bernbart, I think you're remembering your history wrong.

ncarey, I mostly agree with you -- of course that was the outcome! -- except the level of acrimony, especially AGAINST Hillary Clinton for continuing to run against Obama, was staggering and vicious. I said on Salon, I said on TV, they will reconcile, they will cooperate, and I was usually shouted down by rabid Hillary haters. How soon we forget, indeed.

Thanks, Juliebird!

Amity, I don't think you can compare Clinton defenders -- which is how I would describe myself -- to Obama defenders, when it comes to the media, and the drumbeat for Hillary Clinton to leave the race that started last February. There were not rabid Obama haters to yell at Obama defenders, except maybe on Fox News (except maybe Lanny Davis or someone). I pretty much had my particular perch to myself.

However, this particular point of yours is brilliant:

These people are successful elected officials. That means that they know how to play nice with each other when playing nice is possible (and profitable), and they know how and when to fight with each other when it's not. After watching the commentary around the 2008 election I've increasingly come to think that that's precisely why we elect them — because we tend to overidentify with our preferences so much that most of us would make bad legislators. Instead we hire the people who are good at that sort of thing to sit down with the other people we don't like, so that we don't have to.

jack and jill, you're super right. Everyone agrees. I'm a misogynist, I'm the problem. When women are dying worldwide because of sexism, the absolute best use of your considerable energies is clearly heckling me on this blog.

Not.

Will you ever use your passion towards something where you might make a difference? I have a daughter, I care about women's rights, and I can promise you: No woman is doing better as a result of your crusade here, and certainly not you.

We disagree, I'm sorry. Let's find someplace where we might agree, and make a difference. Unless you get paid for doing what you do, in which case your employers should reconsider, because you are convincing nobody.

I'm sorry _Tyler_Mason, you're right.

I apologize for apologizing -- that was a joke, and I shouldn't joke about apologizing, every once in a while, I do it. I am sorry if people missed the obvious context for my musing on Steele, hip-hop and the Pack Rats: He promised to use hip-hop to reach out to the crucial "urban-suburban" voters and recruit them for the GOP. It's in that context -- certainly not his color -- that his unfamiliarity with modern hip hop was relevant.

Klytus, all I kept thinking, watching last night, was: Wouldn't we love to see Stewart grilling Cheney?

We had a long day of meetings, apologies for not being here.

Thanks to paulpsd7 and swinick for articulating why the $1 billion an hour figure is so silly; I should have broken it down better, I thought it went without saying, but I often make that mistake.

Steele the First, I agree it's complicated, I think we offered a full range of perspectives on all of this on our site today, and I just want to correct one thing: I don't go to Georgetown cocktail parties, I live in San Francisco, which is what gives me a lot of the freedom I have to say things other people don't on television, in print or on the Web. You can certainly criticize me, but not on that score.

virtue001, you seem a little bit confused. In fact, there's fingerpointing between Treasury and Chris Dodd, so which one do you believe? Or do you think, with no evidence, there's collusion between them? One thing this particularly tangled story is NOT is transparent. But I'm glad you're getting so much pleasure out of it.

It may be that Geithner's too close to the money boys to solve this mess, but the fact is it was the Bush administration that fought caps on exec compensation in the first round of TARP, and Obama who's fought for them. But this is a good conspiracy theory on right wing blogs so I'm not surprised you're espousing it, facts be damned.

Comfy shoes, how did I play the race card? To say Sanford's policies disproportionately hurt blacks? And he knows that, and that's part of his appeal? It's a fact that his policies hurt black South Carolinians; maybe it's debatable whether he knows that. But I don't think so. Seriously, I'd like to understand your POV. Thank you for writing.

Really, ComfyShoes? Please click on my link to the Corridor of Shame, because I'm pretty sure those schools are "predominantly" black -- I use quotes b/c I'm not sure it captures the truth, some are all black. I think it's wrong to say someone is playing the race card when in fact the situation they are discussing overwhelmingly hits one race or another. Check it out and let me know if you think I'm right.