Miles,
This series should be very interesting.
I know that I'm out of it, but could you please explain what internet neutrality means? Thanks.

I'm impressed with all the work you've done, Miles, and I have to say that I'd give about the same ratings as you have.

I'm still having a really hard time in my mind thinking that her political aspirations are based on any sort of altruism. I don't know.

I'll be interested to see what your thoughts are on everybody else.

Net neutrality addresses the issue of whether Internet (and even phone, cable, satellite, and wireless) users have free and open access to all information on the web on a fair and equal basis. In China, for example, there is government imposed non-neutrality, where access is blocked to dissident sites and sources.

In the US, the danger to net neutrality comes from the highly competitive media market. Our access to the net depends on large telecom/cable/satellite companies, which could choose to give biased service to competitor's information traveling on their net works.

So for instance, if ESPN is owned by ABC who has connections to Time Warner Cable, then TWC might enter a business relationship to serve ESPN sites and news faster than it serves Sports Illustrated. The end user would have no idea that this was happening, except that they would get the latest sports scores faster on ESPN, thus making that their sports site of choice and boosting ESPN's possible ad revenue.

You can read more by clicking the "save the net" badge in my "worthy causes" sidebar on the right. But be warned--take what you read with a small grain of salt, since there is some debate over whether such arrangements would actually generate more money than they would lose, so the market may regulate itself. Also there are all kinds of legal considerations already in place concerning free speech and federal control of bandwidth, etc. etc.

But in my opinion, I'd rather just put neutrality into law, rather than suffer through all the potential market adjustments and court battles.

I thought about posting Brooklynne addendums after Miles' report cards, but I don't want to take away from what he is doing, so I'll just use comments to give my two-cents.

1. I am not THAT conservative. Miles, you make me sound like I am dangling from the right wing. I agree that I am more conservative than you, but "much more" is pushing it. I am pro-choice and against capital punishment after all...

2. I am with Beth Ann that I just don’t think that there is much altruism in her motives. I am having a hard time trying to get past what I think is a thinly veiled psycho blind ambition that seems to drive the old girl. I mean seriously, Hillary may believe in the women’s lib movement, she did, after all, keep her last name as part of her name ha ha ha (we know her not just as Hillary Clinton, but Hillary Rodham Clinton), but at the time when American women needed her most as a leader and as a woman, she copped and appeared to just take it. HELLO! HE CHEATED ON YOU!!! American women in your situation would have liked to have had a little support from someone who knew what they are going through and could bring some attention to the fact that men who cheat should have SOME sort of consequences. Not that I think that she should have left him, because I admire her for sticking with her man and working things out, but the pessimist in me wonders if her raging ambition won out in that category too. Did she stay only to help herself politically?

3. 1992... I remember when Hillary made the comment about how she isn't much for staying home and baking cookies, and single handedly alienated every stay-at-home mom (SAHM) in America. I knew from a fairly young age that I wanted to be a SAHM and I have never gotten over her totally bashing what my forming life dream was (I was 12). To suggest that as a SAHM one would not be living a fulfilling, important, exciting, meaningful, successful life by staying at home, was and is more now that I am at home, completely absurd! (I have yet to make cookies while at home by myself with Halleigh)
It scares me to think that now we could elect this woman to be the leader of the free world. What other decisions is she going to make that will make it even more difficult to raise children and run a household on one income?!?!?!

4. There should be an emoticon throwing up in horror for how awful it is that she supports No Child Left Behind.

5. Hillary and I are just too different in too many important areas. Sorry Hill, my vote will go elsewhere. We are ready for a woman president, but not the kind of woman you are.

p.s. I am only pro-choice because I think that government should not have their nose in our reproductive business. In the end women should have their choice, their judgment should (and WILL) come from GOD, not our government.

Miles, this is fantastic! I am so disillusioned with the political process that I normally try to avoid the hoopla surrounding presidential campaigns and very sincerely wish that there could be campaign reform forbiding announcing a nomination, fundraising or debates prior one year before the election. However, I really like the "report card" style of comparision (It's usually how I do my research anyway.) and I know I'll enjoy reading more.

I'm with you on the having to overcome a general distaste for Hillary. I have had hard time even considering her seriously since I just plain don't like her most of the time.

I'm also going to unnecessarily echo Beth and Brooklynne, and say that Hillary does have a definite edge to her that makes it difficult to believe that she has altrustic or genuine motivation for her actions and also makes her quite divisive. I think that is what I worry about most with her. As brilliant as I think she is, I don't she her possessing the relationship-building skills it's going to take to shepard the United States into a new kind of foreign policy. I'm tired of the rest of the world hating us!

Wow. I am breathing a big sigh of relief to see that there is someone out there who thinks that maybe pro-choice ought to be an option. I'm NOT saying I think abortion is right, nor that I would have one myself, nor that I would encourage anyone to have one, but I just can't see how making it illegal is going to benefit anyone.

Ok, sorry to derail the topic at hand. I just had to throw that in. Back to Hillary.

Miles, thanks for the explanation on the internet issue.

I haven't decided to support any particular candidate yet, so these comments aren't coming from support or lack of support for anyone in particular. Just being a gadfly for the sake of discussion, so please don't take anything the wrong way. I really appreciate everyone's comments and really respect people being willing to engage in this conversation and put their ideas out there. I have a love-hate relationship with conversations like this one. I am SO interested in what people think, but I also often end up feeling bad somehow at the end of the convo because I feel misunderstood or because somebody gets mad, etc.

That said...
As far as our standing in the world, I think it's an interesting question about the impact that Clinton would have. There is always the argument that a woman would have more trouble representing us in foreign relations with countries that are generally disrespectful of women, but that argument might be put aside by the experiences in leadership of Margaret Thatcher, Indhira Ghandi, Angela M. of Germany, Madeline Albright, et al. (I say "might" because I don't really know enough to say this for sure.) One thing I do know for sure is that most of the world outside of America was irrationally in love with Bill Clinton, during and after his presidency. He is still amazingly popular overseas, so would that spill over to Hillary? Not sure. Would her association with the international relations rock star help her? She clearly has far less charisma than he...

AMEN on Brooke's #4. I laughed out loud when I read that one.

As far as alienating us SAHMs, I have started cutting people some slack that I once called feminazis. While I definitely believe wholeheartedly that staying at home with children and nurturing in the home is an important and worthy calling for some women, I understand that many women from even one or two generations before mine who stayed at home did not have the joy and privilege of making that choice because they didn't feel there was a choice. I know that I am much happier and content in my current role because I feel that I chose it, not that I was trapped in it. I think some of the women of the 60's and 70's pushed hard against staying at home and baking cookies in order to fight for a world where women could be whole, important, and successful if they were doing something else. Although the feminists often threw the baby out with the bathwater and did women a great disservice by not acknowledging the merits of a woman's existance on either path (thereby pitting groups of women against each other), I understand where they were coming from. I really appreciate their hard work to assert the value of women independent of their roles as homemakers since I spent much longer of my adult life so far as a single woman and as a working woman than as a stay-at-home mom. I can't imagine what that stage of my life would have been like had I been living in the 50's. Not that it's ok not to be considerate that your flippant comments might offend a big group of hard working people (more power to moms who can make cookies!)...

Do we really think that anyone who runs for President of the United States isn't full of ambition?

I don't know. Everything I've heard Fred Thompson say makes me think he doesn't have much ambition. He sort of gives off this, "Run for President? What the heck!" attitude.

My favorite quote from the election season:

Thompson handler (to unorganized reporter): The next President of the United States has better things to do with his time.

Fred Thompson: And so do I!

Oh, and for the record, Hillary's ambition is one of the things I admire most about her. It was what struck me the most while reading Carl Bernstein's recent bio of her.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only conservative person in my little world of blogging friends. I think I'm going to keep my comments to myself on this one... well, most of my comments...

1. By now I've pretty much learned not to say, "I will never 'x'," but I'm most sure I would never vote for Hillary. I don't dislike her as much as I used to, but there are just too many things I disagree with her on. All this universal health care stuff scares the crap out of me! Anyone who thinks this is a good idea, should try being in the Army for a while... you'll be whistling a new tune in no time. You get what you pay for my friends. And my husband is an Army physician!!!

2. I can't wrap my head around pro-choice. I just can't. I feel like it's condoning a horrible thing... even if I would never do it myself, I just can't say that I think it's okay for someone else. I'm actually more "less government" minded, but I just can't on this. I just can't.

3. Miles, you gave the same sex marriage thing an indifferent face... REALLY?! I'm not sure I really know you. I'm totally not cool with that concept.

4. I think I'll stop there. I don't want to get lynched.

One more thing... impressive research, Miles. Go on with your bad self. Can't wait to read the rest!

One more thing I wanted to say... The major thing I'm so confused about is this war. I feel incredibly selfish, but I just want my husband home... and I don't want him to have to go back next year... and the next year. Multiple year long deployments are detrimental to military families; I see it over and over again, and it sucks. I feel so tempted to side with these Democratic candidates who are making promises to bring our troops home. But I'm so afraid if they do that that it will only make this situation worse over there (could it get worse?). But these candidates who say, "oh well, I'll have all our troops home in 6 months," don't know what they're talking about! That is basically impossible. There aren't enough resources/equipment to move that many people in such a short amount of time. In order to get out of there, all the soldiers have to pass through the same airfields... and it get totally backed up when they are trying to just bring one batallion home! I hate it when people make unrealistic promises.

Jenny, just wanted to say that I think it's great that you put your thoughts out there. I think that is one of the best things about this post. If you can't share your ideas with your friends, even when you disagree, and bounce around ideas with them, who can you do it with?

Also, I'm with you on the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I hate the idea of the government (especially when it is mostly older white men) making decisions about a woman's reproductive rights, but I just can't get past how much I disagree with abortion itself.

Oh, and I wanted to say one more thing. I wanted to clarify on my ambition comment. Elizabeth, you are totally right. We wouldn't want someone who wasn't an ambitious, "go-getter" to run for president. However, I think you can be ambitious without being the type of person who will do anything and say anything to get what you want. I think Hillary unnerves me because, even more than most politicians, I don't feel like I could trust what she says or really even turn my back on her if I was in her circle. Anyway, just wanted to through that out there so no one would think I wanted a slacker for president. :)

Jenny, I understand where you are coming from on the abortion thing. It's not something I condone either. Believe me, I've seen the result of enough botched abortions where I work that for that reason alone I hate it. I could tell some horror stories here, but this isn't the place. Not to mention that it's taking an innocent human life! I don't see myself ever telling someone that that would be the best choice for them. Please believe me when I say I'm not pro-abortion.

I just can't for the life of me see how making it illegal is going to stop it in this fallen world. We'll be back to Drano douches and coat hangers and that will be worse by a factor of a thousand.

As for universal health care - well, so many countries have it figured out, Finland for example. Could we not adopt something from them instead of wanting all the rest of the world to do things OUR way?? I agree that the way the US gov't and VA administers healthcare now is not necessarily the best way. But what we have now is so very broken. I know in Finland, the physicians etc. don't work for the gov't per se. I'm not exactly sure how it works. I'll email my Finnish friends and see if they can tell me. One is a family practice doc over there. She ought to be able to explain things.

This discussion is very enlightening all the way around. For the record - not that it matters - I am not affiliated with any political party. I'm independent. I lean toward the Green Party more than any other, though, if I lean anywhere.

Could I add just one more thing? Thank you for calling them undocumented persons. Because they are people, not aliens.

Jenny, I think you do know me, but I think my position is more complicated than a simple yes or no. I say give to ceasar what is ceasar's, but explaining that would take a blog post of its own. Please keep in mind rule number 4! Thanks!