"I get it. Ann writes something, you disagree with, and instead of shredding her logic, you flop the Midol card."
Ann wrote a shrill screed notable for the absence of any real factual or logical content. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Generally, fact-free and logic-free shrill screeds from women are a symptom of, ahem, "female problems."
"I hafta admit, I was with her until THAT. The power of your argument has won me over! She's just a crazy chick, right?"
If she isn't a crazy chick, she's doing a fine impersonation of one.
I agree that she wrote an opinion piece. Of course, so did you, and everyone else here. That's the problem! Bush could have picked someone with facts behind them. Then, we could all discuss facts. But he picked a nobody (in the public record sense). She is not one of the top 100 legal minds in this country, by anyone's standards, and that would seem to be a logical place to start when you are filling a job that only 8 other people in the country do.