It's worth asking at this point what the goals of the Nobel Prize for literature committee are. Politics or language? Historical commentary or a consistently high work output? What are the guidelines this committee follows? This author isn't even well known in Europe. Sadly, the literature Nobel has become a de facto "political" corollary to the Peace Prize, and I don't see, from the quotes in the article, how this minor author is a celebration of the beauty of words, language, or literary art. Maybe we'll get some new translations that will support the prize. But right now Muller would certainly win the Nobel Prize for Most Politically Ostracized and Obscure Author though.

There are so many other worthy candidates....

but didn't some Democrats vote for the war, tax cuts, and Medicare prescription drug benefits too? It's hard to argue against how deluded Republicans are today when they controlled the White House and Congress from 2000-06.

But what really bugs me right now--and you can see it in the Democratic Judases over today's ousting of the public option in the Senate finance committee--is that Democrats are culpable too. I hate that any Democrat voted for Bush tax cuts, Iraq funding, and Big Pharma giveaways.

But they did.

Thanks for articulating this divide/nondivide corrosiveness.

"The people who are coming to these town halls are certainly smart enough to understand what's going on, and to say what they dislike about the reform plans."

Really? These town hall meetings are showing exactly the opposite: Many people don't understand how government ALREADY affects their lives much less how it will if healthcare reform passes. All of these arguments are bread-and-butter right-wing talking points; that is, they are completely taken out of context: What government can do and what the free market is already doing. These people also obviously aren't hearing any opposing views, and I would suspect, many lack a basic understanding of how our government works, much less the difference between "socialism" and "fascism" and how those terms change depending upon the context in which they're being used. When you complain that you don't want the government taking over Medicare, you have already left me speechless.

I can see this thread has spiraled out of control. I thought about this piece for a day and have to say that I disagree with Michael Lind, as much as I appreciate and understand the need to remind liberals about how conservative the rest of the country is. After TWO terms of one of the worst presidencies (and Congress--Schivo anyone?) in the history of this great country, I think it's time to show independents and conservatives what progressives and the left really stand for by creating a lasting legacy. There won't be another opportunity. The right-wing lies are already starting to germinate in the independents and in any right-winger who believes in the free market even if it kills them. The Congress probably will not have this much of a Democratic majority in 2011. Now's the time to create programs that set us on the right foot. I don't like what Obama's been doing on the economy, but I applaud his stance on healthcare (and might adjust my stance on his economy based on what he accomplishes with healthcare). Above all I love the looseness and confidence he's projecting about healthcare reform. No, we aren't going to get a Norway-style healthcare system, but we might just get something worthwhile out of this. It's been almost 20 years since the country even had a legitimate discussion about healthcare. Bravo Obama. Keep laughing at the fools who want to scare and browbeat everyone.

I appreciate the concerns raised by this article, but I just want to clarify that the wage gap isn't strictly related to gender. As a male who has studied art, foreign languages, literature, and who has worked in education--all supposed "female" interests--I too have been disenfranchised economically by working in "women's professions." Certainly, equal pay for women is an issue, but the real problem is addressing how to make life in America affordable for ALL people who aren't interested in getting an MBA or aren't good in math or science or business. Tiered tuition costs based on real post-college pay scales are a good start, but a strong social net is the best goal. Unless you work in science, medicine, or finance, have a head for business, or have parents willing and able to give you a leg up, you can forget about, say, owning real estate or building capital in America today. That goes for women AND men who study "traditional women's subjects."

Why he chose to associate a police department with the word "stupid" is beyond me. Not to mention that for all the talk of racism in the Gates incident, I can't see any. I'm a white guy. I set off my dad's house alarm recently, couldn't turn it off, and had to deal with cops at the doorstep. There's nothing racist about what happened to Gates. If anything the issue is about our unhealthy obsession with home security.

Though I am in favor of investigating the Bush Administration's crimes, I'm afraid of what the political fallout would mean for the Dems. This could backfire on the Democratic Congress and Obama in a way that bailouts and beefing up regulation of the markets can't. I can see Mitch McConnell right now arguing that Obama cares so much about the rights of terrorists over "innocent Americans." The Dems in Congress have been so craven over the past year that I worry whether or not this issue might limit Obama to one term. Independents WILL side with the Republicans if the Dems allow them to frame the issue.

Thanks for this, Andrew.

At least we know how Republicans are going to try to spin this now: If only Fannie and Freddie were completely privatized we would never have had a financial crisis!

It's just disgusting.