Where is the proof that humans are causing climate change? Virtually every point "made" in An Inconvenient Truth is easily refuted. An argument of "How could you be so stupid? Everyone with half a brain knows this is true" does not go very far toward convincing people.

The real problem is that scientists have largely thrown their idealistic lot in with the liberal group, since they appeal to the elitist view largely adopted by those who espouse the anthropogenic hypothesis. We then get the elitist eye rolling and tongue clucking, as if the 75% of Americans who still doubt the evidence for the anthropogenic theory are blithering idiots to be led along by those who "really know."

Get off your high horses and present some actual proof of the concept, not arguments like "Everyone knows it's true"!

The usual liberal screed. You have to be out of your mind to honestly believe that common fundamental Christianity is equivalent to fundamentalist Islam. Did Falwell call for all women to wear burqas or be banned from driving? Do COMMON (not nutjobs) Christian fundamentalists commit terrorist attacks? Which encourages killing those of other faiths: the Bible or the Koran? Which one issues death threats against authors and cartoonists: fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalist Islam?

If the Bush administration is a theocracy, why hasn't he stomped out the Episcopal church's having gay bishops and priests? Why isn't there a Sunday closing law? Why are Playboy and Penthouse, et al, still able to publish? Why are strip clubs still open? Where's the beef?

Cole would do well to learn the truth about Christian fundamentalism before writing such a ridiculous article. Jerry Falwell does not speak for the vast majority of fundamental Christians, who, by definition, merely believe that the Bible teaches God's revelation, and no thinking Christian takes every word in the Bible literally. If one wants to indict fundamentalist Christianity, indict its biblical interpretation with direct arguments. Don't just play smear tactics by pointing out the extreme positions of Falwell and abortion clinic killers. Of course, that would make it too hard to whip the liberals into a frenzy over Palin, which is the real intent of this article.

A politician making enemies who bad-mouth them afterward?? What an unbelievable development! What's next? Professional wrestling is fake? Say it ain't so!

I realize that Sarah Palin has unleashed the venom of the left in a way few candidates can do, but this is the most pathetic attempt to smear her to date. I would think some admiration for her would be in order, but instead we get this kind of silliness. Can't you people move on from this vitriolic derangement to confronting the issues?

I agree that McCain has blundered badly in this election. He needed to drag the conservative wing of the GOP kicking and screaming, knowing that they would see Obama as the vastly inferior alternative. Also on point: he needed to leave Bush in the dust, and much sooner, but I think it would be ridiculous to disgrace a sitting president at his own party's national convention! That would truly display a lack of honor. Also, in retrospect, it may have been better to have selected a different VP candidate than Palin, although she is certainly not deserving of the derision that has been cast her way.

Where I take a great deal of issue with the author is his presumed condescending ability to pass judgment upon McCain's attacks on Obama, as if they are somehow unworthy of the honor he has earned over the years. McCain has not attempted to do anything untoward whatever. He has merely raised a number of bona fide issues with Obama's character - a valid issue during a presidential campaign - that most major media outlets appear to have selectively "overlooked". If McCain has gone wrong in this area, it is that he has (a) waited too long to start the attack and (b) avoided the key area that would have voters jaws dropping: the Obama-Wright-Cone-black liberation theology connection that seals the deal about Obama's radicalism.

Apparently in the name of misguided honor, or perhaps for fear of ever-present race baiting, McCain has chosen to stay away from Wright. In my view, that is the one dishonorable thing he has done in this campaign.

What planet is this author living on? How many administrations and congresses have misread "sweeping change" based on only 52-54% of the popular vote? Hello! You need alienate only about 5-6% of the electorate, and it becomes the OTHER party's "mandate". Ask Karl Rove!

The calculus of the 2008 election was simple:

1. People hate (for still somewhat unclear reasons) GWB.

2. Obama was elected by a massive turnout of black voters of whom 95% voted for him. (Sure, lots of whites voted for him too, but well less than half.)

3. The McCain camp faced an uphill battle, and their necessary (or not) gambles failed to pay off.

4. Americans naturally seem to lean toward the Dems at poor economic times.

There is no progressive or liberal mandate here. The US continues to be a center-right country. Why do you think the Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush? (Liberals are mad because Congress hasn't pressed their agenda, and most Americans are mad because they see the Congress as overly partisan, not a happy thing when your political stripes are underrepresented.) Should Obama and Congress try to press a liberal agenda, they will get a quick repeat of 1980 and 1994, not a pat on the back. The voters who raced to support "hope and change" at a charismatic candidate's side will just as quickly desert if they see the change as one different than they have been promised - a centrist change, not a liberal one.