Both of these parties, as currently structured, are heading to the same place; the only difference is that Dems may take longer to get there.

I am curious about a couple of things, Jeralyn: what role do you see the Congress taking in all of this?   Do you see them rubber-stamping nominations regardless of which party holds the WH?  Do you see Dems putting up any kind of resistance to radical Romney nominees?  Do you see Dems putting up any resistance to too-conservative Obama nominees?

The real test will be what happens when conservatives get the chance to replace liberal justices, and vice-versa; do you really see Obama using that opportunity to shift the Court to the left?  Or do you see the centrist, post-partisan president trying to split the difference?

I just don't care about social security anymore it's not my problem.  It's the elderly's fault they keep voting for to eliminate it.

Voting for women is the answer, really, off the top of my head the women in Congress, at least the Senate seem to pretty damn conservative, certainly they aren't any more friendly to women's rights beyond the same nonsensical lip service men give.

And I don't mean this offensively, but the attitude of your post is exactly the reason why IMO women's rights are being eroded, no one else thinks it's worth the effort, and to read a woman who could care less about the rights she enjoyed now that she doesn't need them anymore, well that to me is simply pathetic.

Maybe you should venture over to the right and convince those folks to take your stand of indifference, it would certainly be far more effective.  Get them to vote for all the women running and blow off all the issues that don't directly effect them.

But more to the point, regarding women's rights, Hawaii was the very first state to statutorily enshrine a woman's right to reproductive freedom, back in February 1970 -- some two years before before the Supreme Court undertook to hear the case of Roe v. Wade.

Hawaii was also the very first state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which was then enacted locally by the legislature when it stalled during its ratification drive.

Because Hawaii has traditional the highest percentage of mothers in the nation who are in the workforce (due to our high cost of living), Hawaii was the very first state to provide universal after-school care in public schools for children of working parents, with its A+ program.

Further, Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who was my former boss, is renowned nationally as the author of Title IX (since posthumously renamed the Patsy T. Mink Act after her death in 2002), which compelled educational institutions throughout the land to provide equally for girls and women the same educational opportunities and programs previously afforded almost exclusively to boys and men.

I'm proud of my adopted home state's legacy in pioneering women's rights and championing women's issues. But given your perverse logic, I suppose that I could say that because I'm a man, I really don't give a phuquing $Hi+ about women's issues and equal rights, because as a he-man manly male, it doesn't affect me personally.

But you know what? I can't, because I was the son of a working widowed mother, and I have two daughters who are just now coming of age I am not going to stand idly by and allow the mysogynists, ignoramics and the cynics amongst us to undermine their opportunities over the course of this lifetime.

You best wise up, Teresa. There are no blue fairies who are going to wave their magic wands and instantly cure the ills of this land. Despite our best efforts, the poor will always be amongst us, as will misogyny and bigotry.

Does this mean, then, we should stop fighting because we're not getting our way -- or worse yet, engage in random political sniper fire against those flawed human beings / politicians who are nominally on our side?

You need to learn to see the forest for the trees. Why must perfection always be the enemy of the otherwise good and decent? As my late grandfather used to tell us, life is hard -- but it gets a whole lot harder if you're stupid.

Those angry for Obama not being a liberal crusader who are sitting out the election in protest or wasting their vote on a third party are enabling the creation of exactly the kind of society they claim to be passionately fighting against.

The point you don't get is that Obama himself with his PPUS junk has pretty much enabled the GOP. If Obama had AT LEAST put a line in the sand on an issue and said NO then there would be a lot less of this kind of stuff going on. Instead what we get is people rolled under the bus and things like Stupak which he didn't even need to do. Obama does not have people's back and has shown that he cannot be trusted to hold steady on any issue. He apparently will listen if you spend literally years like the gay lobby did bending his ears.

Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan after Bork's nomination failed in the senate and his second nominee, Douglas Ginsberg withdrew after admitting to using marijuana. Kennedy got through the senate by 97 to O.  However, Kennedy has been, overall, reliably conservative with forays into moderation, becoming a swing vote on many matters since Sandra Day O'Connor retired.  Kennedy has been enlightened in the area of gay rights.