One fact that should be obvious - but is not plainly stated in this article - is that HRC's own husband was the president who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal into law.

It's an indication of the cynicism of the Clinton campaign that she could even pretend to be for any current reform proposals when she was part of the administration that helped Republicans dismantle components of the New Deal financial regulatory system in the '90s. Perhaps this is the vaunted "experience" she's always laying claim to.

1) According to the most recent figures on growth (0.6% 4th quarter GDP), we are not currently in a recession. We are certainly in a period of slow growth that may feel recessionary, and we may yet experience one in 2008, but can we please keep our terms straight? Stop the fear-mongering.

2) Anybody who takes out a mortgage at 2% and believes it won't reset higher is someone I'd like to speak to about my tropical beachfront property in Alaska. Unfortunately, there were lots of greedy and/or naive people who bought more house than they could afford in the past few years. Thus, it only stands to reason that many of them will ultimately lose it. I don't know why this is everyone else's problem. More than 99% of U.S. homes are not in foreclosure.

Contrary to many popular myths, the New Deal was not about absolving people of all personal responsibility - in this case bailing out people for making poor financial decisions.

The genuine crises of the 1930s - bank failures and 30% unemployment - are hardly fixtures of our times. That's not to say we don't have our economic challenges, but they're not equivalent to, or nearly as dire as, the ones faced in FDR's era.

I think Roosevelt would be horrified to see how ignorant, trashy, and short-sighted American culture has become - to the point that we claim we "can't save," or even exercise basic fiscal restraint, but yet somehow always find money for a new SUV, cell phone, and cable TV. Oh, and the house we can't afford - well just charge it!

Poverty is not going to be cured by encouraging people to be profligate. The current mess will only repeat itself if we provide people an incentive to take on unreasonable risk - because they know the taxpayers will pick up the tab. Where does the buck stop?

For the record, I support stronger regulation for the mortgage industry. However, one problem with the working class that you claim to speak for is that they are as responsible as anyone for the current financial predicament, and the era of deregulation in general. Many, if not most, of them have voted Republican for 30 years. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" indeed.

I agree with many of your points, and am definitely sympathetic to working people trying to make ends meet. I'm one of them myself.

However, I'd disagree (to some extent) with your characterization of people as wanting to have only the same things their parents had. While it may be true of you, and likely many others, vast portions of the population today want far more than that. They expect to have a house much larger than what their parents owned (and maybe a vacation cabin as well); couples want at least two large automobiles that would've been considered unbelievably opulent just 20 years ago; and they want to have every conceivable gadget and consumer good that's marketed to them on TV.

Moreover, the triumph of marketing seems to have been complete. Skepticism and critical thinking about needs vs. wants that I saw in my grandparents' generation and to a lesser extent in my parents', has almost vanished among Baby Boomers and younger people. (I'm a Gen X-er.)

I'm all for a revival of Keynesian economics, infrastructure investment, trust busting, and various other forms of economic progressivism. But I'm afraid that's not what the masses are crying out for in their yearning for a taxpayer-funded mortgage bailout. I think they're acting out of simple greed, the kind that has defined this country for most of my lifetime. It's just another version of the Republican line that says, "I want mine and to hell with everybody else."

Similar to the presumptuous ramblings of Maureen "I speak for the people" Dowd, many readers must have seen Will's recent column in their daily papers where he constructs what he believes to be a very compelling argument regarding Obama's alleged elitism.

But of course nowhere in the column can Will actually be bothered to even ask the question of whether Obama's diagnosis of the bitterness of working-class voters might actually be based in fact.

So Obama says something that constitutes a personal opinion, which may or may not be true, but no one argues its veracity, or lack thereof. No, it's wrong simply because it contradicts a populist narrative about the wisdom of ordinary people.

Why don't we get these paeans to the wisdom of "plain folks" when voters emphatically decide, for example, that they want abortion rights, which is what happened in red state South Dakota two years ago? Why does no one lambast McCain for being an elitist by wanting to continue, and expand, one of the most unpopular wars in American history?

Does he want a presidential candidate or a lap dance from a male stripper? From hearing him wax lustfully about "beefy" men, I'm thinking the latter.

If only we'd had today's vapid media around when FDR was running for President! They might have saved us from that nerdy, polio-ridden cripple who obviously was in no position to do important things like strut around on aircraft carriers.