quite simply put, barking mad.

That's batshit crazy. If you really believe that, get out of my life.

Works great for me.

of this article? AndyMc is a delusional paranoiac. Quoting him in Salon is nuts. HTF do the ramblings of this madman qualify as the anything of the day?

Next time you're struggling for a QOTD, Alex, stop in at your nearest state-run mental institution and pick any resident in the day room. I guarantee you'll find something at least as meaningful─and probably a lot more entertaining.

Quoting McCarthy in Salon gives his drivel a legitimacy─and a platform─it doesn't deserve.

Well, it was so not fine. I think the high or low point was when he shrieked at me, "You have blood on your hands!" At one point he also either told me to "Shut up" or "Be quiet," ... He called me "vile." ... It was a kaleidoscopic nightmare, a TV acid trip, and I don't do acid. It almost seems like O'Reilly does, but I don't think so. The man is driven by demons. God bless him and save him.

And just exactly what led you to believe it would be otherwise? If insanity is doing the same stupid self-destructive thing over and over again, hoping for a different result, what do we call it when we witness what happens to others when they try something like this and then imagine we can do it with different results? Delusional? Egomaniacal?

And whose mind did you imagine you might be changing? O'Reilly's? Hardly! The man is insane. His viewers? Surely not. They watch O'Reilly for affirmation of their fears and hatreds, not to have them challenged. They are information-proof.

So WTF were you doing there? As far as I can tell from the article, it all boils down to "I like doing TV." Jebus effing crust on a pogo stick, woman! What were you thinking???

You're smart and tough and articulate and spot-on on most of the important issues, so where's the good judgment to go with it? Your appearance on the Fear Factor gave O'Reilly 5 minutes of legitimacy and relevance he never would have had without it, and what did you get out of it? Slimed! (And I suppose the satisfaction of having survived it.)

Girl, the progressive movement isn't about Joan Walch. Grow up! "I like doing TV," my ass! Stop legitimizing the lunatics to tweak your own ego. Congratulations on handling it as well as you did, but shame on you for doing it.

Being a flatlander out here in the flyover part of Illinois, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know enough about the the situation in Virginia to have any sense of what this means to Virginians, but boy, howdy! let me tell you how pleased I am to see McAuliffe knocked out of there. I only hope that it ends up to be, finally, a stake through the heart of his political career. But part of what's most seriously wrong about the guy also makes it highly unlikely that it will be: he's too well connected to power.

Our obstacles to making the best choices are no longer matters of Democrats vs Republicans. The Republicans have taken care of that one all by themselves. However, one of The Bear's First Principals of Conflict states that in an intense prolonged conflict, the likelihood that the complete, sudden collapse of one of the parties will trigger the subsequent collapse of the the 'victor' party is directly proportional to the length and intensity of the conflict.

In other words, since the Republican party's response to their electoral repudiation last fall has been to become a laughing-stock, there's a very real danger of the Democrats doing the same.

If you listen to America (and I most certainly don't mean the polls), you'll hear that it's not a good idea to rush to judgment on what voters were saying when they threw out the Republicans. I mean, who are you going to vote for when your choices are between an OK but probably not thrilling Democrat and a member of the Clown Party who, if an incumbent, was likely lurking somewhere near the helm cheering as the captain sailed the ship over Niagra. Saying 'No more!' to Republican insanity is not the same as saying 'Yes, please!' to not-a-Republican, whoever s/he may be, and "May I have more, please.'

So the Democrats won. Why is nothing meaningful happening? Well, if you go back to The Bear's Principles, you'll see that in group conflict, there's always an element of what the Bear calls 'group identity ambiguity', somehow proportional to the degree of singularity of purpose that brings the group together in the first place. In simple English, there are always a certain number of folks who are in the wrong group.

As long as both sides are healthy and going at it tooth & nail, this isn't anything that can't be worked out over time. Allegiances change, people drift to the more appropriate group, others are exposed as frauds and shunned by the group, and some try to operate outside of the groups. But when the opposition group is suddenly removed from the scene, watch out! And that's where we are today in our Nation.

As often happens when the bad guys are put away, today's Democratic Party is discovering that it doesn't stand for much of anything in the absence of opposition. McAuliffe, the Clintons, the whole DLC thing represent Corporate America (with varying degrees of 'social responsibility' sensibilities, as long as it doesn't exceed corporate policy on charitable giving). They do not represent what I think America voted for last fall, and I am delighted to see my judgment ratified by the voters of Virginia.