While Mr. William Kristol is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he also isn't stupid. When he writes columns such as the one in the NY Times today or provides commentary on Fox, it always seems to me that his positions are crafted to provide a particular spin much more than they are written to deliver anything like an assessment of reality.

In plan terms, Mr. Kristol is a propagandist for the neocon point of view. Nothing--and I do mean nothing--he says can be taken at face value. It is always crafted for effect, one that will serve neocon ends.

In the case of today's op-ed piece, he knows full well that McCain is very likely to lose tomorrow, so he is positioning himself and those who share his world view for a post-Bush world. He wants to create the perception that neocons are reasonable people who will continue to press their case in reasonable ways.

The problem with this strategy is that the last eight years have pulled the cover from the neocon propaganda machine, and the number of persons likely to fall for his act is at an all time low. In the case of neocons, reality really does have a liberal bias. Kristol is going to need to align himself more nearly with what is, if he wants to be taken seriously in the future.

since Olbermann and Maddow in the second to last panel are praising the big Mc.

Dream on John. Here's hoping tomorrow will be a nightmare for you and the governor of Alaska.

I understand and applaud the sentiment behind this article, but for one last day, I think it would be better to spend your time GOTV.

I'll save the pleasures of a good flick for after we've made sure the Bush administration has a bloody wooden stake through its cold heart.

I don't know what your reasoning was for putting Bill Richardson on the losers list, but I'm joining the movement to have his name relocated. He came out for Obama, even knowing it was likely to cost him is friendship with the Clintons. I see him as having run a honest (though doomed) campaign and then doing the right thing for the country with his endorsement. No way would I consider him a loser.

I don't know about Obama, but I'm satisfied that any real hope of bipartisanship is dead. If the Republicans are willing to play partisan chicken with the future of the nation, then the hell with them. If they aren't willing to act like rational humans and members of the same citizenry as the rest of us in this time of financial crisis, then the chance that they will be constructively skeptical on other pressing needs (global warming legislation, health care, realigning and rebuilding our military, restoring the American justice system, etc.) is effectively nil.

There's real work that needs to be done to save ourselves and if this is the best they can do, let them complain and stamp their feet all they want. I have confidence that the last eight years have cured the majority of citizens of falling for their song and dance.

[Sorry for posting this again. Sometimes the threads just move to fast for me.]

I don't know about Obama, but I'm satisfied that any real hope of bipartisanship is dead. If the Republicans are willing to play partisan chicken with the future of the nation, then the hell with them. If they aren't willing to act like rational humans and members of the same citizenry as the rest of us in this time of financial crisis, then the chance that they will be constructively skeptical on other pressing needs (global warming legislation, health care, realigning and rebuilding our military, restoring the American justice system, etc.) is effectively nil.

There's real work that needs to be done to save ourselves and if this is the best they can do, let them complain and stamp their feet all they want. I have confidence that the last eight years have cured the majority of citizens of falling for their song and dance.

My reaction as well. Whether racist or not, it is just plain bad cartooning because it doesn't tell a coherent story. I've noticed over the years that political cartoons that fall into certain categories. This one falls into precisely the one that you identified: take two unrelated current events (e.g., Christmas and a bill passed by Congress) and conflate them. When it's done well it illuminates both subjects that are conflated. When it's done poorly, such as the Post cartoon, it is simply nonsensical.

The whole thing was in *very* poor taste no matter whether it was explicitly racist or not. For folks like me in Texas, who'd not heard anything about the rampaging chimpanzee in Connecticut, the cartoon was a head-scratcher that left me thinking, "This is incoherent, but probably also racist and (worse) suggesting it would be appropriate to kill those associated with the bill." Just plain weird.