"Why punish businesses that just want to operate regularly? Let's fix the problems that actually caused this mess. Better lending practices, more oversight of securities and fix the ratings agencies."

I am not suggesting that we punish these businesses. I am suggesting that we allow them to adapt their practices to recognize a new reality. I agree with many of your points but wouldn't you think it would be prudent for companies to take a hard look at a practice that cripples their business when credit markets tighten. There are any number of scenarios (beyond declining home values and mortgage defaults) that could make it more difficult or expensive for companies to borrow money. Companies are now in a position where a tight or frozen credit market has not only limited their ability to invest or grow but it has limited their ability to meet their payrolls or pay their bills for ongoing operations. It seems that many of us are learning for the first time that companies have been borrowing money on Wednesday nights so that they can pay their employees on Thursday.

IaintBacchus is right to start asking questions fundemental to our economy. We are operating under a number of assumptions that may not serve us well in the future: a service economy is more desirable than an industrial one, high leverage is the best way to fuel growth. Where we are today and where we're headed will be driven by much more than regulatory changes. It's time to broaden this conversation and take a hard look at what we are as a country and what we'd like to become.

There are many reasons to hate Palin (or at least her policies, ambitions and campaign) but this is not one of them. These kids will face many challenges in their lifetime. They will be lucky kids if the grueling schedule of their 2 months on the campaign trail is the toughest one. (Bristol Palin sure has some issues to deal we can't blame a newborn's late night at a convention for those.)

If Palin becomes vice president, I would imagine that the 4 or 8 years in the public spotlight would have a much more substantial (damaging?) impact on these kids than 2 months campaigning.

I'm not a huge Lieberman fan but this post is overly aggressive.

No, the Democratic Party does not stand for any clear set of principles. Neither does the Republican Party. This is not news. When we talk about party leaders, consultants and the politicians themselves, we are talking about some of the sleaziest people anyone would ever meet.

I am slightly encouraged that a party is willing to welcome a continued working relationship with one of their own who has deviated from the script...even if it was with some critical votes and a Presidential endorsement.

I like Obama (no nearly as much as I used to) but he's no sacred cow. Look closely at your list of the attacks that Lieberman has thrown at Obama. Anything there that Hillary Clinton wasn't saying louder and for a longer period of time?

Once again we see that Salon's best asset is its readership. The comments to this post are so much more enlightened than the post itself. Perhaps the Slate article is a little silly but it's hard to argue with it's accuracy. Maybe Clark-Flory thinks a good LDS is worth more than the damage it does to the environment but there's no question that this type of reasoning is what got us in the environmental mess we're in. I'm grateful that other Salon readers have been able to point this out. If a family wants to fit all the kids and groceries in their car at once, they will be pilloried for their decision to drive a low mileage minivan or SUV. It's only fair to be equally harsh on all decisions that hurt the planet.

The way to bring about real environmental change is for all of us to be truly informed as to how all of our lifestyle choices impact the environment.

and the closing line is absolutely brilliant.

As for the previous posters complaining about The Onion's video, I am pretty sure that the next resident of the White House has a better sense of humor and a greater willingness to look at himself in an objective and critical manner. We have become accustomed to a President unwilling to see some of the absurdity in himself and his supporters. I'm hoping Obama is different. This kind of change is needed more than any change in political party.

I wonder why each side is pursuing this discussion. Palin is so clearly unqualified to be President. Everyone asked questions about her selection when it was announced but she was given more than the benefit of the doubt. She blew it because she's just not the right person for the job. The more she and her staff bring up the last two months, the more the public will remember her for her shortcomings. As for McCain and his staff, there is a wealth of justifiable criticism to throw at Palin but the problem is that HE picked HER. This was his decision and it reflects badly on him.

Both parties would be better off moving on and letting this debate go away.

I can't believe that 4 years in advance some of the comments already look forward to an Obama victory over Palin in 2012. I like Obama and think Palin would be a disaster but I also know that Obama's victory last week was as much a result of external factors as it was a result of his being the superior candidate. If the economy remains the same or (quite likely) gets worse, I wouldn't like Obama's chances against any opponent. In fact, I wouldn't count out a challenger for the Democratic nomination...especially with Hillary Clinton floating around.