I don't usually care much for James Carville, but he had a good quip about Failin, er, I mean Pailin - "At least she'll be in jail before she has to debate Biden."

Intellegent people were shocked at  GWB's run for president - "Why, putting a mentally retarded person on the stump like that..!  It makes a mockery of the office!"

We had no idea the appalling candidates that the Republican party would trot out this year.

For god's sake, Pailin can't even run her own family, much less her scarcely populated state.  Utterly, utterly appalling.

Mike Judge's only mistake was to set Idiocracy 500 years in the future.  I look forward to Pailin being made a fool of in the debates, as she fortells of the rapture, waxes poetic about burning books and suppressing women, dodges questions about her financial misappropriations by noting "I was made to understand that there were to be no questions about the e-com-o-ny?" and then looks into the camera and says, in that horrifying shrill tone, from that pinched face, "It's got electrolytes...!"

I hate to ask this because normally I'm good at reading intent but, Mike, I'm not really sure what you're going for there. What you wrote reads to me as a parody of left-wing sentiment and goes so far over the top that normally I would have laughed along with the writer and congratulated them on a brilliant piece of satire. And yet... based on who you're supporting and what side of the debate you usually take I would have to guess that you're serious. But I'm really not sure.

Democrats seem almost infuriated by her and I'm not sure why that is, a theory I've seen is that Democrats feel that any successful career woman should be on their side and any that aren't are somehow traitors to the cause.

You think, Daniel?  How are the fool standards running down in Uruguay?

And since the arbiter of class from Montevideo won't answer, I'll keep going.

Steve D., I think you're operating with a somewhat backward and cartoonish view of what American Democrats think.  Not all "successful career wom(e)n" are Democrats.  Nor would Democrats expect them to be.  Those who aren't are not "traitors to (a) cause",  because (believe it or not) we're not advocating "the cause," besides maybe equal pay for equal qualifications.  Is that concept bizarre or leftist or deranged?  Is it unfair?

Ted, that was pretty weak.

Gee whiz, Keith.  Tell me about the substantive critique in Daniel's response that I failed to answer.