Rachel Sklar, the brains behind Eat the Press, sent me a lovely bouquet, and I threw her a kiss.

You can read our exchange in the comments to this post.
I’ve got more to say, but it’s December 22nd and I’m waaaay behind with everything I’ve got to do.

Later.

I don’t know nothin’ ’bout economics, but I know a hypocrite when I read his column. That would be Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who for six years has been decrying Bush as dangerous and his handling of the economy as disastrous. Krugman has been saying the economy is in a shambles, that the roof is going to cave in on us at any moment, and that the deficits will cripple our children and our children’s children and our children’s children’s children.

Today, however, he thinks the victorious Democrats should ignore the deficit ($$) and spend, spend, spend (when they’re not cutting funding for the war in Iraq). After all, it worked so well for the Republicans:

Mr. Rubin was one of the ablest Treasury secretaries [under Clinton] in American history. But it’s now clear that while Rubinomics made sense in terms of pure economics, it failed to take account of the ugly realities of contemporary American politics.And the lesson of the last six years is that the Democrats shouldn’t spend political capital trying to bring the deficit down. They should refrain from actions that make the deficit worse. But given a choice between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health care reform, they should choose the spending.

Good advice: the Democrats should spend on “good things” [unlike the evil Republicans, who spend on "bad things" like war? --ed.].

Why do so many columnists and pundits talk like third graders?