paranoia at its most obvious (oh one who goes by no name).

I'll betcha the folk CD of your choice that Democrats win MN in a landslide -- oh wait....that would mean you'd have to become un-anonymous.

Are we ever going to get past the notion that pointing out what the other candidate has said/voted for is "attacking"? "vicious"?

On a lighter note, did anyone notice that J. Bartlett stated in the TV debate that he was not for "bipartisanship" as demagogued currently in Washington. That he believed that folks voted for representation of what they believed in and that compromise was not always admirable.

Hopefully at some point life will imitate art.

Of course, we would, at some point have to get used to the notion that those who disagreed with us politically were our enemies.

I think it's been a long time since, in this country, any but the most extreme have held to the notions that the opposing views accuse them of.

Most liberals I know understand that a free(er) market is the only means by which a society/community/country will generate enough production to have the means to support the weakest in the community.

Most conservatives I know, though they want government limited (in the original sense put forth by A constitution, are not anarchists by any stretch and will gladly agree to the notion that the government can be pretty good at doing some things.

The leaders of both address the extremes and the fears -- and we willingly go along because we have no regular assurances from the other side that they understand the realities of the pragmatic middle.