinton or is just incompetent.  Well, that sort of message it sends certainly suggests that its message manipulators are incompetent.

    Parent

    See these photos from (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    the All Things Hillary Website.

    And, there have been photos of Cheney doing the same thing--standing and watching a press conference at the White House....

    Why did the NY Times publish that one photo to the exclusion of the others?

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    The point of the article is that Hillary is being marginalized. It was illustrative.

    If there was an article about CHeney being marginalized the NTY would have had printed a similar pic.

    Parent

    Obviously (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    The position of the writer/editor is that Hillary has been marganalized. Ergo the picture.

    I will go with what Hillary says on the issue of her being marganalized: BS, it's a non issue.

    Parent

    Sells newspapers--or maybe not. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:32:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    Sensationalizing a non story. Also, I do not believe that the photo had anything to do with gender, per se. The point of the photo was to match the story content. Were the story about a male, the photo would have been similar, imo.

    Of course there is rich material for any women's studies when it comes to Hillary in general.

    Parent

    She was stanindg next to Rham Emanuel (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    See the other photos.....Just the press trying to stir up trouble...

    Parent
    It would have been interesting, then (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    to hear his explanation, as WH Chief of Staff, for its screwup of her speech!

    Parent
    Oh well (none / 0) (#36)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:35:54 AM EST
    Ive always been accused of being naive. Maybe the Democrat's will remind everyone just how bigotted (and hypocritical) the Republican Party is! (snark)

    Parent
    Dick Lugar (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    with John Warner's retirement, now my favorite Republican in the Senate!  Of course, there are not many names on the short list.

    Lugar (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    The next D renegade? He also is fine with Dawn Johnsen.

    Lugar Announces Support For Sotomayor | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment