Glenn wrote "outside of those anonymity-granting blogger/journalists and Democratic apparatchiks, these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments are largely confined to the fringes. With some exceptions, to find this right-wing-replicating blind loyalty to the Leader, one has to search blog comment sections and obscure diarists."

Another place you can find 'em is right here at Salon's Table Talk. Just take a look in the White House folder (linked in signature) at the posts in the "Paul Krugman is a Wonderful Columnist II" and "Wall Street Shuffle" threads going back a few days and observe the treatment doled out to participants who fail to demonstrate sufficient sentiments of worship and loyalty to Barack "he plays 11th dimensional chess beyond your capability to comphrend" Obama. Or take a look at the current President Barack Obama where you will find the same "Geithner isn't going anywhere" diary you linked quoted rather reverentially and as though it made some sort of solid argument.

I'm heartened to see places like Eschaton (Atrios) and economists/bloggers/columnists like Krugman, Baker, Stiglitz and others (including you) that refuse to drink the Democratic version of BushBot KoolAid, but there is a very deep undercurrent of very intolerant 'liberals' out there who truly are caught up in what seems to me to be the same sort of cult of personality we saw in (at the very least) Bush's first term.

TableTalk may not be the same thriving Salon community that it once was, but it still provides a mirror into the thoughts of a number of Obama supporting Salon readers. Take a look if you can find the time.

Mr. Leonard, for the love of Dog, would you please (PLEASE!)stop with the references to the short term moves in a stock index ("So, there's ample room for pessimism. And indeed, in the time it took to write this post, the Dow slumped from a 100 points up to 15 points up.") as though they mean anything at all? I can think of nothing less relevant to the discussion of signs of economic life (or lack thereof) than the utterly irrational herd behavior reflected in the minute to minute, hour to hour or day to day fluctuations of a stock index and this is especially true for a very narrow index like the DJIA.

As far as economic reporting on things like home sales and durable goods, I'm going to suggest that you play Toto and pull back the curtain to see what is behind it. What if I told you that despite the press reports, there was a very good chance that there was NO uptick in housing beyond statistical noise, or worse than that, the very large margin of error in the numbers (widely ignored) means that there may in fact have been a fall in home sales? It's fuzzy numbers, Mr. Leonard. Check it out for yourself. See http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/fuzzy-reporting-press-helps-distort-housing-data/15540. (Linked in my signature for click-thru.)

More Fuzzy Reporting: http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/more-fuzzy-reporting-new-home-sales-misrepresented/15617

And while we're at it, remember the "positive news" on durable goods? Look closer. http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/more-fuzzy-numbers-durables/15630

And on the whole subject of fuzzy numbers in general: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers

There is nothing at any of those links that is not in plain English or which requires any sort of specialized knowledge or advanced degree to understand. I encourage you to examine the analysis there. It's short, won't take much time and may be helpful in evaluating some of the "good news" that is being...uh...reported. Then again, you and others may find it all to be bunk. But I wouldn't bet on that. Not even with a credit default swap.

Is Obama wrong for pushing the Gaulson plan? Yes. Very.

I call it Gaulson because at it's most fundamental level, it is the same plan that Paulson first pushed (and then basically retreated from), gussied up with additional layers of complexity by Tim Geithner. It's sort of like putting lipstick on a pig. Nice ruby lips, but still a pig.

There's been an enormous amount of following the news concerning what is going on at Salon's Table Talk, especially in the Wall Street Shuffle thread in the White House folder. (See http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?13@@.773d6e2c or click my sig for the link.) Reviewing the information from the past several weeks worth of posts there is a good place to start in order to get both the pro and the con of what Obama/Geithner are up to with this pig and their cosmetics.

Short version of Jim's letter: If you can't fault the message, fault the messenger.

Jim, I have no idea what you do or how carefully you follow the news. I don't know if you have been a regular reader of Krugman or if you've come to read him -- hopefully you do actually read him for yourself rather than depend on others characterizations -- only recently as someone who (at least apparently) is an Obama partisan. Whatever the case, while it is certainly true that Krugman does make mistakes just as does any other human being, his overall track record is nothing short of amazing and attacking him for something he may or may not have said and with absolutely no context for what is being claimed is simple fallacy. It's called argumentum ad hominem.

If there is some basis for taking issue with the specifics of what Krugman has to say, then let's hear it. But argumentum ad hominem is not gonna cut it with anyone capable of rational thought. In other words, some substance, please.

The Infinite Debt article by Thomas Geoghegan that Peter Maranci refers to in his letter is definitely worth the effort. It's available via Scribd.com. Link in my sig.