Thankfully, these poor souls are on the road to recovery. I'd still like to write a parody of this, but I can't figure out how to beat the actual news coverage:

“Dr. Schooler absolutely understood the pain this election caused me and he opened my mind to a new point of view,” Karen said. “You’re relaxed, he talks to you and you just come out of it feeling more positive and renewed. It took one session. He did some relaxation techniques and probably did some things I didn’t even realize.”

A Schooler client for seven years, dating back to her divorce, Karen said the doctor helped her realize it had been unhealthy for her to expect Kerry to win.

“If I’d had time, I would have volunteered for Kerry, but I work full-time,” Karen said. “I was so invested emotionally, watching the debates, and was very disturbed whenever I heard a Marine has been killed. I thought Bush’s actions were war crimes. But I’m sleeping again since the therapy and have felt better ever since. I don’t know what will happen now, but I’m going to take it day by day and see what happens.”

Regardless of his political views, the election outcome has certainly been a boon for Dr. Schooler.

At first I thought this was funny, these people. But I didn't experience the trauma of having my candidate lose.

BUT - I've waited for four years for Halo 2, and the disappointment I feel with the game is, I think, what the anti-Bush crowd must be feeling. My world has been shattered. I don't know what I'm going to do or to look forward to. I played Halo for four years, combatting all of those scarily brilliant AI enemies... and now this.

It's almost as if Kerry had won... without all the losing the war on Terror stuff.

Do you think Dr. Schooler can help with this?

Of course! But you need to sign and date the check first.

At first I thought this was funny, these people. But I didn't experience the trauma of having my candidate lose.

I did. In 1992 and 1996.

And no, I didn't even remotely feel a need to seek therapy. But then, I've never had my whole being wrapped up in how an election turns out.

(At least, I didn't in 1992 and 1996. Lately, after hearing what the anti-Bush types have to say, I'm not so sure I can still say that.)

Oh, ferchrissakes.

Wotta buncha maroons.

Here we go, now the Lefties will slump dowm to little puddles of tears over KERRY?? That would mean, by extrapolation, that the Bush voters are to blame.

What a bunch of Liberal touchy-feely junk. Let's not get worked up over 3000 people dead in New York and D.C. and a field in Pennsylvania. Let's not get worked up over sailors dead on the U.S.S. Cole or dead Embasy workers in Africa. Let's cry and wail over Kerry losing the White House.

These people show their true colors here as far as I am concerned. It's all about THEM, and hang the rest of the world. They'd rather win with a weak, lying, flip flopping candidate than keep the world safe and sound.

HEY!! MORONS!! Mr Bush won, get over it!!

Barbara, Steve,

Why do feel the need to put the losing side down?

Yes, a few folks seek out therapy for all kinds of reasons.

Lots of people reacted differently to seeing Kerry lose.

What about the Republicans who turned to religious fanaticism as a result of past losses? That's probably even less healthy psychologically than going to therapy.

Steve, the choice was far less dire than you pretend. I think The Economist summed up the choice well, contrasting the incompetent (Bush) to the incoherent (Kerry) -- and then picking Kerry.

If any of you want to rib me for my choices, fine. I can take it. The question is: can you take my ripostes? I can be pretty damned funny some of the time.

What about the Republicans who turned to religious fanaticism as a result of past losses?

Can you cite any examples of this, Chuck? I frankly have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps I'm reaching a bit, Rand.

Unfortunately, there does seem, at least from my perspective, more than a bit of fanaticism in the religious right part of the Republican coalition. They do seem intolerant of people who are different from themselves. They subscribe to ideas that are clearly not true (e.g., creationism). I'm also disturbed by the narrowness and authoritarianism of the Bush administration.

I can understand welcoming the religious right into the Republican coalition. It helps make them a majority in the U.S. today. But if there's even gentle, quiet criticism of the excesses of the religious right, I'm not aware of it. No -- I'm not talking about bloggers such as you and Glenn. I know full well you and others challenge these kinds of idiocies. I'm thinking of people who are recognized as leaders of the Republican party. This goes back to well before the recent campaign.

Bill Clinton -- to his credit -- had his "Sister Souljah" moment. There might have been some calculation involved (probably was, knowing Clinton), but at least he publicly criticized an important part of his coalition. Can George Bush claim the same with regard to the religious right?

Unfortunately, there does seem, at least from my perspective, more than a bit of fanaticism in the religious right part of the Republican coalition. They do seem intolerant of people who are different from themselves. They subscribe to ideas that are clearly not true (e.g., creationism). I'm also disturbed by the narrowness and authoritarianism of the Bush administration.

Unfortunately, there does seem, at least from my perspective, more than a bit of fanaticism in the religious left part of the Democrat coalition. They do seem intolerant of people who are different from themselves. They subscribe to ideas that are clearly not true (e.g., Marxism, John Kerry's Vietnam experiences, Bush is an idiot, etc.). I'm also disturbed by the narrowness and authoritarianism of those who can't stomach the sight of the American flag, or views contrary to their own.

Sorry, Chuck, but the Republicans have no monopoly on such characteristics, and in fact I find them much more tolerant than many Democrats and radical leftists (try to offer a dissenting view at a university sometime). And Bush has leaned over backwards (to the point that it endangers our security, IMO) to placate the politically correct (particularly in the war on Islamic terror). I'm not sure who is the Sister Souljah equivalent that you expect him to condemn, or what purpose such a condemnation would serve.

Once again, you seem to be emoting, and your post remains short on specifics (other than complaining about creationists who, last time I heard, have received zero support from the administration).

Rand,

Ashcroft was clearly an offering to the religious right. There's more wrong with the religious right than simply creationism. Mel Gibson's irrational raving is probably even more offensive than Michael Moore's. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 at least touched reality some of the time. Gibson's movie is based on the "visions" of some 19th century German nun.

Yes, the Democrats also have some people who are likewise irrational and/or dishonest and/or tyrannical. See Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, some people on campus, etc.

Like I've said, I'm concerned about the willingness of Republicans to work, apparently uncritically, with some elements whom at least some of us view as unfriendly to a free society. The same can be said about Democrats as well -- but at least the Democrats seem to be waking up to the dangers that these extremists pose. Can the same be said of Republicans?

What I want Bush to do is to challenge the religious right. Show us how he's different from them. I've read too many reports that the religious right won't tolerate even some Republicans in certain positions. When I hear some Republicans stating people like Tom Kean aren't "real Republicans" I become very concerned. The concern is heightened when the Bush administration doesn't specifically address such talk.

Am I emoting? Or am I raising real worries about an administration I do wish well, even if I didn't support them in the past campaign. See The Economist for a position not all that different from my own.

Ashcroft was clearly an offering to the religious right.

Clearly to you, perhaps. Not to me.

Just what awful things was it that Ashcroft did that endeared him to the "religious right," other than holding voluntary prayer sessions, and covering a statue? What's clear to me was that Ashcroft was qualified for the job, and was available after he (unfairly, IMO) lost his Senate race. Again, these seem to be statements of perception on your part, with no actual examples, rather than reality.

There's more wrong with the religious right than simply creationism. Mel Gibson's irrational raving is probably even more offensive than Michael Moore's.

Not to me. Mel Gibson didn't try to affect an election. What has Mel Gibson done, or attempted to do, that could affect your life?

Like I've said, I'm concerned about the willingness of Republicans to work, apparently uncritically, with some elements whom at least some of us view as unfriendly to a free society. The same can be said about Democrats as well -- but at least the Democrats seem to be waking up to the dangers that these extremists pose.

Can you point me to some evidence for that? When did they wake up?

Can the same be said of Republicans?

I don't think the same can be said of Democrats. I haven't seen anyone repudiate Michael Moore, or International A.N.S.W.E.R. They remain part of the anti-war, anti-democracy wing of the left and the Dems.

What I want Bush to do is to challenge the religious right. Show us how he's different from them.

You mean like call for civil unions for gays? Would that qualify? Because he did that, a few days before the election.

I've read too many reports that the religious right won't tolerate even some Republicans in certain positions. When I hear some Republicans stating people like Tom Kean aren't "real Republicans" I become very concerned.

And yet the fact that no one who is pro-life is allowed to speak at a Democrat convention concerns you not at all? I'm sorry, but you seem to see bogeymen among the Republicans that you're blind to among the Democrats.

FWIW, I'm not a member of the religious right, but I think that in fact Tom Kean isn't a real Republican, nor is Arlen Specter. I think that they're wishy washes with no true convictions who just want to ride a label to power, and I don't see any problem with pointing that out. And sorry, but when it comes to intolerance and exclusiveness, no one can top the left. And I say this as someone who is neither right nor left.

I think The Economist summed up the choice well, contrasting the incompetent (Bush) to the incoherent (Kerry) -- and then picking Kerry.

And this choice sums up why the writers and editors of the Economist are better off opining about than making real decisions.

Even granting the premise that W does not make the best plans, to prefer no clear plan at all, in the hopes that a miracle will occur and a really clever idea emerge later, can only be the choice of someone with no actual cash or lives on the line, an armchair general. People of action and not reflection can't afford to think this way. It's better in reality, as opposed to the academy, to have a firm commitment and a clear if unimaginative plan than it is to rely on ad hoc brilliance. Ask any actual battlefield commander. Better yet, ask his men.

Folks in academia are surprised by this fact, that slow-and-steady kinda-dumb Mr. Tortoise quite often wins the race in the business world, despite the flashes of pure brilliance from the unreliable Mr. Hare. This is why writers, editors and professors do not often make good businessmen.