I'm only on page 29 but already I've had to sit through several pages of right wing trolls unable to answer the question the article poses. They either try and deflect by trying to draw attention to Obama's shortcomings (something Salon addressed back when it was kissing Hillary's butt, in case you missed it), Some were directly racist (the "buckwheat" reference) and some had the striaght up balls to admit that yeah, it's just about abortion for them. Making me question whether or not they should even be allowed to vote. Others just went out of their way to avoid answering the question altogether, Teleologicus, I'm looking in your direction.

The only common theme I have noticed among these people, the ones who actually try and put up an argument anyway, is that all their reasons appear to be purely emotional. Thinking doesn't appear to factor into it. No, intellect isn't the only thing that matters but by the look of it, it doesn't matter to you guys at all. If we think your stupid, this is why. I would rather have an asshole that thinks before he makes decisions then somene who is nice but doesn't bother to consider things that conflict with her religion.

Saying you can relate to her and that she seems like you tells me nothing about her ability to fix the countries problems. And for all those who think she won on Thursday, every poll outside of Fox says otherwise. For good reason, she didn't bother to answer any of the questions put directly to her. Now if Obama did that, how outraged would you be?

As for all those who blame the democrats for the financial mess (another deflection tactic) I don't recall Barney Frank or anyone else holding a gun to these banks forcing them to hand out martgages to people they knew couldn't pay them back and then taking bets on whether or not they would. I do recall, however, these same, no doubt mostly repoublican voting, institutions begging the government to bail them out.

Still just emotionalist bullshit that doens't answer any real questions and just throws the word "elite" around without any real context. Nice to see joe was right.

The cons say she's "folksy" and they can "relate to her". Well, gee, that tells me nothing about her ability to solve the countries problems now does it? Nor have any of you shown that YOU are qualified to be leader of the most powerful nation on Earth so why would I care if you can relate to her?

They say she opposes abortion. Well, if that were the only issue in this election that argument might mean something. But for most of us, abortion was resolved in 1973 and we see no need to keep digging up what should be a dead issue.

They say they like her faith. I don't really see how beleiveing the world was created 6000 years ago has any relevance to solving complex problems but I could see how it would get in the way of listening to advice that contradicts what you want to beleive. Not exactly a strength now is it?

Finally they like to point out that Obama has just as little experience. Well, I guess I have to give you that one but then if experience is being taken off the table as a qualification to be leader the that only leaves judgement doesn't it? So let's look at Sarah Palins judgement vs. Obamas.

Obama knew he needed to show he understood he was a little green so he nominated Joe Biden to be his running mate. Palin had to be reminded BY BIDEN during the debate that the mullahs are the ones who actually run Iran. This after she already tried to change the subject when the housing crisis came up and even said before the debate began that she wasn't going to answer any questions directly.

Now,does that make her stupid? Not necessarily, but it does show she doesn't have the ability to deal with complex problems after being given A WEEK IN ADVANCE TO PREPARE FOR THEM! So which party is really overlooking their candidates lack of qualifications?

You don't like being called stupid but your reasons for supporting your candidates are all emotional or religious. Not exactly showing sound judgement are you?

I would love to hear an Orrin Hatch or any other conservative explain how going after the porn industry in general isn't a direct contradiction of their entire philosophy.

This might be funny if it weren't for the fact that most cons are STILL blaming regulation for the crisis. Somehow in their minds, Barney Frank and Fannie May held a gun to the banks heads and forced them to give mortgages to people they knew couldn't pay it back. And then take bets on whether or not they would.

This is an actual article from my local paper:

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081009/BLOGS09/81009018

I too was of the impression that the public was so stupid they would fall for the smears and queers tactic again but I guess they're starting to figure out that there are more important things then whether or not two guys marry each other and if Obama has a flag pin or not. Let's hope hte politics of symbolism is dead once and for all but I'm not counting on it.