I'm insulted, as an adult, that Palin talks to the American people like they're children and idiots.

I suspect that the GOP uses this kind of folksy, dumbed down populism because they have to. As the party's policies have moved further and further in the direction of benefiting the ultra-rich no matter the consequences to everyone else, there is a desperate need to put up just this kind of front--to goad the opposition into calling Republican politicians dumb hicks as they continue to push an agenda of government by and for the wealthy.

compared to Sade's "120 Days of Sodom" (which, unlike Pasolini's film, I did not make it all the way through), the movie's really tame....

Thanks to Sarah Palin in last week's VP debate, the McCain/Palin campaign is at least being honest about the fact that they're going for the stupid vote. So why would they expect Americans to know the difference between millions, billions and trillions?

I just figured he couldn't remember his name...or that he's a Senator, or any other signifier he could use...McCain really isn't in the best shape..all the more reason to fear Palin....

Ultimately, this harkens back to the traditional idea, still popular in a lot of countries, that failing to die of shame from being raped means a woman wasn't a proper lady in the first place. Glad to see the judge, at least, was a bit more evolved.

True, the national dialogue is coarse, but so are Breathed's recent sad obsessions with rear ends and underwear....

For a politician who some see as overly cool and above it all, this can only work in his favor--who doesn't love a guy who leaves a fierce campaign for a few days to spend time with his sick grandmother?

more evidence that she's begun campaigning for 2012?

Putting aside the question of whether "the maverick of days past" ever existed, if John McCain did run as that legendary moderate figure, and picked another like him--say Joe Lieberman--as his running mate, he would most likely be battling for second place with Bob Barr or perhaps some televangelist running as an independent.

McCain had to tack to the right, including taking on a far-right fundamentalist as his running mate, to keep the Republican party from splitting in half (as, let's face it, the Religious Right has shown a good bit more backbone than the left, and would never put up with a Republican equivalent of the "third way" Clintons). His big mistake was picking the wrong fundie. Has he chosen someone like Mike Huckabee--theologically in-line with Palin, but smarter and more experienced, less divisive and (apparently) less corrupt, he would certainly be doing a lot better at this point.

Jon's interviewing skills have gotten a lot better in the past few years (then, considering how poor he was, and particularly the way he just sat there in a state of awe and fear when a major political figure was present, he had nowhere to go but up).

Does she not understand the First Amendment, or is she simply against it? I'm guessing it's a bit of both.

It's hard to imagine the whirlwind of emotions inside this guy at a time like this. But, of course, a president needs to be able to press forward no matter what, and Obama is showing us right now that he's got what it takes.

something else she doesn't understand: the secret ballot means you don't have to tell anyone who you voted for; it doesn't me you CAN'T.

Back in Paglia's first stint at Salon, I found her irritating and ridiculous, as I have when encountering her narcissistic drivel anywhere, but, at that point, considering that David Horowitz was also on staff, I didn't think too much of it.

Now, with Salon a full fledge "progressive" organ...why? And, if you are trying to cater to a broader ideological spectrum, why not somebody who at least make sense? While hardly a fan of the Brooks/Kristol/Will crowd, I can at least have some respect for their reasonably coherent viewpoints. Paglia, on the other hand, is simply a clown.

The more I hear from leading conservatives about the future of the party, the more convinced I am that the real corollary to the 2008 election is not 1964, 1976, or 1992, but 1980 in reverse. We've got a popular new president with an optimistic message, a significant segment of the population saying they've regained their pride in America, and the opposition party, its ideas having been soundly rejected by the electorate, unable to do anything but criticize. Sarah Palin at this point seems perfectly poised to be the Walter Mondale of the Republican party in 2012, and perhaps Bobby Jindal will get to be its Mike Dukakis in 2016. The next Republican who actually wins, perhaps in 2020, might very well be someone closer ideologically to Susan Collins or Lincoln Chaffee than to George W. Bush.

And yet, people will continue to believe in the myth of the "liberal media."

Why?

Because the media will continue to complain to them about how liberal it is!

...considering the reaction to the pics of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan all over the web a few years ago. Personally, I was disgusted by a media so full of "what's wrong with these girls?" rather than "what's wrong with these photographers?" and "what's wrong with you for looking at this?"

It's gotta be something good. Otherwise, there's no way you'd keep publishing such pretentious garbage by this ridiculous fraud....

I mean what says "close political allies" better than one calling the other a "motherfucker" and saying "fuck" him and his people?

Was it really necessary to provide free advertising with your link to this very skanky blog?

Why does Salon keep publishing this ridiculous attention-seeking fraud?