"Derb" should look in a mirror and ask himself where he was the last eight years as "conservatism" was hijacked by the religious whack-jobs, the power-hungry "anything goes" types, the crooks (e.g., Tom Delay, Abrahmof, Stevens, etc.), and the members of the cult of personality of their Leader, George W. Bush (Hello, Kathryn-Jean Lopez!).

Conservatives have no one but themselves to blame for their current debacle. I frankly have no sympathy at all.

So Thomas, respectfully, now that Obama has won with the South, and Howard Dean and Obama's "50 State Strategy" has been vindicated, will you be--I'm trying to think of a good way to say this--eating a little crow? David Kurtz of TPM Media had a nice one: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/243109.php. Maybe you could bring one forth as well?

Actually, Salon's own Thomas Schaller was pretty insistent that the 50-state strategy was a bad idea, and that the Democrats should concentrate on winning without going to the South at all. This turned out to not be the case, and pretty spectacularly, I think.

Maybe it's unfair of me, but I've really been hoping that Schaller would revisit his premise in light of the election results. Not as a gotcha, but a compare/contrast kind of thing.

Well, instead of that, Alex, why don't we start a "Jews for Bacon" movement. I'd join. My rabbi, too. (One never knows what those crazy UC Santa Cruz graduates will do.) That would make a cool T-Shirt, don't you think?

Thomas, thanks for the look back and the summation. I was wondering, though: you were fairly adamant that the "50 state strategy" was a bad idea. It would be great if you could address that point specifically in light of these election results.

That was tremendous, Andrew.

If the Democrats don't get to 60 in the Senate, what on Earth is there that would make them want to keep Lieberman in the caucus? Once the votes are all counted, can we please consign him to the dust bin whence he belongs?

Molly Ivins used to call him "Governor Good-hair." It embarrasses me that my fellow Texans continue to elevate such boorish clods to high office. But hey, Texas: it's like a whole 'nother country!

After more than 20 years of genuine experimentation using his theories, Laffer has been spectacularly disproved. Why on Earth should anyone take this guy seriously?

His theories sounded asinine when they were first proposed around 1980; they sounded asinine when they were being used in the Reagan and Bush I administrations while massive debt was being run up while real incomes on the middle class were remaining flat; they sounded asinine when Clinton passed his budget over the "no" votes of every Republican in Congress, causing the longest economic expansion we've ever had; and they sound asinine now?

Laffer and Bill Kristol should form a consulting company. "Kristol and Laffer Consultants: We have to right one of these days; maybe it'll be for you!"

So, let's see:

1) Since the vast majority of America supports things "the Left" has been advocating for a long time (e.g., universal healthcare, getting out of Iraq), what exactly constitutes this "far Left" that O'Reilly is talking about? (Maybe when you're so far right, the center looks far left?)

2) O'Reilly hasn't really gotten out much if he thinks that San Francisco is the most "radical left government"-run city in America. Has he been to that town in Vermont that voted for impeachment? Has he been to Santa Cruz? (He should go to Humbolt; if ever a guy needed to smoke a lot of dope, it's O'Reilly.)

3) Ooo! Pot smoking! Next up: Heroin!

4) Where did this "producer" go, anyway? Did he spend his entire time in the Haight, or did he actually go up to Twin Peaks, or out to the Mission or the Sunset (which might as well be suburbia, honestly)?

5) "There's this enlightened attitude." Quelle horror! Enlightened people! We can't have any of those in traditional America!

And in closing let me just say: what is it with these guys and marijuana? Jealously? Fear? I just don't get it.

I've been surprised by the blowback from some folks about Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State. If you want to look at it from the "Hillary Positive" view, it gives her a high-profile cabinet position of high visibility, where her world traveling history can be well utilized. And if you look at it from the "Hillary Paranoid" view, it gets her out of the Senate, and keeps her from making mischief.

I think both P.O.V.s are a bit overblown, but I personally think it's a fine pick. (Not, of course, that anyone's hanging out waiting for me to weight in on it, of course.)

But if you still have doubts, think about this: David Broder and Tom Friedman both think it's a bad idea. All we need to make it unanimous is Bill Kristol weighing in against Hillary, and then we'd know she was the perfect choice.

As others have pointed out, it's an Audi, not his "trademark BMW." Since the Audi has now appeared in two "Transporter" films, and the BMW only one, one must assume this is now Frank's trademark car.

Also, his cars have never had any "gaudy weaponry"; they're just cars. The only enhancements they've had are the ignition code sequence, a pile of cell phones in the glove box, and a whole lot of weapons in the trunk (humorously unused in "Transporter 2;" Frank only goes into the trunk for a new shirt, tie, and jacket, of which several are carefully stowed in plastic with the guns, knives, brass knuckles, and so on--a nice sight gag).

Finally, it's "Tarconi," not "Tarkoni."

Of such sour notes are an otherwise excellent review made somewhat clunky.

Can we please boot Lieberman off his committees and strip him of his seniority now?