would be the Weather Underground with bombers of abortion clinics.  Neither are targeting civilian populations per se but both are unequivocally wrong.

And Obama, in debate #3, said exactly that.

If some Kossacks are defending those acts of violence, they are really no different from those who would defend bombers of abortion clinics.

Glad to see some familiar names around here.  Not to glad to see familiar negativity continue when all those dire warnings about each candidate have proven to be untrue.  Cheers!

Unfortunately, he attracted the lion's share of our own nasty "wingnut" base.  But, their failings cannot be attributed to him.

The Democrats had two great front runners, either one who could have won this election comfortably.  The biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is that his campaign and its strategies matched his abilities as a candidate.  Hers did not.  

If you're still going back to the VP selection, I would say that either one of these candidates picking the other for VP would have been problematic.

Having more than one spouse (even if all in the family live together in harmony) is illegal in this country.  Nothing wrong with that in numerous other societies around the world. And, after all, who is that hurting (in your words)? That was also once practiced by members of the Mormon church (still is in some places illegally) but has been illegal among them for many, many years - that was part of the deal of Utah statehood.  So, the rest of us impose our views.

Used to be legal throughout many of the states for 18 year olds to drink.  No longer.  The views of others were imposed against them (and against the laws of the states).  And, by the way, all of the Democratic candidates in 2008 (who one would presume are at least a little liberal) except for Gravel declined to offer any support for allowing these laws to be changed when this question was posed at a debate.  During the 70s there were multiple states that passed significant decriminalizations of marijuana laws but those liberal initiatives were rolled back within a decade.

One might question whether my original example was as extreme as you indicate.  In some cultures, there would be nothing illegal about someone 35 marrying someone 15 or 16 (Indeed the idea wasn't always so extreme and illegal here in the USA - Remember Jerry Lee Lewis?).

These things are considered repugnant to enough people in the USA that they remain illegal and that is the way societies work.  Wishing they would work some other way (for example, allowable civil liberties are determined by a council of enlightened liberals) simply isn't realistic.  

Gay marriage is just considered repugnant by too many people here in the USA for widespread legalization.  Someday (maybe in the near future) that will no longer be the case.

"No one should be allowed to impose their beliefs on other people's actions.  It's a pretty basic point."

Now, I and the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans believe that consensual sex between a 14 year old girl (boy) and a 40 year old man (woman) should be illegal and there are laws throughout these United States imposing our views on those who may believe they have the right to behave otherwise.

My point is that such "rights" cannot exist without some reasonable level of public consensus.  Although I hope the situation I have described above will never become a right I hope gay marriage someday will be.  But, for the majority of America, we aren't quite there yet.

The CNN exit showed a close race with a very slight Franken lead.  The problem is that our exit polls in this country seem slightly skewed towards Democrats.  I think there may be a self-selection issue.  In many countries as many as 90% of people approached participate in exit polls.  In the US the figure is more like 50%.  The much lower participation creates a very real possibility of nonresponse bias.  

Just like "Obama is a terrorist!" Let's keep such terms for those who really deserve them.  I live in Minnesota, too, and he isn't that bad.  

And one to which we could probably devote numerous forums of discussion.  I don't know the answer although I have my theories.  Although the Republican party in my lifetime always seemed to have this element, these tendencies never seemed so large and controlling for them 30 years ago.  

I remember a few years back when right wingers were crowing about the financial difficulties of Air America vs. the health and popularity of right wing talk radio.  I tried to explain to them that the popularity of right wing talk radio vs. the relative unpopularity of left talk radio spoke more unfavorably about them as a political base than it spoke about the quality of the programming or the ideas.  I've only listened to Air America less a handful of times and I've never been able to get through more than 10 or 15 minutes of it.  In contrast, their base seems to have an insatiable appetite for scornful bombast.

Even if it has been stated in an inflammatory way.

But, of course, questions like this will be suppressed and villified by the Stalinist element of our party that so proudly bears their inner souls on the left netroots.

They would gleefully pile on Appalachians, any Republican voter, even Asians or Latinos under certain circumstances for being racists but let anyone suggests that there may be some collectivist issues of intolerance in the black community and they'll scream "Fail," "Ban," or "Go to Red State."

He has an article in TNR calling the GOP base "slow learners."

That fact that anywhere close to 69% of GOP respondents would indicate a top preference for Palin in 2012 is truly a lamentable discovery for the political health of our country even if it portends to continued success for the Democrats.  Let's hope that at least most of them can be cured of this chronic case of ignorance in the next four years.

The continuing acumen of the Democratic party is not helped by having a chronically stupid party in opposition.  Any of those candidates listed below her would be far better and some of them could be pretty good candidates.

The rest of them, even Mitt to a degree, but especially Huckabee, Jindahl, and Christ could be credible candidates.  Disrespect of your opposition is a dangerous thing.  That is a big part of the reason the GOP is where they are now.

Bill was a great candidate.  Obama was a great candidate, too, but he has yet to prove that he can overcome the adversity that Bill did.

Stop the crap that Bill only won because of Perot.  If you believe that, you weren't paying much attention then.  I don't know why some of the Obama supporters still insist on crapping on Clinton.