Obama's got a mandate, and has to run hard with it. GW Bush had no mandate, and acted like he did, and the media enabled him in this. Now they're worried about Obama and the Democrats "overreaching." Putting it as politely as I can: fuck them.

This is going to rock. Now we get to see the GOP go to war with itself, and I can't see this doing anything but helping the Democrats for a generation or so.

The on-the-ground electoral strength of the GOP resides in its Brimstone Base, who just love Palin. But their theocratic fascism just doesn't sell so well with the majority of Americans. For people who talk about getting the government off their backs, their notion of government is remarkably intrusive, oppressive, and obsessive. That's a problem for them they're not going to be willing or able to address without watering down their message into meaninglessness.

And the GOP's waning intellectual strength resides in their Capitalist wing, although they lack the raw numbers of the Theocratic base to be more than media creatures. That's a problem for them, these right-wing Rapunzels in their towers. They're really, really going to be adrift in the next few elections, because their kinds of candidates, ones that might at least in theory poach some independents and moderates away from the Democrats -- those candidates hold no appeal to the Brimstoners.

Culture war within the GOP. Most excellent. I don't think the Capitalists can possibly win back their party from the Theocrats, and the Theocrats can't possibly win the White House in the wake of GW Bush's reign of error. So, either way, good outcomes for non-Republicans.

He may not want to waste too much time listening to lunatics, even if they happen to run foreign countries.

I take real issue with this statement, Mr. Hannaham. This line gets thrown out all too often in American foreign policy -- that is, somebody our government doesn't like is called a madman or a lunatic, while somebody our government does like is a invariably statesman -- the individual qualities of the leader are inconsequential, their countries' human rights records are immaterial; their qualities revolve around how assiduously they toe our line diplomatically, as to whether they are "sane and reasonable" or "lunatics."

It's simply unproductive for our country to tar leaders we don't like as "lunatics" -- first off, while somebody without many principles can, indeed, secure power in a country (see Bush/Cheney, for example), that doesn't make them insane. Branding them insane might make us feel good, it being classic Bush-style saber-rattling in action, demonizing the opposition.

But diplomatically, it's useless posturing at best, and harmful at worst. In functional countries, leaders try to do the best they can for their countries; in dysfunctional countries, leaders use the machinery of state to enrich themselves at the expense of their people.

That should be the standard by which we measure the merit of foreign leaders, versus simply branding them as madmen when it suits us -- are a country's people well off under their leadership, or are they suffering? And is this because of or in spite of their policies? Therein is the gold standard for a democratic country to determine the worth of the leadership, rather than whether or not they obey our diplomatic mandates and economic needs.

Would you characterize Bush/Cheney as "lunatics" in power, given what they did to our nation? Or were they operating around a coherent set of principles intended to effect a deliberate outcome?

America in this century needs to rejoin the rest of the world diplomatically, and that means not silence, isolation, and slanders -- but rather, engagement and dialogue.

We've had more than enough of Bush/Cheney-style "diplomacy," (they put the "dip" in "diplomacy") which has left the US shockingly isolated in world affairs -- I think Obama's willingness to give people a fair hearing is a laudable and powerful quality, something that, in his intelligent hands, can be an effective tool and, as required, a weapon, that will leave our country stronger, and not weaker.

You might not agree with a foreign leader's policies, but don't call them a lunatic and expect to be able to get much diplomatic work done with them.

Nice one, posting the "Greatest Misses" from Salon's Clintonite/GOP trolls. Where to begin? But they already have their antidote about that, finger-wagging about gloating and/or mocking liberal tolerance and so on, even though they'd be gloating from the rooftops if Obama had lost.

Oh, to be a pundit. To be wrong so often and paid big money to be wrong. Punditry is its own reward, alas. It's kind of like those celebrities who make you pause a moment and think "Wait, why are you famous, exactly?" Even meteorologists have a better track record of being right than pundits.