You have no statistical proof either, so what's your point?  You anecdotally "know" some people so why do you assert there are "plenty" of people with real concerns.  Arguing without logic is a waste of time.

If you don't want a president that thinks in subleties and nuances, I'm pretty sure you were happy with Bush......

I guess you forgot this isn't a one issue party like the Republicans.

I spent my weekend working on a human embryonic stem cell therapy and then spent 2 hours rock-climbing, an hour at yoga, and then 3 hours on the road bike.

Then I went to a birthday party for a friend of mine.

So I spent my weekend working on my career, my health and my friends (and you should, too).

Seems like a curious post.  Most of the old-line Republicans that were socially liberal and fiscally conservative are in the Democratic party right now.

Let's look at the wiki definition.  Sounds like a lot of Democrats right now....

Historically Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs, welfare, and civil rights--usually promising to run them more efficiently than the Democrats. They were strong supporters of big business. In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurship, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects.

The sad thing is the Gavin Newsom ad that Yes for Prop 8 is running has been extremely effective.  It's been the topic of discussion at two weddings I've been to his month in Northern California (liberal weddings).  There's already a healthy distaste for Gavin and that ad merely accentuates his swarmy nature.

My two cents on why the polls have changed so much. One of the most effective campaign ads I've seen in a long time.

The syntax in the first sentence that covers the "ostentatious" support seems to support the religious nut theory.  If the signs are ubiquitous as this guy seems to think (at least among white yuppies) then, by definition, it can't be ostentatious.

Anyway, I use to live in Clarendon and that letter won't get far in that highly educated community.

Palin supporting the above is a scary thing.  Watch the anti-science movement here in the US get stronger once McSame gets voted in.  

I'm happy to live in a progressive blue state, done the red state route for too many years.

BTW, you sound like a redneck when you call a black man a boy.  Let's meet in real life and have you call me something like that.

Hmmm.

Let's forget about 1979-80.  The Moscow Olympic boycott.  The failed hostage rescue attempt.  The pathetic economy.

Whatever our particular ideological dislike of Reagan, it doesn't mean that our country needed a dose of something else after Nixon, Ford and Carter.

I'm not sure what you were doing in the 70s if you thought this country was running fine (or are you being deliberately an arse?).

When did Obama supporters morph automatically into the "Obama camp"?

Zero logic on your part (Again).

Why are you trolling with a 5 month old article by David Greenberg, who is a Sidney Blumenthal toadie?

This same author was the one that believed that lying under oath is acceptable.  That alone shows how disingenuous he is.

As frankly let's not equate "Obama camp" with "Obama supporters", it ruins your argument when you make incorrect logical assertions like that.

Sigh,

Disingenuous comments like this pretending that only one side is the one throwing @#$@ is what causes folks on both sides to throw out angry comments.  Trust me, I don't post original comments, I'm entirely here to make sure that "revisionist" history doesn't occur.  The "harassment" wouldn't occur if the "misrepresentations" aren't constantly recycled.  How many times did we have to hear about stealing 5 delegates from MI when a number of the Clinton supporters refused to acknowledge that 30,000 Obama write-ins were tossed out.  Don't pretend it's a one way street.

Your representation is entirely a manure stirrer.

Nice tangent on the OP.  Being intellectually dishonest as usual.

Randi Rhodes was employed by Air America not by Obama.  I didn't know that Obama has to apologize to Clinton for every mean thing said by anybody in the country.  Want to point that out in the Bill of Rights or my employment contract?

Didn't know that Obama had to apologize for me when I complained about Hillary's vote on the war.

Ditto Ferraro doesn't quite work since she was working for Clinton's campaign.  Right?  Or are you just pulling BS out of your intestinal track?

As for Cuomo, he still has his job, Randi doesn't, but that doesn't seem to satisfy your hunger for vengeance.