Holding neither a a degree in economics, nor a job as a professional in any business in the financial services sector, I can attest that these are not necessary when reading the tea leaves to predict the future of the U.S. economy. Reading the news, business, and opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal over the last few years, and augmenting this with other reading materials, let me submit a few observations as an unaccredited lay person.

More money is made from handling money itself rather than from manufacturing. The former based on debt and speculation, while the latter creates real economic prosperity through exportation of tangible goods and services. This behavior is historically typical of impending economic decline.

Americans spend 125% of their incomes. While this may seem pale compared to the British, who spend 155% percent of their incomes, this is not a sustainable model.

GDP includes all expenditures, even those mired in deficit spending. Our trade deficits with China, a country financing our consumer spending, along with what we're spending on the so-called "war on terror," creates an artificial "GDP" that just accelerates our ever-increasing debt.

And for those who think that capitalism is just a "force of nature," please note a few other "benign" actions of government:

While holding lower and middle class Americans accountable to their debts by restricting bankruptcy protections and upholding often corrupt mortgage practices that continue to squeeze these people, the Bush administration has sought to limit shareholder lawsuits, limit corporate taxes, and limit corporate liability on a number of other fronts.

There is no such thing as "free trade," or "open markets." Anyone who still believes this claptrap is one of the few still benefitting from financial inequality.

As we watch jobs shift around the world under the guise of these so-called globalization attributes, the rich in the financial services sector continue to get richer, and those of us in labor... i.e. manufacturing, IT, and other services sectors, continue to get poorer. And it is these same people who complain about "welfare" and "nanny-states" who still reap the (hopefully) ever-declining rewards of corporate welfare in the form of "bail-outs" or "cash infusions" into the financial markets.

As a casual observer, this system is completely rotten and corrupt, and probably will implode as it seems beyond correction.

Looking forward to 1929, I remain. That will probably seem like a cake-walk compared to what we're now facing.

Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is an invention of the American "village." Personally, I hate her because of her seemingly willingness to do or say whatever is necessary to "get elected," and that is primarily because she simply refuses to acknowledge her vote for the war and subsequent support for this administration as a "mistake." However, when you compare her to the republican slate of candidates, this lesser of evils will probably get my vote (unless Bloomberg or Gore enter the picture), because they helped create this monster. She is, qute frankly, a product of the DC "village," and has navigated it quite skillfully... a point that I believe Mr. Scherer quite understands and articulates.

Although I, like others, feel somewhat apprehensive about the so-called "Dynasty" occupation of the White House, this woman will have certainly earned it... and while I am equally apprehensive about a Democratic inheritance of of the worst leadership in history for the "blame factor" for whatever will probably go wrong, Ms. Clinton as a democratically elected leader couldn't do any worse on the world stage than the currently appointed failure.

Even after Salon posts an article from Rebecca Traister, "Stop lying to yourself. You love Dennis Kucinich" -- which one can't even find while searching "Kucinich" in Salon's search function, and must rely upon Google -- this confused reader is still left scratching his head after reading this piece by Mr. Shapiro. Can we please, please use this forum to actually start thinking about a candidate who truly represents our issues and values, and move beyond polls and Beltway "Seriousness" and "Electability," to quote a couple of Salon's more esteemed contributors.

While I understand that we are no longer living in a "reality-based" world when it comes to presidential politics, I at least expect Salon to rise above the fray, and include candidates that actually represent its constituency: those supported by subscribers looking for real change.

I feel as though I'm beating a dead horse here... but in like company as Glenn Greenwald does with the constitution, and Joan Walsh does with baseball.

Salon's political coverage is increasingly more disappointing and depressing as the 2008 campaign season progresses (if that is the correct word for it). Still operating under a delusion that George W. Bush was re-elected (here we go, yet again!), Mr. Kamiya is willing to "throw the dice" in a dubious effort to keep "hope" alive.

Horse race coverage, polls, electability, money: all of these are reasonable considerations, but Salon runs with the wild pack in prioritizing them ahead of issues. Everyone is breathlessly sniffing themselves silly in the ether of Barack Obama without seriously examining his corporate ties, and thus his funding sources, or his voting record. Or any of his other public statements beyond a few "inspirational" speeches.

It would be a sad day for democracy if Mr. Obama gets the nomination based on this largely press created vacuum of style over substance. It would be an equally sad day for a publication such as Salon to have participated in this sham.

To shamelessly borrow from singer Melissa Manchester: "Baby cried the day the circus came to town."