Of all the thousands of commentaries that have been made in response to Obama's election why have the editors chosen to feature this turpentine induced toilet bowl sludge?

And what does it say for the intelligence of the American Stinker site when they too, feature this sludge.

As though it contributes even a smidgeon of understanding of the origins, complexities, and possible solutions (if there are any) to the current multi-dimensional world crisis.

Reading the first comment posted, I observe, yet again, that the liberal left shows it's true level of commitment to free speech with vitriol and an underlying attitude of 'any opinion is alright as long as it agrees with mine.' This modus operandi all seems rather tiresome to those that wish to have an interesting discussion.

I wonder why the authors only referenced the 1988 George Bush Senior election.

When Carter could not get himself re-elected against Reagan.

Reagan took 44 of the states (Obama 30) to Carters 6 (McCain 22) on a percentage gap of about 10% (Obama 7%) of the vote and 90% of the electoral college (Obama 67%).

Pauline - Yes, I agree, Ho Hum has a limited view of what is acceptable / suitable for public comment,

However, he is consistent,

his retarded perspective fits well with his perception for what most refer to as "democratic freedom".

Ho Hum, perhaps they chose this turpentine induced toilet bowl sludge to balance the rest of the fawning pro-Obama turpentine induced toilet bowl sludge they publish?

Of course, given you probably read the "other" sludge with a disturbing cross between manic glee and religious fervor, perhaps this concept lost on you.

Is this a critique of US media? Or simply a little self-conscious gloating that the Republicans weren’t decimated? George Bush, prior to his 2000 election – “I’m a uniter, not a divider”. He certainly united the US in a way unimaginable then –

“Bush reached an unwelcome record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.” http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/11/worst_president_ever.html

Anyone interested in more of what Anne Coulter has to say can find it at http://chat.anncoulter.com/phpBB3/. If you wish to dispute the claim found there that “Empiricism (i.e. scientific enquiry) is evil and from the pit of hell”, don’t. Your posting rights will be revoked and you will be excommunicated from the church of the righteous blog.

This essay seems more a comment on the excesses of the self-propagating echo chamber of the US MSM, of which Anne Coulter, Ariana Huffington, NYT et all are a part. For some inside commentary on this phenomenon see http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/107326.

This article is one long gripe, though to be fair it balances out the excruciating hubris of the last 8 years. Vote for Obama and you’re ‘groomable’. Of course, “the greasy Senator is part of a larger narrative. History declares that Democrats enjoy mingling with anti-Semites. Some Democrats are real terrorists.” Betcha didn’t know THAT!

The entire, tiresome blog from which this was spawned is a rehash of conservative trivia lists, talking points and too-clever-by-half asides from the likes of self confessed drug addict Rush Limbaugh.

The election’s over. The result is constitutionally legal (v. important, that). Not all republican predictions of impending disaster will come true (must be v. disappointing, that). I hope the author gets over it.

When you started quoting and believing what Ann Coulter said, I lol'd.