Sorry, Debra. You are a hero of mine, but this time we part company.

OK, so I don't know the first thing about this episode. But I will venture a guess that there was plenty of ugly on both sides of the "dispute." If Kim was not actually injured--teeth knocked out or something--why is she whining? Our society has arrived, by some insane path, at a place where people feel perfectly comfortable unleashing the most hateful speech at anyone of their choosing (employer, employee, teacher, parent, store clerk, etc.) with absolutely no fear of reprisal. The whole concept of "fighting words" seems to have been lost somewhere. Good people have, way too often, to suffer verbal abuse and disrespect from know-nothings and jerks, and smile while it happens lest they lose their job, or get sued, or get pilloried in the press. Of course, they could get a lawyer.... In my humble (and, no doubt, benighted) opinion, there are times when a backhand slap across the face is definitely called for.

I say that if MW held this person's arm (or throat) and pitched her out of her office, good. Hey, Kim, what advantage did you see in pressing an issue (with your BOSS) so hard? And, apparently, MW did not take the more expedient route of getting a company rat to get something unrelated, true or fabricated, on Kim with which she could be fired and then could be used to ruin her career. This would be the path of choice in most corporate or political settings today.

And why, when the heat had dissipated, didn't the two kiss and make up? It used to be that the "bigger" person in the fray would go apologize for "going too far," and offer to buy lunch, and the bond between the two would be strengthened. No more. Now we seek a litigator.

If the occasional shove is MW's approach to dealing with such incidents, I say, "You go, girl!" It's not like she threw Kim out of a 5th floor window. If I lived in CA, I'd proudly cast my vote for Meg.

ct-tom I must agree. We have subjected people of direction to suffer from the deriding and disrespect of those in subordinate position. If Kim had a valid grievance verbal and possibly physical confrontation would have not been necessary. Often such confrontations only make the abuser look bad, if, there are witnesses. We only have MW's version and Kim's. MW guides a big company through a fast shrinking world. She will have my support also.

I think the more important issue here is her out and out lie to the conservative voters of California. Whitman was 100% against amnesty for ILLEGAL ALIENS during her campaign and as soon as she won the primary, she ran an ad IN SPANISH saying she opposes Arizona's state bill 1070. That law is on the books in California already(from what I understand), they just don't enforce it.

Therefore, she is a liar, and has shown she will do what ever is necessary to get elected, instead of listening to the voters. I blame this one on the voters. All show and no substance. They were hornswaggled, sure, but they already fell for it once with Schwarzenegger. After all "Insanity is defined as repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result"

I left California because of the politicians. It is sad, because it is such a beautiful state, except for the bad apples.

Debra,

This is a non-issue. The episode happened several years ago. Anyone in ANY position of authority is going to attempt to make things like this go away. For $200,000 Whitman solved a problem that would have cost millions if it ever went to court.

The questions you should be asking are: 1) why didn't YOU or other conservatives know about this sooner(and ask questions about it); and 2) why did it take the NYT this long to report it? Knowledge of the alleged incident isn't the point here. The timing of the reporting is the issue. Papers, journalists, etc. report the news NOT MAKE IT. The NYT wanted to slam the darling of the female CEO cadre because she is a Republican.

Now, if this goes to temperament as an elected official; no one is qualified to hold office. LBJ was nuts and egotistical; Nixon was paranoid; Carter was OCD; Ford and Bush I were inept; Bush II was a fool who surrounded himself with larger fools; Clinton was, well what can I say; Obama is a joke who cannot take criticism. And, Clinton and Obama have Rahm Emmauel who does know why the word Mother is followed by any other word except f------- (quoting his boss the Messiah).

Debra, report the news and comment on the news. Who cares about this episode? It is a non-event.

Duke

Has Jerry Brown ever held any position that was not in the public sector or is his total resume that of a government leech?

It's on TV again.

The anti-Whitman ad that has a reporter repeatedly asking "WHY?" The fact that Whitman has a poor voting history is agrivating, but this stupid, silly, waste of money and my time every time it is played is more agrivating.

I know hundreds of people who probably have skipped a vote for one reason or another, and some who probably have skipped more than one vote. Maybe even some who have STILL never voted. That is their business, and they have no right to complain if they don't take the time to vote.

Ms. Whitman is now not just getting invloved by voting, she is running for office, and the anti-Whitman idiots want nothing more than to give us more of the same choices - tweedle dum and tweedle dee.

She sure can't do any more harm to California than 64 years of Democrats holding the majority in the State Assembly.

If this is typical of the anti-Whitman groupies, I'll vote for her just to shut them up.

I have 6 kids ranging from 2 to 27. All of them have gone thru the 4 year old "WHY" phase.

Why does this reporter and this ad choose to act like a 4 year old?

Why?

But Why"

The people have a right to know, Why?

But Why?

Why won't you tell us Why?

Why?

Why?

But Why?

I think some of you are not interpreting the story about Meg correctly - the spewing of expletives was coming from Meg and came before the shoving, not from her employee. Look around and there are any number of stories from her eBay tenure that indicate Meg has more than a bit of a temper.

I find her voting record troubling. It speaks of someone who doesn't have a long term record of living up to her civic duties, and leaves me wondering about her motivation for her recent interest in politics.

However, most troubling to me is her position on the 2nd Amendment. She has a well established anti-firearm record at eBay and PayPal, and her recent answers to questions about her policies in this area are weak and uninformed at best. In a state where the legislature kicks out several poor anti-gun bills per year I am afraid she will all too gladly sign them.

What's the alternative you ask? Frankly, Jerry Brown has a better record on this front. He wrote a compelling amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the States. Reports are he wrote the brief himself, and did this over the objections of his staff. During his tenure as AG he demoted the bureau of firearms within the CA DOJ, and has generally downplayed the focus on further gun control initiatives in favor of focusing on reducing crime. Gun control is almost ALWAYS a crutch for politicians to hold up as examples of what they are doing to fight crime, so I give Brown credit for taking on the real issues head on.

Some will ask, what about CA's financial situation? Isn't Meg the best candidate to deal with that? Frankly, I think our financial dilemna is unsolvable by any measure short of the state declaring bankruptcy. It's the only way the public employee unions will come to the table. Also, I'm not sure her experience as a CEO will necessarily help as Governor. As CEO of eBAY, when she said "jump", employees said "how high" [see above]. That's not going to be the case with the CA legislature.

I can forgive M.W. for a few things, faster than I can

forgive Jerry Brown,for a multitude of Bad Political

decisions!!! I dealt with him and didn't like any of it!

M.W. needs to protect our 2nd. Amendments right as

her first big revelation!!

Look at the two peoples records, the easy choice M.W.

Your "Older Friend", Trice Harvey

I was here when Brown was last Governor, so I'm not as young as you may think ;-).

It's easy to say "Meg needs to do this," but the reality is Meg will not protect our 2nd Ammendment rights. Her record on that front is clear and telling.

Her latest ads directed at the Mexican community tell you all you need to know about her morals and values. She is hungry for power and will do or say anything to get elected.

I have ruled out voting for her. Whether I vote for Brown or the Libertarian candidate remains to be seen.