Wow, Sam, you know nothing about me. Let me clear up a couple of things for you.

1) never lived in Massachusetts.
2) never voted in Massachusetts.
3) If given the opportunity would NEVER vote for any Kennedy.

If you care to re-read my original comment you will see that I started it by stating that I think Coakley is a scumbag and I hope she gets crushed in tomorrow's election. But if you do re-read it, this time put your glasses on BEFORE you start reading.

Maxx, I think you're missing the point of my critique. I was critical of Ms. Coulter's lack of specifics. For example she stated, "as result of Coakley's efforts and her contagious ambition Gov. Swift denied Amirault's clemency." I would like to know what those efforts were SPECIFICALLY. How was her ambition contagious? There must be specific incidents from which Ms. Coulter drew her conclusions. What are they?

You see, Maxx, when I debate someone at a later date regarding Ms. Coakley's ineptitude I would like to say, "Gerard Amirault was kept in prison unfairly due to Coakley's efftorts. She did A, B and C."

What this article gives me is the ability to say that Coakley was over-zealous and evil because Ann Coulter said so and nothing more.

Right on the money, my friend. It's marketing and catch phrases that matter most now. "The discussion is over." "Hope and Change." "Have a Coke and a smile."

Wow, Ann. Really?

I'm sure Coakley is a scumbag and I hope she gets crushed tomorrow but I have to say I was really disappointed with your article after the build-up of the title.

You go into a detailed account of what occurred to get the Amiraults convicted then you tell us that Coakley had nothing to do with the conviction. Then you tell us that Coakley "frantically lobbied" the governor to keep Amirault in prison but you give us absolutely no specifics. So the decision was ultimately the governor's but you put the blame on Coakley? And you don't tell us exactly why? Like I said, I hope Coakley loses tomorrow but I have to say, you're a horrible story teller, Ann.

Technically speaking, the list was "most OVERRATED directors." I don't think any one rates Spike Lee very highly.

Rick, there is a pretty good explanation of the term "useful idiot" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Excellent point.

They exist because they are a front for organized crime. I'm talking about high-level organized crime like banking and trading. Look how they use lower level organized crime to get elected. Look at whom they associate with. Organized crime has infiltrated our government. It happened as soon as the Founding Fathers passed the baton. I am only grateful that it has gotten so bad that it seems the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

And to be fair, the Republicans have been infiltrated as well. George Bush was NOT a conservative any more than Obama is a "Centrist."

I agree with your assessment of Stewart, Josh. I don't find him to be funny but on the rare occasion I've watched him I've found him to be honest. Again, this is only my experience.

Now, Bill Maher is a real snake. Again, I don't find him to be funny or smart. The difference is that on the rare occasion I hear or read Bill Maher it is ALWAYS intellectually dishonest. He's tricky about it though. It's the way he phrases and makes generaliztions and uses hyperbole. Your average liberal dim-wit misses all of these tricks and assumes he knows what he's talking about. Bill Maher is the true "useful idiot."

Wow, Matt! What a flat boring cold-read. I will be sure to play this the next time I can't fall asleep.