Seems there are a lot of angry, self-righteous winners out there who not only are irate that they're being lumped in with the undesirable segment of their party, but feeling smug enough to lecture the losing party on just why they lost and how much they suck.

A lot of this has been aggrivated by the PIPA survey of candidate supporters The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters, and the exit polls connections betweeen various catagories and the candidate supporters.

Both have revealed a lot of statistical data about the majority and median of Bush supporters that is making quite a few people uncomfortable.

Luckly we have the internet to allow the venting of as much bile on both sides as soon a humanly possibly after an emotional event. The rage can happen in real-time thanks to technology.

What would have just been defused and dismissed as sore losers in the heat of the moment, since we're what, not two days from concession and victory, instead is the subject of more hostility than even was apparent before the election.

I don't remember Clinton supporters being so pissed at Bush Sr. or Dole supporters after their losses, but I suppose it might have been possible if such a wide audience for diatribes and gloating were available then.

But now that Bush has won, I guess people feel full of themselves enough to rub other people's noses in it. I'd think the moral high ground, if you really were concerned so much about that, would be just to wait for the whining to subside in silence, opting to hold out for more rational heads to prevail.

As for feeling guilty or uncomforable or whatever, to be associated with the more ignorant and objectionable elements of your party, it would seem to me that if you don't want to be lumped in with themof your party, you'd best do a good job of differentiating yourself in word and more importantly deed.

And that goes both ways.

Who knows maybe it'll even go more, if we can get away from the stranglehold of a calcified two party system.