"And while both types use computer controls, the dual system needs more computing power, which also adds cost."

No doubt the systems used by the Insight and Prius require different computer systems and programming but it's hard to believe that the computing power between the two is so different as to contribute to any meaningful cost difference. How much more "powerful" are the computer processors in the Prius and how much more costly are they relative to those in the Insight?

I would imagine that any added cost due to computer processing power is negligible relative to the other differences between the vehicles, namely the additional size, features and amenities in the Prius.

I think Obama was generally perfect last night. One cannot help but feel confident that we have a thoughtful and intelligent leader. However, it is important to apply some reasonable criticism as well. Two points:

First, I agree with Obama's observation that we cannot turn the country around over time without the appropriate fixes to education, energy and health care policy. However, he uses this as a justification for massive deficit spending. I can only get behind this spending if I new we were doing the right things in these three key areas and I'm concerned that once congress gets its hands on things, we will be looking at some pretty f-ed up plans with huge price tags. As convincing as Obama is in front of the American public, he has shown no ability to stand up to Congress (particularly Democrats) as they have mangled each and every one of his ideas and proposals. He needs to get Congress under control or we'll be looking at budgets that are even more expensive than his proposal.

Second, the line about the timing of his outrage about AIG was a perfect score. But, like many effective lines, it was inaccurate. Obama was late to the AIG outrage party, not because because he was getting his facts in order but precisely because he did have his facts in order. In fact, the lapse in judgment was when he jumped on the outrage bandwagon along with all the blowhards in Congress (and Cuomo) who knew little about the facts and the implications of government intervention in the bonuses. (Note that Obama has since retreated to a more sensible and productive position on this issue.)

While I echo Frank's comments and understand his anger, I wish there was someone in politics with the independence, gravitas and chutzpah to issue the same condemnation of Frank and his committee. When serious people who work hard to do their jobs in the public and private spheres need to sit and listen to questions/speeches from the blowhards on congressional committees I wish someone would tell the committee members to "grow up."

Reading many of the statements being made about AIG by politicians, the press and various talking heads and commentators, it is clear that many are not acknowledging our relationship with AIG. The government bought a huge stake in the company. (I hate that we did it but we did so let's deal with it.) We own most of AIG. This is our company. Let's start talking like it's our company. This is no longer simply an issue of needing AIG to survive because of its importance to the world of finance. We need it to survive and thrive because we have a huge amount of money invested in it.

Penalizing AIG by withdrawing funds equal to the retention bonuses is silly. Again, this is our company...why do we want to hurt it?

Encouraging an adversarial relationship with AIG employees is silly. These are our employees. We need them to remain with AIG and do everything they can to save it. For the vast majority of AIG employees this means keep doing exactly what they've been doing...most of the business units are quite profitable. If we create an environment where employees are poorly treated we risk losing them, their skills and their relationships. If this happens, our investment in this company will be a certain mistake.

The government should never have started acquiring equity stakes in AIG and other private companies. But now that it has, it needs to start acting like and owner. For elected officials this should mean the days of using AIG as a punching bag to get your quote in the paper are over. After all, if they didn't like the way AIG was conducting business, they never should have bought the company.