This in no way marks an end to our current Gilded Age. As Congress postures for greater regulations and buffers for the public at large, the Bush plan--a whopping 3 pages of Bush's signature policy depth--screams a greater and greater demand for a "clean" bill. Congress, not famous for standing up to a spring breeze, let alone Bush, shows signs of caving, not great signs but small and significant signs. Whatever attachments Congress might place upon this bailout, the barons of Wall Street will be heavily rewarded. Being free to write off bad debt is not an oversight that financiers will tremble under. The only realignment happening now is a jockying of barons for the biggest domain. This whole charade in Washington is another post-9/11 capitulation to sound-bites. As a low income worker who adheres to cash-and-carry and whose savings, rebate included, are in an FDIC savings account (if FDIC fails the whole country will collapse), this whole debacle is infinitely entertaining.

There was a fantastic question/answer session of all the Democratic primary candidates before a gay and lesbian crowd. Each candidate, including Obama, answered questions on a wide range of topics that are relevant to the LGBT community. This 138 minute session is documented in 'A Visible Vote' and can be seen, among other sources, via Netfix instant view. I believed this should be required viewing for all LGBT voters who aren't members of Log Cabin Republicans. (And what's up with them?)

I've never developed an ad hominem blood lust, so the whole thing makes me cringe.

The Republic is dead. Face it. Congress is in need of complete control. Ideology and positioning have no influence on real politik. Pelosi and Reed want to govern from the center and will be inclined to tremble under the minority Republican glare. Congress' failure to challenge Bush's sweeping grab for power went unchallenged. No subsequent President will roll back executive powers. So, the best and only alternative is a benevolent President.

The Democrats in Congress are superfluous. They need to be led; Obama will oblige. This column is naive in gaming what hasn't happened, in its narrow scoped retaliatory stance, and in perpetuating what now seems a commitment to gripe. And more than a tad bitchy. Real politik is drag, isn't it?

I have no love for Lieberman, for all the obvious reasons. However, keeping him in the caucus is serviceable. I've long come to the realization that Congress, especially the Democrats, work well when "handled". Lieberman took a chance and lost out. His savior can't protect him. So, Lieberman's options are few. If he bucks the Democrats and Obama, then he's truly through. He could either accept expulsion and the lose of his chairmanship or quit.Remember, the Republicans screwed him out of a veep spot. If he were to lose his chair, he'd quit or stay in shame. If he quit, Connecticut's governor would appoint a Republican. Lieberman is more useful than a Republican. As it is, he currently faces a home state that mostly disapproves of him. If Lieberman has any hope of winning in 2012, he is going to have to be very accommodating to Obama. But Obama was wise to push for keeping Joe. For Obama, the necessary course has always been to control the party from the bottom to the top. Self-immolation is the Senate's favorite past-time. Expect Obama to be a great president, but don't be foolish enough to think he will not capitalize on the powers Congress ceded the office of president. Lieberman, the Democrats, Congress must, with the way power distribution currently stands, become the pawns they already are. No ideology can trump effective pragmatism.

Here I've gone all this time feeling cheap and tawdry for sticking to what seemed to be the ever-increasingly archaic name of liberal. In short, I never could figure out where I went wrong in not understanding what a progressive is.

SNL has the right to say what it wants without apology. We have the freedom to flip the TV the finger, also without apology.

Wind in the Willows is the only book I can remember having been read to me as a child. It was the first book I ever read on my own. Wind in the Willows will never become dated. Children today can still be enchanted by its characters and adventures.

I am deeply disturbed by Obama's callous attitude that is emerging regarding gays and lesbians. We are beginning to be marginalized and isolated in a national dialogue that considers the concerns of the lgbt community as unimportant distractions. Obama seems to be coming out of the closet as actively hostile toward sexual minorities. There will be no out gays in the military and legislation regarding partnership rights, and hate crimes protection will be deeply buried in some Congressional sub-committee. I see the mood among the gay community; it's incendiary. Given Obama inaction and a hot summer, watch a replay of Stonewall.

I'm a gay man. I campaigned and voted for Mr. Obama. And I'm telling you that an openly gay man in his cabinet, or in any visible role, is anathema to his presidency. It will all be a case of too bad, folks.

The only deterrence is among those who would never commit crimes. There is no disuetude, and no criminal learns. This is one wheel that gets re-invented incessantly. It is vital to disclose, but retribution brings no closure.

It is not admirable to draw your argument to support a preconception. This is not journalism; it's a rant. And by the by, putting statements in boldface italics comes across as screaming---hysterically. It fails to trust the reader to make educated evaluations. It's bullying.

Progressives are stumbling over each other regarding who makes the most correct sacrificial lamb--gays or blacks. The point made by the gay community is that we fought for the rights of minority groups, and they dumped us. The abuse of another minority ought not be the privilege of those who fight for inclusion.