WTF? Editor's Choice?!?

With the exception of the "first term" argument, everything else in this letter is grossly dishonest, and represents the worst of what supposedly passes for political discourse in our so-called "liberal media" and "conversation" or "debate" from the right today. (I won't even address why the letters section of Salon is increasingly hijacked by this cabal of congenital liars when they have their own outlets, but whatever.) And to advance these with cut-and-paste talking points from the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal only underscores the ridiculousness.

When someone inappropriately passes gas in a confined public setting, they are properly admonished (or "silenced" if I may). The same standards should apply in this forum. We absolutely do NOT need Salon advancing the dysfunction that just because someone says something, that makes it worthy of of debate.

I assume you are "reading" Glenn Greenwald and not just paying him a token salary and lip-service. He much more eloquently describes both this disturbing trend and the broken system that has incubated it. As a unique media property in a landscape of garbage, Salon owes its readers an honest discussion that restores the integrity of our media and political discourse. Awarding a star to carthage8 does not even remotely satisfy this standard, and is quite insulting to us who look to Salon to do so.

Like Mr. Leonard, I started with Security Pacific Bank in Southern California until that was acquired by Bank of America in 1993, which I tolerated until 2003. A string of bounced checks and exhorbitant overdraft fees prompted me to inquire about the cause. I was told that one ATM charge caused my account to go below $50, which was considered a "negative balance." This was the basis for a $30 overdraft charge, which actually did leave my balance near zero, and caused the next charge to bounce... and so-on, and so-on. Oh, and tallying subsequent fees that actually followed a deposit over the next two days, all because all previous charges eliminated any immediate deposit credit.

Although I think their fees and bookkeeping practices are grossly unfair, I could have at least understood them if I had actually been overdrawn in the first place. But to be considered as such with a positive balance, albeit under $50 at that particular moment, was unconscionable. And when I questioned the policy, and asked when it was implemented, they actually lied and said it had always been their policy.

The next morning, I drove my usual route to work on a remote stretch of La Cienega Boulevard between central Los Angeles and the airport, and noticed a large billboard with nothing but a website address: findacreditunion.org. I logged on after arriving at the office, found a credit union, and never looked back. I bank with local, community-oriented financial institutions, and enjoy a retro-style customer service experience that has vanished from the large corporate ones. I now maintain a much healthier balance, but I still was never worried about incurring fraudulent fees even when I didn't have a larger cushion. Oh, and I'm a credit card "deadbeat," meaning I pay the balance in full every month to avoid the finance charges.

I heartily recommend that everyone do so. These profit-driven corporations prey on average consumers to feed the beast that is the investor class.

To address Mr. Schaller directly, Senator Obama actually did confront Senator McCain. But in a back-to-the-future kind of moment, Barack Obama actually did win the debate.

Old "weird-lefty-eyed" McCain never addressed Obama directly... bad form in a "debate." Never even looked at him. In contrast, Obama addressed Mr. Leher, Mr. McCain, the camera, and the audience. Like a real person. McCain stared straight ahead when he wasn't looking at his notes.

McCain delivered nothing but his standard talking points. That may appeal to his dwindling "base," but couldn't possibly score him anything beyond those stimulated by wind-up grampy dolls.

Perhaps we saw a different debate.

"Polls showed that most voters wanted this to pass?" Really? Just who are you kidding here?

Most voter absolutely did NOT want this to pass.

The last remnants of this failed administration, headed now by Paulson & Company, raid the last of our (mostly borrowed) money, and sail off into the sunset, dragging down the rapidly declining empire in the process.

And the democrats, led by Nancy (suck on this noodle, because I said so, and I believe it's good for you) Pelosi, has turned out to the be the biggest stooge for the Bush flunkies, along with her other California cohorts: Boxer, Feinstein and Waxman... It wasn't enough that they have been taken for a ride time and time again, starting with the illegal invasion and occupation now billed as "The War" and continuing with every other rape of our constitution and "democracy."

More corporate welfare.... no accountability... another blank check... in the quantum physics world of politics as we know it these days... it's the end of the world as we know it... and I feel less than fine.

Mr. Koppelman, in only partially quoting Ms. Palin, omitted the irony-rich best part of the story: "According to the New York Times and they are almost never wrong." Really, Ms. Palin?

This woman is as similarly entertaining as a Las Vegas implosion.

While both candidates have a pre-9/11 (2008) mindset, my (vastly reduced) money is still on Senator Obama. Concerning "entitlement" programs however, I would like one of them to address how Social Security has been robbed consistently since the 1980s. The program would be solvent if hadn't been raided to pay for other government spending.

McCain completely lost it when he said he "looked into Putin's eyes and saw 'KBG.'"

Stolen elections have been much more of a threat to the electoral process and democracy at large than any tape by Osama bin Laden. Really.

Of course many other factors played a role in [Kerry's] loss the following Tuesday...

Yes, I suppose a stolen election could be viewed as Kerry's "loss" in 2004.