And when they don't understand the subject they're writing about, they'd best leave the commentary to others. Good advice. But I guess it pays to pontificate - on Salon as well as elsewhere.

This stuff is tough to understand people, granted. But here's how to figure it out: 1. What's the origin of the current crisis? 2. What caused this? 3. What can be done to prevent it from happening next time?

#1 is easy to answer. #2 takes a ton of work to figure out. #3 is exactly the opposite of what Joe (and most everyone else) is saying.

But it's easier just to trot out the old bromides, preen for the crowd, and throw spittle all over the screen while moralizing about greed, Republicans, Wall Street, blah blah et al.

There is no place where the masses are more ignorant than on economic matters. Here, as elsewhere, the best indication that something is false is that most people believe it.

Can we please have someone who is at least marginally familiar with economic matters write about issues such as these?

Whatever the housing collapse says about our economy, it tells us NOTHING about free market economics. In fact, our financial markets are among the most regulated we have. Leonard writes about the Federal Reserve and Fannie May and Freddie Mac, but reaches the conclusion that the collapse has something to do with the free market. Give me a break.

You'd think the writer's contradictions would be obvious even to him since the article is only several paragrahps long.

Please learn a little about what you're writing about before attempting to publish an essay on it.

Anyone who wants to read articles about the housing collapse written by people with in-depth knowledge of economics and markets, try Mises.org.

Without Glen Greenwald and Juan Cole's exclusive articles, this site would be trash.

Why worry about these nutballs are saying? We are MONTHS away from the general election, we have NO idea who Obama's VP candidate is going to be (it very well could be the lady in the pantsuit), and the Republican's candidate has an uncontrollable propensity to say the most ridiculous and inopportune things at times, not to mention all the baggage that comes with being a Republican after this disaster of an administration. No one knows for certain what's going to happen between now and the general election, but whoever their candidate, the Democrats have a very good chance of winning the White House as well as increasing their majorities in congress.

Whatever the polls say now (and if the nutballs would take a few moments away from their incredibly important work here at the Salon message boards to check them out they might be surprised to see where they are moving), this primary season has taught us that the polls are MOVABLE and that Obama, more than any other candidate, has the ability to move the polls once he puts his mind and campaign to it.

Let's please ignore the ad hominems and wingnut style insults that are flying out of of the latest Salon message board trolls and up the level of discussion here a bit.

You know, after considering it and looking at the latest exit polls, although I personally dislike how Clinton has campaigned in this primary (admittedly my problem is partly with her supporters, including those who post on this website), I think the "dream team" might be the best way to go.

I'm not going to go through the demographics, because we all know which people she would bring in that Obama might not be able to get on his own. There are admittedly contra arguments to her candidacy, but as someone noted above when all is said and done I think she would be a net benefit to the ticket.

Outside of the demographics, I think that an Obama/Clinton ticket potentially would be very attractive to a lot of people, including moderates and independents. We have in Barrack someone who is a great American story and who doesn't carry any baggage from the wasteland that is the Bush years, and we have in Clinton someone who is very passionate about moving this country forward and who has frankly endured a lot to get where she is. Although I personally do not care for Clinton, I have to admit that I admire her strength and determination and I think that an Obama/Clinton ticket would *rocket* the Democratic Party to the White House this fall.

When Hillary supporters start referencing WorldnetDaily.com for yet another Neocon-inspired smear against Barrack, and when they start hurling even more ridiculous insults about someone referring to 1.5% vs 1.9% or whatever, and no one even bothers to argue or listen anymore, you know the race is over.

And thank gawd for that. Hillary attracts the most repulsive vermin of the left to her. Like flies to you-know-what.

Jude Wanniski was very outspoken against this war and took apart the fraudulent reasons being given for it MONTHS before it started. Bill O'Reilly's disgraceful treatment of Wanniski when he appeared on his show not long before the invasion stands out in my memory.

Also, all the folks at Antiwar.com and Lewrockwell.com had it right as well. Antiwar.com had everything so right it is scary.

Pat Buchanan was against it, but he likely argued that it was not in our interest even given the truth of what turned out to be false pre-war claims the Neocons were busy fabricating at the time.

Ritter is a hero in my mind, as was Wanniski (god rest his soul).