I wanted to see how they were going to handle defeat, I had no idea it was going to be such a gigantic defeat. I was on MSNBC when the winner was called, then switched over. I agree, watching Britt Hume pucker up was priceless. To se them al fidgeting around trying to find words to describe what just happened.

I was surprised to hear them talk positively about him as president. I could not imagine Juan Wiliams not being moved by the unfolding events.

I wonder what that group of Black right wing pundits that the network was trotting out trying to be clever "oh lets get right wing blacks to talk against the black candidate".

I cannot figure these people out, and it has nothing to do with conservatism. Most of the black families I know are very conservative when it comes to how they run their family and lives.

I thought it was a case of getting face time on the air. Who is going to listen to an African American liberal?, but have them spout the neocon talking points, now that is worth putting on TV. Are these 'useful idiots' welcomed back into the African American community, or are they ostracized?

Like a previous poster, I also watched last night's election coverage from BBCWorld as well as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They both offered extensive and diverse coverage. I was so embarrassed by former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, a guest commentator on the BBC. (This was a simulcast between BBCWorld and the domestic BBC1 television.) So, the whole world, along with our "special relations" in Britain saw this arrogant, nasty, petulant man criticize his hosts, their correspondents, as well as the British and Europeans.

When a distinguished British historian, Simon Sharma, tried to put the events in perspective, Bolton would cut him off with a snide or dismissive remark.

We may have the chance to wipe the slate clean with our international allies, now that we have president-elect Obama, but old detritus from the Bush Administration like Ambassador Bolton sure don't help.

Of course one has to assume that the BBC knew something of what it was getting when it invited the ass to join the mix, but before the programming was over, you could see more than a few raised eyebrows around the set.

Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright both spent the previous 20 years working on the South Side. Maybe you can call it something other than the ghetto if you choose.

Obama, of course, lives in a million dollar house in Hyde Park, partially subsidized by 300 grand from convicted felon Tony Rezko.

Are you telling me that it is a "lie" that Obama and Wright did not spend the previous 20 years on Chicago's South Side? Or are you telling me that it's a lie that that is part of the ghetto?

I think that you Obama people better realize that you are not Gods, and you are going to have to get along with people like me.

I've noticed that Obama fans play a fun game: They talk about how sweet and sensitive and wonderful they are, but as soon as anybody disagrees with them, as I frequently do, we immediately get labelled as "trolls" and "irrelevant".

You have not answered my questions. These questions are not going to go away, and there might very well be another Ken Starr type investigation of Obama. There is certainly more justification for that in the case of Obama than there was for Hillary Clinton.

Don't let your stupid little "victory" last night blind you to reality. There is a VERY long distance between Obama's windy speeches and any sort of realistic change for the better.

I personally find your impotent name calling amusing. You are terrified to discuss any real issues or face the truth.

Also, what makes you think that you "are" Obama? What makes you think that he is going to do so much for YOU?

I could have just as easily worked to support Obama, but I consider him to be a phony and a hypocrite. You know, this is AMERICA and us American's have the right to our own opinion, and Salon readers should realize that it is VALUABLE to hear from people outside your little circle.

The Right Wingers call the it Card Check legislation but it is formally known as the 'Employee Free Choice Act'. Employees now can unionize when a majority have signed a card to that effect but currently the employer can choose to accept or refuse it. If they refuse it a formal election is held within 90 days supervised by the National Labor Relations Board.

As it stands now, within that ninety days, the all too typical employer will have fired the employee union organizers and intimidated the remainder of employees out of voting for a union.

Employers hate unions because they are effective. Employers do everything they can to intimidate their employees out of seeking a union in the first play or voting for one if it ever gets that far. They foist endless propaganda about the evils of unions, about the evils of union management.

In all human affairs, there are failures because of human nature, unions are no exception. But it can easily be demonstrated that they succeed in improving conditions and pay for their members far beyond whatever small financial cost there is to those members.

The Employers' mouthpieces, the Corporate Media are a primary conduit for this propaganda.

What would be best for the workers and for the Country would be to repeal, at the very least, the most egregious portions of the Taft Hartley act which allow States under the slavish misnomer of 'Right To Work', to deny workers the ability to enter into an agreement that requires the employer to recognize their union security. It is better known as the RIGHT TO WORK CHEAP, because without union security that is the only right the employee has.

Ralph Nader has been the only one consistently talking about this, neither major party gets that far.

UNTIL THEY DO, the 'Employee Free Choice Act' would go a significant distance to rectify the injustice as it now stands.

Obama has said he will sign it.