Which part is idiotic? Claiming the characterization of Bowers as a clucking hen who doesn't understand that Bristol is off-limits is consistent with your approach to date or the part about McGruder wanting to be Condi's man? Please be more specific. Perhaps the entire idea that how policy positions, espoused by public officials, effect their families and millions of other families should be considered off-limits is idiotic?
Your question about McGruder was "do I apply the same standard of disdain for the childish "Two wrongs.." approach to problem solving to a specific example involving McGruder and Rice." My answer was that I always take that position and consider such childish truisms to be an invalid method of determining ones position. I don't know what the McGruder "Condoleezza Rice just needs a man" kick was/is so I have no opinion of it. Something on Kos perhaps? Why you imagine that rejecting simplistic thinking like "Two wrongs..." leaves one with "no actual principles whatsoever" is a mystery to me. As far as principles go "two wrongs..." seems like pretty weak tea.
I never felt having children should be a factor in having any career so I'm uncertain what sort of comment you wish to hear with regards to this "question". It isn't a question as far as I can see. "the public" can question any fucking thing they wish to question and no one needs my approval to do so. I may not have any interest in the questions asked and I may even find them rather silly and pointless but that is only my personal preference. A preference I'm quite happy to share. I would rather major media outlets cover items of substance but as we all know, they generally do not. Blogs exist to cover items of no substance (basically gossip) so I would expect insubstantial items would dominate the "news" and discussions there. Some people enjoy gossip, I don't. If you don't enjoy gossip you could steer clear of places that thrive on it. Or not.
John Thornton