When reading the intro to your article "In the tech-challenged White House, the prez's BlackBerry-savvy aides feel like they've stumbled into the Carter administration" my immediate thought was It looks like a problem of micro-managing. And, come to think of it, doesn't having instant access sometimes result in that?

Just thinking.............

Jumping up and down with delight!

Unfortunately, those women fantasizing about President Obama and/or his wife Michelle Obama never saw the kinda boring nerdy dreamer he was before his handlers re-invented him.

For a down-to-earth, realistic story about the Obamas, I'd suggest folks get themselves a copy of MICHELLE by Liza Mundy, written before the election.

And, yes, I agree with the majority of readers that Salon needs to move into a little higher sphere of reporting and away from this kind of stuff.

It surprised me that Obama was following the same old process of answering questions from pre-selected questioners. Guess it wasn't an "open" press conference, huh?

However, it doesn't look like they had pre-selected QUESTIONS, given that one reporter (who must have been watching MSNBC'S Chris Matthews earlier) asked a question about lifting the ban on filming coffins of the war dead. I thought that was an odd question given the others, but was shocked at the dumb answer President Obama gave.

He said they were studying that issue and looking at all of the ramifications of lifting the ban. What the hell!?!?!?!

He should have said "You damn well better believe we're going to lift that stupid ban so people here realize the deadly result of war, and understand that this senseless killing on both sides has to stop!" He could also have added that new reports show increasing numbers of suicides, both when they return from duty in Iraq & Afganistan and even while they're still there, and how the military needs to put aside it's macho approach to mental health and provide comprehensive treatment to also prevent these unnecessary deaths.

But he didn't.

(And I cringe ever time he says "General Petraeus.")

I think Senators Leahy, Feingold, Spector, Kennedy, Whitehouse, McCaskill, and any others who support their efforts to curtail the use of the State Secrets privilege, should decline any future invitations to dinner with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. Especially if it involves the use of sharp knives, since it's clear the man wields a mean steak knife and doesn't like to have people try to limit his power...er...I mean his boss' power.

We'd like to have a high-speed railroad going from southern New Mexico to the metro area of Albuquerque where all of those Native-American casinos exist.

...musta been misfiled

...it went to cyber heaven

...the memo got shredded

...fell behind the file cabinet

...the computer crashed

...someone stole it

...the dog ate it

...never existed

...What's the matter? Don't you trust us?

So how does the generous Alaska governor excuse the extra money sent to all Alaskans - over and above the oil/gas revenue share they get annually - prior to the November election?

A bribe to vote for the Palin-McCain ticket last November?

Liebermann can't be trusted. He needs to be left out there dangling on a rope. Not welcomed into the big tent.....please don't do that, please, please......

This article reads: "Also controversial was one case during his stint at the American Civil Liberties Union in which he conviction for receiving and possessing child pornography should be overturned on constitutional grounds."

Is it "his conviction for receiving and possessing..." or "the conviction for receiving and possessing..." or "he argued that the conviction for receiving and possessing..." or what?

Please clarify.

...are probably bulk sales by right-wing groups, and 500 are likely to the rest of us---some who buy the book just to see how ridiculous Coulter can be, and a few others who see it on the shelf and, for some odd reason, are real fans.

...a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money! That's how these execs think about a few million--or a lot of million, in this case--dollars.

Some of the people who got checks Friday aren't even with AIG anymore. So much for "retention" bonuses. And the ones still there don't deserve to be retained. Bonuses are supposed to be rewards for good work, not contractual obligations given regardless of good or bad performance.

How dare they give out those bonuses!!!

How dare the government not stop them!!!!!!

How dare either of these entities try to con us with BS now!!!!!!!!

He should have used the proper phrase, which is "fall on their swords" because that was the noble thing to do when leaders failed to perform valiantly and were disgraced. It was most often used in reference to failed military actions in Japanese culture. Today, disgraced (failed) executives there become "window sitters" where they retain their so-called jobs with companies but are given no duties to perform--which is a negative thing in that culture. Our "window sitters" get by with doing nothing -- or at least nothing positive and productive-- and receive million dollar bonuses, professionally-decorated offices with lots of windows in corner suites, retreats at high-end resorts, huge expense accounts, chauffer-driven cars, and private planes for their (lack of) effort.

Grassley is on the right track. It's time we demanded that these failed corporate executives fall on their swords---figuratively, of course--by starting with returning those bonuses paid out of taxpayer bailout monies.

On the video, Rep. Judy Biggert asks a key question. I'm paraphrasing: If there was no bailout, would those bonuses have been paid? Liddy responds Probably not. Then he goes on to explain that AIG would have likely gone into bankruptcy with the judge determining who would get bonuses and who wouldn't. What crap! The first in line with the largest claims -- AIG's creditors and the government that provided bailout monies -- would have gotten paid some of what they were owed. Those asking for their so-called "retention bonuses" would have been last in line. They would have received nothing!