There were many other parallels between the US in the late 19th and 20th Centuries and China today. The adulterated food and other infamous practices of current China were par for the course in the US back then, which had been foisting inferior and too often dangerous products in Europe and elsewhere, until our manufacturers were finally forced to end, or at least curtail, the practices with establishment of the FDA, USDA and other protection agencies. They were also constrained somewhat by slowly emerging environmental and worker protection standards -- which the Bush administration is striving to undo.

In fact, our manufacturers are back where they were then. Many of the corporations that have been exploiting that country's weak product, environmental and worker safety requirements, and low wages, are owned solely or principally by US corporations. They're also using the availability of cheap Chinese and other imported goods to stifle wages of US Workers.

Wow - we really should elect Obama if he's prescient enough to start an investigation months before anyone knew Palin was going to be nominated.

-- swampdog

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this whole investigation well under way before it was even known that Palin was going to be the Republican VP candidate? -- debpet

Not only that, he was prescient enough to have started the investigation before he even knew he had won the Democratic nomination.

I'm voting for That One.

Why is everyone so fixated on the Democrats obtaining a "filibuster-proof" sixty seats in the Senate? Votes, whether to end a filibuster or to pass a law, are rarely made on a strict party line basis; there are almost always a few who cross party lines with their votes.

The Democrats might stand a slightly better chance of ending a filibuster with 60 seats than with 58 or 59, and a bit better with 61 or 62, but don't count on that to eliminate filibusters altogether.

Miller is an embarrassment. Who's next -- "Curveball," the Chalabi source Miller relied upon, as a Fox News polling expert?

I expect them to get Chalabi himself?

A good idea, imo, would be for Hillary Clinton to stand in for him at his scheduled campaign events.

But it could be for more than a few days. If his grandmother dies he will need to return for the funeral, if not stay over for it.

Schaller says:

As for "Palin 2012," as I suggested Monday, that development would just be the latest in a long list of blessings for the Democratic Party since early 2005, when Bush's Social Security privatization scheme collapsed, starting a downward spiral that led the Republican Party, among other dead-end paths, toward Juneau, Alaska. So, to that prospect, I say: Run, Sarah, Run!

I recall very similar hand rubbing comments when the first hints of Dubya running for president were made in 1999. He had the same qualities as Palin: easy familiarity, total lack of curiosity, unfamiliarity with issues, and a driving determination and willingness to do whatever it took to win.

If Palin can show that she will stay scrupulously on the message assigned by her handlers, as Bush did, she's almost a shoo-in for the nomination, and could well surprise her critics as much as Bush did his. He was the guy people wanted to have a beer with; she's the one woman want to emulate and men to go to bed with.

The death knell of the Republicans was sounded after Goldwater's overwhelming defeat in 1964, But Nixon won four years later and they have won eight of the elections since.

Schaller and the other commentators seem to relish the idea of Palin running for President in 2012 and beyond, because she'd be so easy to beat.

But what if she wins? Preposterous? No more so than the idea of George W. Bush winning -- twice. And if I recall correctly many Democrats were relishing the possibility of him running in 1999 and 2000, for the same reason.

If the Republican Right Wing can get him elected, they can do it for anyone. Even Palin.

But she may lack their one essential qualification: the ability to stick to her assigned talking points and obey their instructions unquestionably.

There's reason enough to boot Pious Joe, even without his campaigning for McCain, speaking at the Republican Convention and others acts against the Democrats. That is his failure, as chairman of the Department of Homeland Security, to hold hearings on the most egregious failure -- outside of Iraq -- of the Bush Administration: its response to Katrina.

Keeping him as chair of that committee would be even worse than appointing a Republican; few Republicans would dare to be as openly protective of the Bushies.

He's a Republican in Democratic clothing; why let him spy for them in the Democratic caucus?

This is slightly off topic, but the first time you cash a check at Walmart (and many other stores by now) you are asked for ID and such. The check is run through a scanner which reads the routing and other information and the amount is automatically switched from your account into Walmart's. The check is then returned to you.

Your account numbers are then in Walmart's system and there is no more need to show any ID when cashing future checks.

In other words, your check works exactly the same as a plastic debit card. Very convenient, especially for those who don't trust plastic money, and even convenient for Walmart.

There is one slight difference though; with the new checking system there is no PIN. Anyone with access to your checkbook -- such as a dishonest customer behind you who notices you dropping it and picks it up-- can clean it out with merchandise bought at any Walmart or any of the hundreds of other stores now using the system.

Your liability is limited to $50 for unauthorized use of your credit card, and a debit card is pretty much useless without the PIN. But with this new checking system there is no protection whatever.