Most Peeved Political Moment

So I'm sitting in my Islam class at Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges) the morning Kerry concedes to Bush. My Canadian-citizen teacher is going off on what a sad day this is for America, and how happy she is that most university students were intelligent enough to vote for Kerry. She acts dumbfounded that anyone could vote for Bush, saying that those who had voted for him were doing so on mere moral grounds. Morals that are mistaken because they inhibit a woman's right to choose and judging who ought to be sleeping with whom.

This is case and point what I can't take in politics, religion, and other such divisive issues - when one side of the issue paints the other side as being fanatical, stupid, or ignorant. Why can't people on either side remain fully convinced of their stands while acknowledging that alternate opinions are held by intelligent moral people? Wouldn't it actually serve to strengthen one's argument to acknowledge any element of truth in the opposing view? It seems like a blatant case of intellectual laziness to rely on portrayal of the opposition as crazy in order to convince others of the value of one's own position. Well let me tell you there is a lot of this brand of intellectual laziness going on in academia, which hopefully students can recognize and not be brainwashed by.