I'm enjoying seeing the idiots that lead us into this current mess suffer as well, but what I seem to be reading here is the mob mentality throwing blame at everyone even slightly associated.

There is an argument to be made that AIG had no right to give bonuses after effectively going under but that is not the fault of the working staff there - from the pillorying this guy is getting here to the threats of violence against AIG staff there is a huge over reaction going on from angry people.

BUT why are you wasting time and energy being angry with this guy who seems not to have been involved in causing the crisis?

You are directing your anger at the wrong person and in doing so you actually help the scumbags at the top divert the attention from themselves to scapegoats for the angry mob.

You SHOULD be angry but you should make sure the anger isn't wasted.

Get the guys at the top who did this and don't get diverted by stuff like this.

...but why is it OK to clinically discuss the future first lady's arse yet bad to do similarly offensive (and yes it is a little offensive but not in a scary way) things to a white woman - the hypocrisy is getting a little nauseating.

...but Broadsheet's right to feminist outrage vanished when they felt it was OK to pass judgement on Michelle Obama's arse.

Are we still really supposed to take this column seriously?

Regardless of opinions of the war most of the troops in it are men & women who believe they are fighting for a good cause.

Incidents like this demonstrate that the officers above them are often the worst kind of cowards who dishonour their sacrifice.

I think if this was demanded of citizens in general then I would hope outrage would be widespread but no-one is forced to apply for a job in Obama's administration.

I also feel that what I post on a public area, such as this letter, is not really private. If I want my thoughts on a subject private then I tend to steer away from posting them online however anonymous I might think myself to be.

To me this is more like the way that all a judges writings are examined line by line when they are up for some senior judgeship.

If you aren't willing to stand by something you have written then perhaps you shouldn't write it on a public wall - especially if you wish to take a job in the public arena.

This is not terribly shocking or unexpected.

And lest the writer's headline makes you forget this questionnaire is only required if you wish to join the Obama administration - it is not compulsory for anyone.

I think it is also a little simplistic to see this as learning lessons from Clinton's errors, although it is probably a factor.

This is about not repeating Dubya's mistakes.

In another age Dubya would have had things locked - both houses, a friendly supreme court & a tame media. The online voices from the shrillest blogs to august publications such as Salon have prevented a number of vital stories from being forgotten in the general apathy of the traditional media. Would things like phone tapping, FISA or Abu Grahib been so widely known if we'd had to rely on print & TV?

But Dubya's perfect storm was hobbled by the viral nature of the internet and the ability of any national citizen to quickly and easily read comments and opinion from around the globe.

Dubya's tenure has been the first one to have to stand up to this type of scrutiny and Obama is not a stupid man.

He knows the GOP will catch on fast and that he must take the past we leave lying about online seriously because the GOP operatives leaking some whitehouse staffers chat log from #naughtyschoolgirls will be taking it very seriously indeed.

I guess the message is - If you have something you want to stay hidden don't post it on a public forum on the internet.

...during the primary season to a long article about Hillary's tits?

Well - I'm not mortally offended like some.

I even get that the author is trying to express a certain joy in the piece.

But I can't help wondering how Michelle Obama would feel on reading someone essentially saying she has a fat arse in a supposedly serious magazine.

I'm also a little concerned about how the more than usually virulent right wing could re-frame a piece like this to pander to the very stereotypes that the author herself, I'm sure, would hate to see applied to an intelligent, attractive and accomplished woman such as Michelle O.

The Obama's have a huge huge task ahead of them and on top of that will probably encounter obstacles no previous president ever has - those of good will should be thinking very carefully about whether their voices are going to help or hinder.

I also seem to remember reading, possibly even here, that the culture of 'large booty' is actually encouraging women to develop a physique that is actually bad for their health (not that we men would ever do that!!).

Would getting this passed be a good thing for any candidate - screwing the voters this big is not a political winner unless you are in the very very rich zone...

...that partisan stuff aside this young woman isn't being forced into marriage/child birth solely to keep the politics looking good for mum.