A review where the author spends the opening four paragraphs showing (with some hillariously protests too much bitterness) that she just can't let go of the fact that a) some "frat boys" were sorta mean to her in college or b) that such "frat boys" were completely uninterested in her in college (or c) both) is both offensive and obnoxious, and unlike the show she describes, there is nothing endearing about it. Take it from a former frat boy.....

-JIM HAYES

This article contains a hatchet-job polemical and unfair attack on Megan McCardle in its link to her article. McCardle's piece in the Atlantic blowing up Taibii's article is cogent and clear, and while you could disagree with it, it is hardly an example of an "individual[] whose life purpose is to serve as [a] reverent apologist[] and servile defender[] for the most powerful financial elites", as Mr. Greenwald claims. And McCardle basically agrees with Taibii's larger point and does not even come close to arguing "that the last event is unrelated to all the ones that preceded it", she just points out some facile (indeed laughable) links Taibii tries to make. Goldman going public from partnership had as much if not more to do with its risk taking than a single thing Tabii says, and Taibii's missing that in his article is a glaring omission. And since the tone of his criticism of McCardle is so extreme, wouldn't it be fair by extension for Mr. Greenawald's critics to say his "life purpose" is to rant and rave at whomever he deems to be an "elite," but that he is an apologist for anyone in the media who takes a contrarian or polemical view against these elites, no matter how unsupportable it is? And isn't Greenwald an elite hismelf? This attack against McCardle is freaking silly and ad hominem, something Greenwald deplores when its done against himself. Her article was quite good. As are virtually all of Mr. Greenwald's; with the glaring exception of this one.

-JIM HAYES

-JIM HAYES

Glen:

I love your column. But have you ever heard of the saying "protesting too much?" There are plenty of other chicken-hawks to attack. Write about Cheney or Gingrich in this vein. But this guy? Seems forced.

I voted for Obama. His win was inspiring. I'm glad Bush is gone. But Obama does linger rather than follow through, and if there is one thing he decidedly lacks, its a spine and decisiveness. He should have put Hillary away in NH. He didn't. He should have nationalized the banks immediately. He didn't and let Geithner take the heat for him. Bush decided without thinking. But Obama possesses a certain paralysis of analysis. If you are waiting for him to show some courage on this issue, you will be waiting for a long, long, long time. He won't move until he is sure there is a vast consensus. A problem, because as this article points out, the country needs a leader to lead them in this direction first. I am hopeful but realistic. This is one thing Obama does not seem to be exactly built for, although time will tell.

Your basic point is sound. JFK and Obama were/are urban presidents. But your statement that Obama is such more than any prez since John F. Kennedy, who was a "Boston native"? Huh? I suppose JFK was "from" Boston in the same manner that Obama is "from" Chicago--i.e., they aren't but lived there as adults and have been accepted as such--which is fine, and that's your basic point. Look, I am from Boston. I'm Irish. I'm 40. JFK was a God to me and my family, and even more so to my older relatives. But he was not a Boston "native". We all knew it and pretended otherwise. He was born in the city (actually Brookline) but was truly from a compound/summer home in Hyannisport MA, and spent his formative years in boarding school while his folks lived in Broxville, NY (Bronxville NY is the address given in his Choate yearbook, I think, and the same may be true for RFK's high-school yearbook). He want to Riverdale Country Day in the Bronx and a CT. bording school for Junior High! Let's get real. We Boston Irish call him one of our own, and he was a House Rep for the same district Curley and O'Neil held, and a Senator, but he was not Tip O'Neill or Curley. And we all know that. Seriously. Boston native? No. Boston Irish? No (he was Irish Catholic to the core but also a quintessential child of privilege). Accepted as such anyway and the most important person to come "from" Boston EVAH. Yah, dude. But isn't that along the lines of clearing brush at a "fake" ranch? ALL POLITICINAS put on a guise and appealing identity. Obama and JFK (especially) did it too. Kennedy was not even half as "Boston" as he wanted people to believe when he began his career.