It might be fair to say blacks based their vote on race, if they didn't already vote Democratic something like 85-90% of the time.

They might've come out to vote in greater numbers because of race, but there's no real evidence that a lot of black people changed their vote because of race.

You have mentioned the liberal "illuminati" in literally every letter you've written on Salon.

So, like, what the hell, man? What does that even mean? And why mention it in every single letter?

We didn't elect Dennis Kucinich. If you want unabashed progressivism, elect an unabashed progressive.

If you want someone who'll kowtow to the right under the guise of bipartisanship, elect the guy who thinks the President should have unlimited spying power.

I was ecstatic when Obama won, but I couldn't even bring myself to vote for the man. He's a centrist, period. He's not the man who's going to lead the progressive revolution.

I think the idea is that the recount - having a set of human eyes, interpreted by a human brain - looking at every ballot is going to be more accurate than the initial count.

Do you have any reason why that may not be?

Adam Brickley, our own Elephantman. The man who took credit for "finding" Palin.

It would have to be challenged in federal court. The SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

I imagine this argument should hold for same-sex marriage as well. Unfortunately I can't see the SCOTUS, as presently constructed, agreeing with the precedent.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't another prop be put on the ballot in 2 years, and every 2 years following? If that is the case, I predict it will go back-and-forth for a decade or so, until finally it will win out going forward - unless the feds intervene first.

Meanwhile, there's always the northeast, where there are multiple states you can get married and multiple states that will recognize you.

I'm heartbroken over the California decision, but I believe Gavin Newsom was right. Gay marriage is coming, like it or not. And it is. Human rights march forward, inexorably, despite setbacks.

Due to a large statistics problem set this week, I won't be able to go out. I'll be watching C-SPAN at 8, possibly switching over to PBS at 9, and then definitely Stewart and Colbert at 10.

Does anyone have any suggestions for viewing prior to 8 PM Eastern, when C-SPAN starts? I'd prefer to avoid as many idiot pundits as possible, but I'd also like to be able to get the early poll closings.

If you take Nate Silver's simulations seriously, McCain is closer to betting on boxcars (2.78%) rather than a hard 8 (9.09%).

I wish people would actually look at the context of some of Rev. Wright's comments, and see the truth therein.

Not about AIDS - it seems a little far-fetched to think the CIA or whomever purposely gave HIV to people in the inner cities. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan didn't give a good god damn about it as the epidemic was happening, and I truly hope he's roasting in hell for that (assuming there is one) as we speak.

But regarding 9/11, people like to think this was a random act of murder, that America was in the wrong place at the wrong time or something. Now, it may be possible that Middle Eastern people hate us because they think their god's dick is bigger than our god's dick. On the other hand, they may also hate us because we meddle in their politics, murder tens or hundreds of thousands of their innocent citizens, and do our level best to steal their oil out from under them. Imagine some 10-year-old Iraqi kid whose family just got blown away for no good reason, and what kind of antipathy he might have for the USA in 15 or 20 years or so. Now imagine he combines that with some religious fervor, gets his hands on a nuke, and detonates it in Los Angeles.

Chickens coming home to roost? I know blaming the victim isn't really in vogue, but if you poke a bear enough times, you can't really express shock when that bear mauls you.

Did we "deserve" 9/11? Of course not. Did our actions make it more likely to happen? The evidence seems pretty clear on that one.

How about we stop poking the bear for a while and see how that works out?

We Americans aren't big on the whole "learning lessons" thing.

"Brad Lidge pitched a perfect ninth."

Navarro singled off him.

"Um, Sen. McCain? Can you cite reputable economists who think the government does NOT need to spend, spend, SPEND to help push the economy out of recession?"

You are exactly right here. The best way out of a recession is to increase government spending. But, as we've seen over the past 8 years, if we're going to spend money we should do it responsibly, by actually taking money in.

And since the extra money being taken in is coming from the wealthy it shouldn't have any negative effect on the economy (since, as we've seen, giving money to the wealthy DOES have a negative effect on the economy).

Look at it this way - if you do things the exact opposite of GWB, you're bound to get different results. And different results are exactly what we need.