I'm just curious. What school of liberal thought teaches that calling your opponents names and denigrating their intelligence or mental stability is a valid debating method, or even a good idea? Because it's not a school; it's more like a kindergarten.
Folks, if you want to improve the political dialogue, then discuss and debate and make your points. Calling the other side names results in less productive discussion, not more.
If you're happy with the things that have been said in this thread about Mr. Bush, don't be surprised what you may hear and/or read about Mr. Obama.
But just for the record, George Bush has a degree from Yale (with better grades than Al Gore), and an advanced degree from Harvard. (And those records are available, something Mr. Obama has not done.) He's not stupid or ignorant. He has a lot of fans, and he has behaved like a true gentleman since he left office, something that can't be said for Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton.
I'm not one of those big fans, but I think that history is going to be much kinder to him than many think today. And I'm beginning to fear that history, while noting the historic nature of Mr. Obama's election, is going to be less kind than many might think today. Of course, it's still early in his tenure, so there's no way to judge, and it wouldn't be fair to even try, probably.