One need not be well read, in terms of history or literature, to perform well in law school. Obama has not released his undergraduate GPA, or any of his papers.

Yes, typically one gets into Harvard Law with a low GPA. If you're going to do the whole pseudo-intellectual scthick, you should probably avoid saying such painfully dumb things.

Why don't you do a little "journalism" and find out what actual human beings think?

that their audience is not the shrill trolls and psychologically disturbed sore losers who pollute their letters section?

Europe and Canada aren't moving towards a private insurance system like we have now. That's simply not true, sorry. What they have is a public system with an option to pay out of pocket for certain treatments.

Going to international economic conferences isn't the same thing as going to Crawford, sorry. You're grasping at straws.

I don't think an internet poll from a local news web site can be considered accurate. Regardless, it's contradicted by the majority of pollsters using a sound methodology:

84.7% want health care reform: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_health_care_rwj_june_09.php

Even the ABC-WaPo poll you cite has 54% supporting the plan and the public supporting Obama over the GOP on the issue 54% to 24%. You can't call someone out of touch when they're in the majority and you're in the minority.

That [largely inaccurate] spin of the CBO's comments is several days old and has long been addressed. The debate has moved on.

Obama's approval is 2 points higher than Reagan's at the same during Ronnie's presidency. You can cherry pick polls to make any argument, though there is one consistent result in all of them: America can't stand the GOP.

"I ain't with the black guy."

from either side is silly.

It boils down to this:

It's the people, stupid.

Some people are predisposed to monogamous relationships. Some aren't. Big whoop.

Some people get along great. Some people don't. Big whoop.

Consequently, some people will be happy with their marriages. Others won't, and anyone who tries to generalize a unique and personal experience into something universal is, at best, being intellectually dishonest.

and all the deranged right-wing Obama haters look stupid once again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFkpv6SlvI

Alex, however, has no such excuse for bending over faithfully to the right-wing noise machine.

enjoy your cesspool letter writers, Alex.

There's no doubt that in von Sydow's soul-gnawing character we can detect the idiosyncratic influence of latter-day agnostic or atheistic thinkers like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard.

Helpful Tip: Don't name drop philosophers unless you've actually read them.

specifically, Ohio's Republican Senator is mired in the 30's already. Obama won't be in trouble unless a serious third party emerges.

gfr's standard of intelligence is "the extent to which one agrees with my political opinions." Truly, the sign of a great mind... or a raving narcissist. Whichever...

how such blatantly ignorant people can carry on like they know everything. Folks, Obama never proposed single-payer health care during the campaign. Not once. The only candidates who supported single-payer were Kucinich and Gravel. If lack of single-payer was a deal breaker for you, you should have voted for Nader or McKinney. Contrary to the talking point robots who dominate Salon's decrepit letters section, there are no broken promises, just unjustified assumptions from people who should spend more time informing themselves than they do complaining about some imagined "betrayal" on the internet.

when single-payer was promised (a condition for its being "abandoned")?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/16/191045/422/427/685041

Of course, by Sirota's logic, Merkeley must simply be in on the evil conspiracy.

And regarding this, from jarrettw:

"Seems that a lot the Obama Fundies are not much different than the Bush Fundies. We must not question dear leader."

Actually, it's a matter of demonstrating basic standards of intellectual honesty. Sirota's rambling insinuations are little more than the ideological reflection of a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. It seems some on the left just wanted their turn to demagogue, but those of us interested in actual solutions are tired of the Bush-era name-calling and conspiracy theorizing. It's not devotion to Obama, it's devotion to a fundamental respect for rational reflection and empirical evidence, two things that consistently run afoul of those with an ideological agenda. With that said, there is plenty of valid and rational criticism of Obama's policies, but it's not coming from Sirota. I understand the intellectual charlatans on the left are frustrated that they're no longer getting a free ride for their sloppy tripe on liberal web sites (hence, cheap and childish deflections from the likes of jarrettw), but questioning the poorly conceived questions is all part of a healthy discourse.

A quick browse of the letters history of several of the born again Naderites will reveal a fixation with Obama's race, if not outright racism (as in the case of johncp and other birth certificate tinfoilers).

which, by Sirota's flimsy logic, can only mean that he's on the evil backroom, corporate conspiracy.

Needless to say, the confluence of the most vacuous of commentators from the left and right has bolstered my confidence in the President-elect. If Sirota wishes to cater to the phony outrage addictions of the Naderites and the ever-rationalizing, racist PUMAs (who, as always, neglect to mention that Clinton herself voted for the bailout money), he is free to do so, but doing so will do to fix his burgeoning reputation for no-calorie rhetoric.

And meanwhile, the upper middle-class whiners of the internet continue to cry "no difference." The workers among us differ, but of course, politics for you all is little more than the sum of your paranoid fantasies.

It takes about a thumbnail's worth of logic to see the problem with your conflation-dependent argument. The LGBT movement isn't doing itself any favors by getting into the strawman game. You have logic on your side and that's all you need.

Yes, I've noticed stink's distinct lack of consistent principles. It's all about celebrity obsession, nothing substantive. Very stalker-ish. Very creepy.