Yeah, that was exactly the quote I was referring to. Heh.

Liz -

I did catch it, although your comment (by virtue of your time zone superiority, when it comes to when these things are aired) appeared before I had seen it, so I had to wait to answer.

Jim was kind of harping on the politics of the situation, you're right (he's been better, that's for sure), but I thought this was one of the best interviews I've ever seen with Geithner, personally. Because Geithner properly used each question as a springboard to make the points he wanted to, and he made each of these points admirably well. He's gotten to be a lot better public speaker in the past year, I have to admit. I especially liked the "remember when we came into office and people thought we were doing too much?!?"

Gwen's had better days interviewing, too, I have to admit, although I've warmed to her a lot since she first appeared a few years ago, as she's gained both confidence and experience since. But the GOP guy needed to get called on a few things (like "what would you cut?") which Ifill didn't press hard enough on.

But hey, give PBS a break. They're the only news org that even featured more than a 9-second soundbite on the speech. I mean, they LED the broadcast with it, and then had a discussion to follow up. That's a lot better than anyone else did, outside of maybe cable, which I didn't catch. The network news coverage was pathetic. Which is why it is so important that Obama will get a second chance to reach the public directly this Friday, in his press conference.

-CW

Unseemly?

That was very funny.

I guess what would be flat out hilarious would be if Rahm were to take Geithner out with him. Too bad Geithner is apolitical.

Speaking of ... heh

Did you happen to catch the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour tonight? Has there ever been a more obtuse line of questioning as that which the treasury secretary had to endure at the hands of one Jim Lehrer? How many ways can one journalist - and I use that term lightly - ask one mindless question ... over and over and over again!?

If I had any doubts previously - and they've been building since the very beginning of the 2008 Democrat presidential primaries - I can damn sure guarantee you that the more intelligent half of this duo left the scene a long time ago.

In fact, even the Gwen Ifill interview of the Republican House member Re. the economy was painful to watch as it was confirmed, yet again, that not even PBS can be counted on for enlightened journalism anymore.

Heheheh. There are indeed some good comments on that poll site, CW.

As I know you're also fond of graphs and visuals, here's a nice series done by Slate that illustrates the "Great Divergence":

http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/

Cheers
-David

Farewell party? Why, that would be unseemly.

Heh.

UPDATE:

The WashPost is running an online poll on this. Here are the results, after 608 votes to the question "Should Rahm Emanuel run?":

16% -- "No. He should keep working with the Obama administration."

23% -- "Yes. Get him out of Washington."

30% -- "No. He shouldn't be in charge of anything."

31% -- "Yes. He'd be a great mayor."

Some of the comments to the poll are pretty amusing....

-CW

Sad, Hawk Owl. We hardly ever see anything in the local media talking about unions living in a town dominated by Gannett and ClearChannel.

Thanks for sharing about the strike! Very interesting story. This is more of what I wish people would write about on Labor Day.

Cheers
-David

I just read the "wonderful recent example" from Michael Moore and since my response won't pass muster with the moderators their, I'll say it here ...

I hope you're joking about this because that lame piece was one of the most asinine pieces I have ever had the displeasure of reading at the Huffington Post - and, belive you me, I've read my share.

One thing is for sure - Moore's latest piece doesn't deserve to have the words of Robert Kennedy grace it's ill-informed and misguided page.

Somewhere along the way, the UAW (and many other unions) became, in many ways, as bad as the management that initially created the Unions...

The management of most Unions are as greedy and as self-serving as the management of the corporations.

In other words, the management of the Unions victimize the workers just as much as the management of the corporations.

Michale.....

Previously workers would be required to manhandle 200 lb. engines or differential units into place on an assembly line moving one car per minute or faster. No bathroom breaks, no relief in a very hot environment all day long. A 10 or 12 hour day. Muscle ache? Arthritis? You bet.

Moore's right on in another way. They did create an American Middle class. Now we have bossses who used to earn 28 times a line-worker's salary earning 430 times as much. "Workers'" salaries have -- adjusted for inflation -- remained flat for a quarter century while management's income has . . . well you know the rest of that statistical story.

Well, I'll settle down, though I was a child of that generation who was able to get through college where my father had never a chance for it. Now my grandchildren are taking on HUGE Student Loan debt to get through college with very little chance of getting a job which will enable them to move into that "Middle Class."

Thanks, Chris, for being on of the rare media writers who bothered to put out anything more than boiler-plate about Labor Day.

The late Jimmie Breslin once remarked that reporters used to start as workers -- in the press room, on the street, beginning as cub reporters spending nights at the Police Station. Somewhere along the line, he observed, they all began in college and [still] have trouble writing about "workers" who do physical work. Someone did a random scan of stories about the Utah mine disaster a few years back. Only 23 out of some 1200 stories quoted Union spokesmen; the rest was all form handouts by the Management Public Relations Officer. The Media's lackluster coverage of Labor Day seems to bear him out.