Victoria Daft

Lew wrote: "You cannot give Clinton or Democrats a pass, no more than I can Republicans, who blocked efforts at utilizing our own resources for so long."

That's actually what I was hoping you would say. Seriously. In order to get anything done in the next 4 (to 8) years, both sides have to take responsibility and hold themselves accountable for the gigantic mess we're in.

And this is precisely why I think Hilary Clinton would have been a terrible choice for the Democrats - she's such a lightning rod simply because of her last name that I can't imagine anyone from the right trying to find common ground with her on important issues.

Conversely, I think there's enough resentment left in her from her last experience in the White House that I don't know if she could move past it in trying to deal with Republicans, either.

When you mention more politicians trying to achieve "party power" than working for the good of America, believe it or not, I'm right there with you. I absolutely agree. There are horrendous examples of this from both sides.

I read the Bush speech, and given what we now know about how Enron was responsible for the blackouts, could only roll my eyes when I got to the part about California and its energy issues. (Please note, this "eye roll" is not a knock on Bush, just on the sad state of affairs such as it is. I'm just saying.)

As far as the "rapid regression" in the last 18 months, the roots go much deeper into this administration than just the last year and a half.

Banks failing, for instance, are a result of loans given to high-risk homebuyers, which didn't start once the Democrats took office. The "housing boom" that George Bush was so proud of was clearly misread by many, and it pre-dates Democratic control of the Congress.

And obviously, the cost of the Iraq war looms large. It's costing BILLIONS of dollars every month, and as I understand it (I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong), most of the funding comes from emergency spending bills. It's not built into the budget. So the government (which you have to admit has actually *grown* under George Bush, the exact reverse of what most Republicans believe should happen) spends tons and tons of money anyway, getting more out of control, before Iraq has even been accounted for.

That started LONG before the Democrats took office. And yes, I realize you'll counter-argue that the Democrats supported the war resolution and all the rest, but the point is that George Bush and his administration have bungled so many aspects of the war, undoubtedly resulting in many, many billions of dollars of wasted taxpayer money.

The debt goes up, China's economy grows, national landmarks are purchased by foreign interests, banks are closing, people are losing their homes, New Orleans STILL isn't rebuilt ...

You can't pin all of that on 18 months worth of Democratic control of the Congress. Can you?