I hear you, and I don't mean to discount the damage he did, but it sounds like you're saying that Romney was rejected by Republican primary voters because of his poor record as governor. Does that sound to you like the way Republican presidential candidates are chosen? I just find that unbelievable.

This video thing might be a fun sidebar to the column (or not), but it's not a replacement for the column, even occasionally. See Damianus' comments upthread.

The day that I find you (or Greenwald) lamely standing in front of a brick wall and reciting your column to me might be the last day I visit Salon.

... if the letters thread were video, too. Make that happen.

Wow, somebody's an asshole today.

Count me as another reader at work who can't watch vidoes. You have fun with them, though.

You can argue that they're wrong in their beliefs, damaging to the country, self-defeating in their tactics, any of that, and you'd have a strong argument. But then you attribute their actions to narcissism, self-involvement and spotlight-craving? And you didn't even argue this; you just thoughtlessly assumed it. Why? Just because it was a handy insult, that's why. You have no idea what their motives are, and what does it matter anyway? Can't you even grant that they might believe they're acting in the best interests of the country, even though they're wrong? And can't you see that your feeble attempt to dismiss them on some other, irrelevant grounds (their motives) makes your real argument--that their candidacy is a bad idea--a lot weaker?

I've never voted for Nader and I won't do so this November, but it's these kind of tactics that make me want to. And that lead people like me to think that Democrats are looking an awful lot like Republicans lately.

The consequences of Bear Stearns' failing are simply too great ... the world's financial institutions are bound together more closely than they have ever been before in a web that is extraordinarily fragile. If one string unravels, the whole structure seems poised to disintegrate -- a process that will inflict pain on a far greater number of people than those who go to work in buildings on the southern tip of Manhattan.

It seems that whenever people try to explain why the bailout was necessary, they give us nothing but metaphors. The complex web, the unraveling string, etc. It's beginning to sound as flimsy as the claims that if the govenment can't have unfettered eavesdropping then the terrorists will kill us.

If there's a really good (metaphor-free) explanation for why the collapse of Bear Stearns would have been unacceptable--and I grant that there may be one--I have yet to hear it.

I agree. The out-of-nowhere teams aren't inherently any more exciting than the big-conference also-rans (except as a storyline), and I'm every bit as excited to see Villanova with an opportunity for an upset as I would be if it were S. Illinois State. Maybe more so, because I'm at least a little familiar with the team and the program.

King, I'm all for being inclusive to the schools who hardly ever get into the tourney, but I think what you're arguing for here are ultimately just bigger mismatches, which doesn't really add to the overall excitement level. And when you say that those "Who the hell was that team?!" upsets are the reason we watch, I'd argue that that's only true for people who don't otherwise pay any attention to college basketball. In fact, your argument might even be in favor of the casual fan at the expense of the die-hard fan, which I know isn't something you'd want.

I don't expect her to do it this late in the game ...

Yep, it's much too late for a speech like this. Early on it would have been believable, but now it would just look like a hail-mary pass. like she doesn't really mean it.

What a bad campaign hers has been. If for no other reason, I'm hoping Hillary loses just in the hope of banishing Penn, Wolfson and that whole triangulating, unprincipled, pandering, DLC-led, Clintonion style of campaigning that failed Gore, Kerry and now Hillary. We gave these folks a lot of credit for Bill Clinton's victories, but with more hindsight we have to wonder what would have happened without Ross Perot.

So, Joan, what's your insulting nickname for the uncritical over-the-top Clinton supporters? (There are even more of them in these Salon threads than the Obama supporters you're referring to, by the way.) Wait, I'll bet you don't have one. What could be the reason for that? Could it be anything other than rank partisanship?

Take if from someone who isn't an "Obamaton": Your use of the that term--and your defense of it--is unbelieveably tone deaf. It reminds me of the old-time racists who say "Well, they're not all niggers; just the bad ones." (And no, I'm not calling you a racist.)

Rogge has talked ever since about how the Olympics would shine a spotlight on China and force it to improve its human-rights record.

Exacly the problem. Rogge is being disingenuous because he already made this decision political with all that self-serving talk.

But while the IOC tends to make its decisions political, I don't think they necessarily have to be. If they'd just ignore politics altogether, concerning themselves only with producing good Olympic games, then they'd have integrity and nobody would be any worse off. It's far more appropriate and influential to let the individual nations, athletes and spectators concern themselves with the politics. The IOC is never going to have much political effect, anyway, although they can't seem to resist the temptation to try.

At the top of p. 2, the word you need is "historic," not "historical." Go Reds.