Nothing to share...The headline say's it all !

Bernie2, clearly you're teasing us when you engage in some strenuously seething and venomous editorial beating-to-a-pulp yourself.

"Marxists/Socialists"? Is that really the opposite of "Sarah Palin supporters"?

>"the Neo-Con/Freemason secret society agenda"

Are you insane?

Republicans could care less about qualifications. They'll put up anyone for public office whose name is familiar enough or if their religious fundamentalism is apparent enough...hence we got George Bush and Palin, two of the most unqualified individuals for high office in my lifetime. Somehow the right wing has convinced Americans that big business is more trustworthy than government, that helping the American people with their health care is going to lead to worse health care, that any efforts to raise the standard of living of minorities is always bad, that military intervention is our best option for solving problems, and that dictating sexual morals for anyone other than themselves is the correct purview of government. They are good at selling these ideas, too because their slogans catch on and hang on...pro life won the day over pro choice, it would appear. It was only when the country fell apart that our populace wised up and threw the right wing out of power. Why Americans allow themselves to be lead around by the nose by a single issue like abortion is utterly incredible.

Republicanism appeals to our worse instincts...finger pointing (do as I say, not as I do), selfishness (how dare you spend my tax dollars on the sorry rabble who are too lazy to work), militarism (if other countries wont' do as we say, let's smash them with our military might), and, finally, intellectual dumbing down which of course, allows them to effectively pull the wool over our eyes.

This must be a very slow newsday. Sarah Palin again? "...a manifestly unqualified and incompetent politician unable to string together a series of coherent sentences...". This sounds more like Joe Biden to me.

Dear Sir,

I find your opinion interesting to read an for sure agree with some of the points you mention. What I really find offensive, of low level and diminishes your professionalism is the way you refer to Mr. McCain as the 72 year old cancer survivor. It sounds you refer to him in those terms in a despective and unrespecful and completely unnecesary and out of place way. Why? Does his age or the cancer he had discualify a person in some way?

I am not american, nor do I live in the USA so I have nothing pro or against your politicians. I like to read Salon.com because there i find very intelligent articles, but yours has really lowered the level of the page.

Sincerely,

Hans Gölz

So they must continue to try to destroy her (to no avail.)

you were during Reagan's era of trickle-down economics.

No need to pray hard; taxes will go up soon enough.

1. What is the logic of your statement? You seem to be saying that harsh criticism indicates fear on the part of the critic. If so, Republicans, teabaggers, Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh must be mortally terrified of Obama, Sotomayor, Pelosi, Franken and Garafalo. Everyone is afraid of everyone else. Neocon goal accomplished.

2. May I assume that thankGodfortheAtlantic and NeoNonCabal represent the highest intellectual pinnacle of the conservative philosophy?

Bravo! How amazing that John McCain would have a total airhead put in position to be commander in chief of the most powerful military machine on the planet (if he had won, then died or been incaoacitated).

the winners gave us what pray tell.Apologetic President,a stimulas that is no one knows where or if its working,an economy that according to him has not rebound. a deficit that has our childrens children never seeing the end. Oh and he's not endangering our country.Then I quess we can hold the democrats who championed him over her in 2010.

I've been a registered Republican for almost a half-century, although I consider myself more of a staunch Conservative than a staunch Republican. While I don't think it's usually useful to engage in should a, would a, or could a, in this instance it's obvious that Bill Kristol and his cronies et al probably made a huge mistake when they chose Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate. But I also think it's very unfair to keep putting a hatchet in Bill's and his cronies' heads merely because of a mere political blunder. Who among us hasn't committed at one time or another a blunder in our lifetime?

The reality is that the far-left can't keep from talking about Sarah Palin. She's obviously very physically attractive and appealing and when Sarah gets a fuller understanding of domestic and foreign affairs, I honestly believe that eventually she'll have a bright future running for higher public office.

Do I realistically consider Sarah a future preeminent candidate for President? No, not at this particular juncture, particularly when the Republicans have Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, e.g., who at least in the foreseeable future are much better qualified in my opinion to be President than Sarah Palin--they're even far better qualified to be President than Barack Obama for that matter. But I digress, and that's another oft-told and lamentably valid saga to be continued during another lively and controversial discussion.

Dear Mr. Conason,

It's ordinarily bad form to become personal in a blog reply, but your piece was so egregiously over the top that I'm going to indulge myself.

1. You are dumb as a box of rocks.

2. Palin may well be our next president.

3. Your are dumb as a box of rocks.

4. Palin has the correct and proper learning and understanding to lead the country out of its present morass and back into fiscal stability

5. Your are dumb as a box of rocks

6. How can you be so stupid as to utter one negative word about Palin when the POTUS is even dumber than you are?

Sir, I frankly it's time that you stop putting off your electroshock therapy. It'll make you docile, happy and unable to write such stupid articles that do nothing more than embarrass you and discredit yourself.