Terry Gross: "Well, where did the money go? Did it actually ever exist?"

Greenberger: "That's a good question. Yes, it existed. A lot of people made a lot of money. Fill in the blank big-ass Bozo made 8 billion last year on CDS's. Goldman-Sachs emerged from 2007 having reversed course and begun holding positions against sub-prime and are doing rather well."

OK, so let me get this straight. In exchange for making a bet against the poor (yes, stupid) saps who took out loans they could not afford, there are certain folks who inserted a vacuum cleaner into our economy through a door opened by Phil Gramm and have sucked a lot of money out of it.

Call me a simpleton, but I think those folks can afford to pay it back, not the US Tax Payer. First step, identify them and second step, say, hand it the fuck over. *shrug*

"We really cannot go around feeling flat and defeated, with the need to metabolize the rotten meat that this one particular candidate and the media have forced upon us."

Forgive this rant ahead of time. I am repulsed by the whining I see in the liberal press about the "unfairness" of Republican politics and the "vileness" I see in McCain's choice of Palin. Get a clue. How could the "leadership" of the DNC not know this would happen? Why did it make itself vulnerable by ignoring much of its base through its choices over the past year? Obama should be beating the crap out of McCain. That he isn't is the fault of the DNC and the Congressional Leadership that made itself entirely irrelevant over the past two years by embracing the disgusting policies of the Republicans wholesale with only nominal differences. Since Obama chose as his running mate someone other than the person who could have helped him win, then this is the outcome. The vulnerability was ALWAYS there. And liberals are SHOCKED, JUST SHOCKED the Republicans saw it and attacked? Damn, how much more evidence does anyone need on how to lose an election?

The DNC disgusts me, the liberal, whining press, which has proven itself completely ineffectual at true reporting and/or criticism doubly so. The Democrats have proven themselves completely incapable of winning a national election. Again.

I can't vote for them. It would be a vote for Dean, and Reid, and Pelosi, as much as it is a vote for Obama, who I have no faith will keep any promise he made about who he is and who is EQUALLY AS MIRED IN RELIGIOUS POLITICS. My vote goes to Dodd. At least he seems to recognize his base for who they are.

Guess it really sucks, then, that he's correct. *shrug* I'm not a repug troll, and I can see the writing on the wall. See, normal people just don't vote the way you smart people do :P

You just called it. Seriously. My sister, lifelong Demo, just switched sides. She wasn't fond of Obama, watched with dismay his recent switch in policies she held dear, and was deeply angry at the DNC for its own sexism against Hillary and Obama's campaign for same. Literally, 30 years of voting Democratic was just tossed out teh window by her in a great big F-YOU. Somehow, I think her attitude is about to be replicated more than the letterwriters here want to believe.

It means John McCain is going to win. He just co-opted the Obama narrative. I think some of you folks over-think this stuff and manage to miss the point quite widely. If elected Democratic Representatives are going to act like Republicans rather than what they were elected to do, ie ignoring their mandates, then voting for or against them makes no difference. Snobama cannot be counted on to do anything he's said he will do, since he's not even elected yet and has reversed himself on any position of importance.

Here's for a vote AGAINST Ms. Pelosi "impeachment is off the table." Damn, Democrats really know how to lose them. They can't win if their lives depend on it.

"He's unelectable."

"And PUMAs--you got your marching orders from the boss herself."

Why anyone thinks that candidates do the thinking for their constituency, I'm not sure. Why delegates are complaining about how to vote (Hilary, tell us waht to do...) when they had their marching orders already from those who elected them is confusing to me. The people who elected them, I thought, were giving marching orders--not CLINTON. Delegates were elected to go to the convention and vote for who they were elected to vote for, I believe. There's nothing really complex or confusing about it. Were I a delegate elected to vote for Hilary, I would do. Were I a delegate elected to vote for Obama, I would do so. Party "bosses" may be hand-wringing, wanting a show of unity, but the party was not and is not unified yet. A show doesn't "make" 18 million votes of folks who are not in Denver go away. Implicit in the comment above, the whole notion of Democrats having marching orders and you better like it by god, is really amazing to me.

Guess politics is just confusing to me.

"He's unelectable" though still resonates. Wonder if she meant what she said? "He's not ready to be President." Wonder if he meant what he said?

Doesn't seem like they ever mean what they say, or rather, they did mean it, but then later have to retract it because they have their marching orders. Who's giving it to them, I don't know. The people? Hmmm...oh, well.

Lacking incisive, decisive insight, but not full of shit,

Me

I hadn't even read your letter when I posted mine. Thank you for stating the truth. The world some of these people live in about Obama is stunningly divorced from the reality of his political rise. It's an amazing thing to see.

"He was too good to go there." Ha, he's ONE OF THEM.