I didn't vote for Obama because he was progressive, I voted for him because he was centrist. He never pretended anything otherwise, and if you think he did, you are delusional. It wasn't my vote alone that propelled Obama's victory. I know more than a few erstwhile Republicans who voted for him as well, not only because the McCain/Palin ticket was too far right for their taste, but because Obama appealed to their centrism.

I sick of all the fringe lunatics out there trying to portray the center as bad place to be. On the left, we hear the cringing whiners desperately trying to associate Obama with the right wing zealots, bleating their sheepish battle cry: "center right! center right!". On the right, we hear their extremist counterparts doing the same thing: complaining about Marxism, Socialism, and any other ism they can somehow associate with the left.

Here's the deal. Extremists in both parties lost. The lunatic fringe, left and right is unhappy. Hurray! Maybe you guys can get together and form your own party; call it the Little Sour Pickle party.

After seeing the virtually identical headline for several days in a row, I'm convinced of several things. (1) The bulk of Salon's contributors don't have a single original idea in their head. (2) Joan Walsh is a bona-fide idiot (that has been obvious for quite some time). She is certainly incapable of attracting any worthwhile contributors (besides Garrison Keillor, the shining exception). (3) Visiting Salon is an abject waste of time. I cannot remember the last time I encountered even a dollop of insight in either the articles or the letters.

Goodbye. After all the fed-up can't-take-the-inanity-anymore folks such as myself finally leave, the floppy ducklings will have their own little self-reinforcing echo chamber all to themselves. Enjoy the illusion.

I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I'm not progressive. I'm not a leftist. I refuse to identify with any of these labels for one simple reason: I refuse to participate in empty rhetorical group think.

Ask me what I think about a particular issue, and I'll tell you. But none of these labels are issues as such, they are grab bags of issues, the contents of which vary depending on who you ask.

The word 'liberal', as others have pointed out, derives from 'freedom'. I find it more than a little ironic that those who ostensibly promote freedom feel so obliged to associate themselves with a group.

So far, we've seen nothing but a little theater since the election. No bills. No vetoes. Few appointments. Hell, a lot of folks aren't even in office yet. Was the scumbag Lieberman's kid glove treatment warranted? Not in my opinion. However, I don't understand the political calculus of Washington; and quite frankly, I don't really give a shit. The only thing that matters to me is results. The jury will be out on that one for a while.

Have the Democrats historically behaved like cowards? Sure. I find that reprehensible. But I'm equally uneasy with people who don't even wait for the next game to get started before they start criticizing the players. For example, just look at how many posters conflate Lieberman's appointment with Obama for fucks sake. He's a frickin Senator; Obama has nothing to do with it.

It is a new game. Maybe it will play out like the last game. Maybe it won't. I don't know yet, so I'm reserving judgment.

What does Lieberman's position signify? You could spin that all kinds of ways. "Democrats are cowards" seems to be the conventional wisdom 'round these parts. "Keep your enemies close" could be another. "Someday, and the day may never come, I may ask you for a favor" could be another. Who the fuck knows? Everyone here except me I guess.

You know, ripping these people a new one is pretty easy sport. I didn't read every comment, but I read a lot, and I didn't read even one that had any positive suggestions about what the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) should be doing. Other than tearing each other apart.

Senator Hagel (R) just ripped on Rush Limbaugh recently. He said:

"You know, I wish Rush Limbaugh and others like that would run for office," a sarcastic Hagel continued. "They have so much to contribute and so much leadership and they have an answer for everything. And they would be elected overwhelmingly. [The truth is] they try to rip everyone down and make fools of everybody but they don't have any answers."

Exactly. Don't be like Rush.

There are a lot of firsts with the first lady. But first big butt?! Are you kidding?!

Really, I'd like to know: which first lady didn't have back?

Now, if you were going to talk about high water booty, well, you might have a point. But first big butt? Don't think so.

I guess if you can turn a phrase, or at least write grammatical English, you can write any stupid thing you like. According to Joan.

I'm not going to waste a lot of effort rebutting someone who clearly misses the point. If you are unable to read for comprehension, then giving you even more text to decipher isn't going to help. If you think you are being anything more than just another shrill whinger, then maybe you should try reflecting for just a minute about where, specifically, I was arguing against any single one of the positions you are railing about.

Apparently there are at least a couple of oversensitive souls on this thread who perceive any conversation that doesn't reinforce the views of the echo chamber as a personal affront. Like I said earlier, take a valium. For you, maybe two.