Thrasybulos -- sadly, you're a perfect example. There's lots of proof and evidence out there, you just choose to ignore it or disbelieve it.

According to your logic, there must be something damning in Sarah Palin's medical records because she hasn't released them, even though all the other candidates have. By your logic, she must be hiding something! Why isn't the media writing about it? Why aren't you calling for an investigation? Some people [not me] believe that Bristol Palin is actually Trig's mother and that her current pregnancy is a hoax. By your logic, I should demand you prove otherwise!

You're basically arguing that the fact that something hasn't been investigated *proves* that there's something to hide, when really it might just mean *gasp* that there's nothing to investigate.

So sad that he literally gave his life for his candidate. I hope the people of Nevada honor his hard work by turning out in droves for Obama and that one of the first things president-elect Obama does is honor his sacrific by speaking at the funeral.

Ever since she burst onto the national scene, people have been saying that Sarah Palin is stupid. Clearly she isn't -- she's obviously intelligent, although not in an academic sense. What she is, though, is wilfully ignorant. She doesn't think it's important to know anything that's outside her existing narrow realm of experience, and she sneers at anyone who does. And that, I think, is what drove the college-educated voters (and a lot of the conservative intelligentsia) away: the idea that ignorance is a virtue.

And the right-wingers who are still yammering about bringing the party back by getting back to their "base" are just as wilfully ignorant. Despite piles of evidence even before this election they refuse to believe that the majority of Americans don't share their so-called American values, even after polls repeatedly show that a majority of Americans are against the war, in favor of a woman's right to choose, etc. They can't or won't see that their base is not big enough to make them a viable party. And so I have no sympathy when their wilful blindness causes them to march off a political cliff. Good riddance! Maybe then we can have an opposition party based on reasoned philosophies rather than "faith."

I couldn't finish the article. I couldn't get past the idea of a Gen Xer -- the most shallow, self-absorbed generation in history -- accusing someone else of self-involved prattling.

While I personally loathe Sarah Palin and everything she stands for (class-warrring, ignorance, anti-illectualism, etc.), I'm not really comfortable with the tone of the criticisms. Frankly, they're pretty sexist. Okay, she purportedly doesn't know that Africa is a country -- fair game. But when they start talking about her "emotional outbursts" and her "temper tantrums" and the towel incident and the shopping, then the criticisms start to be aimed at her specifically as a woman. Let's can the "Caribou Barbie" references, too. Can't we come up with more gender-neutral ways of expressing well-deserved critcism of Sarah Palin?

Just FYI, their secret service names are reportedly "Rosebud" and "Radiance."

The media did report more positively on Obama's campaign than on McCain's, but not because of the so-called "liberal bias." The reported more positively because there was more positive to report. As someone said, they report the facts, and the facts are not always equally positive (or negative). Should they have been making up positive things about the horrible campaign McCain was running just to be "fair"?

There's been a major attempt by people trying to control the political discourse to create false equivalencies and then complain when they aren't treated as equal by the media. They aren't treated as equal because they aren't equal! The real unfairness and distortion by the media is when they bend over backwards to report some fringe story or ideology as if it were just as valid as every other in the interests of being "fair."

I forgot to say that I became a fan of Shep Smith's when I saw the interview he did with Ralph Nader after the "Uncle Tom" incident. The the patient persistence combined with the look of complete incredulity as Nader repeatedly failed to acknowledge he'd said anything wrong was priceless. Oh, and he also pointed out that Joe the Plumber's claim that an Obama presidency would mean "the death of Israel" was completely baseless.

I guess what I'm seeing from him is a lack of tolerance for bullshit, which I appreciate. However, since bullshit is a Fox News specialty, I can't seem him being very happy there if they decide to keep pandering to right-wing delusions of what's "fair and balanced."

Rosenkavalier is right. White people (apparently) have voted more Republican in recent elections, regardless of the race of the candidate. Slightly more white people voted for Obama than voted for Kerry or Gore. Therefore, for "white people" (a ridiculous construct that lumps the majority of Americans of many diverse demographics into one group) the race of the candidate was a non-issue. Isn't that the way it should be? Isn't that what we "white people" are giving ourselves credit for?

The Sierra Club could hardly do a worse job of running the automobile industry than the people who have been running it. You know, the ones who are now flying their corporate jets to Washington to beg for a bailout. Maybe if they'd started making the cars Americans need (like cars with good fuel economy) instead of the cars they want to sell them (like Hummers), they wouldn't be in this mess.