Geez what a snide piece of self-congratulation masquerading as rapprochement. And you think the so-called BOOMERS take themselves seriously? Don't you get the picture, kiddo? You're young now. You won't be always. Sure, you make a nod in that direction at the end, but I doubt you really understand. It's about HUMANS, not generations. Do you seriously expect me to be grateful for the approbation of such a witless cluck, so full of how "her" generation had it worse than ANYBODY EVER? Do you seriously think with a little cutesy-pie conflation of millions of individuals into one socks-and-sandals-wearing seriously boring smelly old stereotype you comprehend what has gone before or say anything that shows genuine insight? WE? You really think there's a WE? You conceive that everyone of your approximate age feels exactly as you do, will behave exactly as you think best? I hope not, because that would mean you were robots, identical simulacra.

I do hope you do better and have a better world than I did, even if it should mean that you stay so self-satisfied, even if it means you never realize just how condescending and full of overblown generalizations your little essay is.

Wouldn't hurt, though, if along the way you learned to tell the difference between a sense of humor and knee-jerk snotty ha-has. Wouldn't hurt if you learned that it is damned hard to save your soul no matter what age you were born into. What's the matter with you, child? Didn't yo momma raise you right?

Please--I know what you mean, but "elephanthead" would more appropriately refer to Ganesha, the god who helps remove obstacles, a good guy, not to elephantman, the sullen troll.

And how the heck do you make Bill Clinton a loser, and put him on the list with those dimwits and shills? He sure helped in Florida, ese. Are you another one of those EOBs?

Just one more poster saying how the heck can you pick Colbert as a winner and ignore Stewart, exhausted or not? Not only was Stewart plain about his principles from the first, and tough with his questions, but Stewart made Colbert possible, remember? Without Stewart's backing, no Colbert. Colbert's ego-centric rightwing character became a fabulous success, and I admire the brilliant satire, but I admire perhaps even more the sort of fellow who can recognize and support talent without letting his own ego get in the way.

AMEN, Brother Glenn.

This piece is almost too true to be funny: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_finally_shitty_enough_to

Agree completely with your post. Am writing this not because it directly connects, but because everyone who voted for Obama should enjoy this link to the Onion, and your column tends to get attention. The piece is almost too true to be funny. Perhaps somebody else has posted this link already, but here it is: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_finally_shitty_enough_to

Jesse Ventura was a mediocre wrestler, but I will have you know that Al Franken is an EXCELLENT comedian. As for me, I had far rather have a comedian in the senate than a clown. I can understand how you and your cohorts might have trouble judging these things, though, since genuine humor requires sanity and a sense of proportion.

Let's see--the Republican campaign decided to appeal to its base, and was pounded in the popular vote and the electoral college. Now those brilliant Palin followers wish to make "lepers" of a large percentage of those who did back the Republicans, further dividing the party. Hmm. I say full speed ahead.

Is your title a reference to Jack Handy? It would be suitable, except that Handy does it on purpose.

Bachmann WON? Say it aint so, Lynn.

I would say the McCain voters comprise, loosely, two distinct groups. There is the frothing, maddened core. I would put them at about a quarter of the voters (figuring that we can safely assume nearly all of them voted for Bush, so we can use his approval ratings as a base- (and I mean BASE) line).

Then there is a group of maybe twenty percent or so of the voters who are really probably pretty decent people, who honestly (if in my opinion ignorantly) just feel more comfortable with McCain). This latter group is not vehement or bitter, and if Obama wins and proves to be a judicious president, they will not vilify him, but will accept him.

And could we please consider doing away with the preposterous and vastly oversimplified right/center/left categories? What I am hoping for is the restoration of decency, honesty, accountability. There's room for disagreement on methodology. There should not be much room for disagreement on those three principles.

And anyone who dares to pronounce the word "realpolitik" as if it were an admirable and sensible behavior should have his or her mouth scrubbed out and be required to wear a Henry Kissinger mask in public for a year.

In that regard (shutting them up and shutting them out), do we have to listen to vituperative trolls any more if Obama wins? Could a true sense of balance be restored to debate? Could we have done with the lazy if-decency-speaks-then-in-order-to-be-balanced-we-must-give-the-vitriolic-equal-time standard that GG so eloquently and correctly decries?

I for one am sick of these jerks. It is one thing to attend reasoning disagreement. It is another to be forced to wade through the muck of vile minds. And it is plenty easy to tell the difference. These creatures of the slime have their own colloquys and outlets. Let them fume in unison on their own sites, where we may avoid them. Do we have to listen to them any more on Salon? Somebody please say no.