As always, you’ve written a great column. As a conservative, I appreciate your rare and logical brand of liberalism. But since kudos are somewhat boring to read, and even more boring to write, I here zoom in on the ironic flaw in your otherwise tasty slaw: "But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism." It is ironic because it is Obama's citizenship that is being questioned, rightly-- at least not frivolously so, by some. Also, I don't think a person who won by means of a billion dollar campaign (yeah, I know, $100.00 at a time, right) backed by low blows thrown by the refs -- media divas such as Katie Curic, and Charlie Gibson, could possibly be classified as a citizen president. Your implication that Obama is a citizen president touches a raw nerve – raises a flag – gags me with a spoon -- it’s just not right.

First of all, what's with the bigotry? Secondly, why is a liberal agreeing with Rush that Pelosi is crazy?

Don't let the Teeny boppers get you down.

You are right when you say Obama's rating being below 50% if the media was critical as it was with Bush. If it were, I think his rating would be around %23, the amount of left wing liberals in the population.

But what I find interesting is his use of the teleprompter -- I think the man has a serious brain disease and they are going to cover it up. You know, like the kind of disease where you can't walk, but can dance, can't talk, but can sing or read. Watch carefully -- Obama is not all there at all—his “concerned” look is really a look of “what is happening to my mind?”, but his vicious carnivorous insider supporters will never give up this presidency because of a mere inability of the president to think straight.

The insanity of many responding to Paglia's assertion that Rush has a right to speak has me wondering; is the current administration of the Paglian or the Nutcakian branch of liberalism? I sadly suspect the Nutcakes rule.

I find the nature and character of the liberal commenters to be worthy of study. Whenever we read of some heinous act by government or individual, contemporaneous or historical, we inevitably wonder who could do such a thing. The answer is in the comments of Salon.

We also must wonder what affect the comments have on other Salon writers. Could it be that, in at least a small way, their views are the result of fear engendered by the menacing comments of plainly unstable commenters.

The captious argument that Rush wants Obama to fail, therefore he is wrong, has reared its ugly head. Which leads me to ask, if Hitler had just won the election, would you want him to succeed? And is success something we want even if it briefly improves economic indicators, but at the cost of fundamental freedoms-- and long term failure—if it results in the complete socialization of America? I know your answer: Yes. But those possessing their full faculties would disagree. Something liberals fail to realize is that in every aspect of life that the government intrudes into -- pays for with your own or someone else’s money -- personal choice in that aspect is attenuated, and ultimately eliminated.

Why is Klytus allowed to continue posting filth and vulgarities? He certainly isn't helping his cause.

Oh, maybe I was mistaken. Maybe all the rancor is about the Brazilian singer.

NOT!

The link you are looking for is this article and the plainly insane liberal responses to it.

At least you admit you are a boy. Keep posting, you are only helping liberalism. Ha.

The internet provides us with a window into the minds of liberals, or, maybe, alcoholics, syphilitics, and drug addicts that was previously only seen by silent witnesses residing under their little familial tyrannies -- children and spouses, no doubt verbally and physically abused. Imagine being a child of one of these cruel and obscene fellas.

For some manifestations of mental illness, expert testimony is hardly necessary.

Is that allowed under the user agreement?

Katie Curic!

Tada

How do I report it? I'm new. I just got here from the Drudge Report.

I never would have guessed. I've never seen that capitalization. Fame is fleeting, especially when it is founded on quotas.

Don't overrate your predictions. My guess is anyone here that is sane came from drudge-- or regularly reads Paglia -- love the Katie diss. Most of the time this place is just a bunch of libs flippin each other's soy burgers.

Just want to draw attention to the readers. I think the obscene posts should stay. I insist.

I answered your question. You don't like the answer. I expected that. Next time, I'm applying the antiseptic cream as Mary has suggested.

All the upset libs are upset because Camile defended Rush's right to speak. It's that simple. If you can't see that, it's because you lack perception. Here is your link - here.

What we are witnessing is the response of those holding a belief without reason. Because they are unable to articulate the rational for their belief -- the have no rational, but they have a belief, they get frustrated when someone disagrees and argues against their position. It is a suffering of the mind -- psycho (mind) pathy (suffering), the genesis of which is (pathogen), I believe, some sort of virus. Really. It could be herpes.

According to Webster's New Priority Edition, "just" means a time period between zero and twenty-four hours.

How to keep a liberal occupied... turn page...

Thanks for walking into it.

The Oxford, New World International Edition defines "Just" as anything under 48 hours- especially when pertaining to a Salon letter.

New world trumps priority anyday.

I hope Camile is reading this nonsense, but she's probably busy preparing a butt paddle for Charlie Gibson.