You never hear an American politician saying, "I support elites." (Just like "I support political correctness" or "I support extremism" or "I support ideology.")

BTW, there is a way you can reduce prices and consumption at the same time. It's called rationing.

Dubya may be a worse president than Reagan, but it was Reagan, far more than anyone else, who paved the way for the current presidency. By their fruit ye shall know them, and Reagan's fruit was and is rancid. In Dubya's deficits we see the continuation of Reaganomics; in his militarism we see Reagan's hawkishness; in his lawlessness we see the consequences of Reagan and his henchmen getting away with Iran-Contra. (Oliver North didn't even have to do his community service!)

The main difference between them is that Bush's (and America's) luck has run out. Truly, Americans don't appreciate how lucky their nation was in the '80s. (With obvious exceptions like homeless people, I grant you.) Reagan's failure to start World War III was due to luck as much as skill: if he ultimately became less hawkish than the other people in his administration that says a lot more about them than about him. His deficits created a debt problem still of worrisome proportions, but only luck prevented it from becoming far worse in his own time.

"Reagan didn't totally suck" is damning with faint praise, of course, yet even that is quite a generous judgement.

I see a tacky, banal sellout.

The real problem's the consumption explosion. During the 20th century world population increased fourfold, but per capita consumption increased tenfold! Limiting population won't be enough if we don't learn to conserve.

Is it more important to do it right or to do it NOW? IMHO it's better to insist on a better plan and hope time doesn't run out, than to accept the plan you're being offered and hope the shortcomings don't matter. (At least in this case.)

Because the White House and the Republicans won't accept a good rescue plan from the Democrats, the Democrats will have to accept the White House's bad one. The onus is on the Democrats, you see, because they're more reasonable than the Republicans. It doesn't pay to be reasonable.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that Andrew Leonard is right that a far better rescue plan can't get past Dubya and the Republicans. (Though we've seen that popular opinion can make a big difference.) The Democrats should still propose it and force their opponents to kill it so that the voters can get a clear picture of Republican priorities in time for November. Just being passive and letting the president do things his way, without even trying to offer a real alternative, is the sort of cowardice that's been all too characteristic of the Democratic leadership in recent years.

So I could refuse to vote for Obama.

In the notorious 1988 election, Bush Sr. had apologists who insisted he "did what he had to do to win." And if he couldn't win without playing dirty, what does that tell you?

Tell that to the apologists for American terror.

Instead of visiting each other by plane or car, see if you can take the train or a bus. It may not be comfortable, but it'll show your committment to saving the earth.

The most recent issue of HARPER'S magazine (October 2008) has the Rebecca Solnit report "News From Nowhere: Iceland's Polite Dystopia." It's very telling about the situation in Iceland today.

But don't expect them to say something interesting.

He was also the best presidential nominee the Democratic Party had. And one of the best party chairmen they did have.

Check the Pink Floyd song. (I'd sing it at karaoke if only I could be sure of getting a version without the four-minute guitar solo.)

You know in the opening credits of THE SIMPSONS where they showed Bart writing "I will not..." messages over and over on the blackboard? One week he was writing "Bart Bucks are not legal tender."

And if he picks somebody else, THAT'S the right choice!

Remember when "the best and the brightest" took America into Vietnam? (See David Halberstam's book.)

Maybe the strange ideas in Burkina Faso DO matter!

Obama would gladly pay tomorrow for infrastructure today.

If they actually succeed in removing the invocation from Obama's inaugural, they'll be doing him a big, big favor.

So how big can the deficit get before there's a run on the US dollar?

Right after she blasts the Fairness Doctrine, CP mentions the disastrous invasion of Iraq, which happens to be Exhibit A in showing why the Fairness Doctrine is necessary. (Remember when MSNBC canned Phil Donahue's show, despite having the network's highest ratings, because he was challenging the coming war?)

It's characteristically disingenuous of CP to wonder why liberals can't succeed in talk radio while ignoring the fact that too many station owners prefer conservative shows. (The MSM's "undeniable liberal bias" is a particularly threadbare cliche.)

The fundamentalists oppose civil unions too. And the end of the day, they'll have to be defeated, not persuaded to stop opposing gay civil rights. Just as the segregationists had to be defeated.

Nationalize 'em all and let the FDIC sort it out!

You speak of the violent French anarchists of the 1890s as the Western world's first terrorists. Yet the Ku Klux Klan had been active 20 years before in the United States, and I'm sure most people would consider that a terrorist movement.

To argue that a vote for Geoghegan is wasted, you must................ show which candidate one should vote for instead.

You need to push him!

What does this prove? That socialism is irrelevant, or that Joan Walsh is unimaginative?

For the record, I'm a bit younger than JW and Obama, but socialism is important to my thinking. Specifically, only socialists are serious about challenging the power of big business. And the current crises (both economic and environmental) show the necessity of thinking outside the box.

Socialism: Now more than ever.