Madoff: "They Had To Know"


[Bernie Madoff] asserted that unidentified banks and hedge funds were somehow “complicit” in his elaborate fraud, an about-face from earlier claims that he was the only person involved.

[. . .] He spoke with great intensity and fluency about his dealings with various banks and hedge funds, pointing to their “willful blindness” and their failure to examine discrepancies between his regulatory filings and other information available to them. “They had to know,” Mr. Madoff said. “But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.’”

"They had to know" seems the operative phrase of the past decade. "They had to know" that the Bush tax cuts would blow up the budget. "They had to know" the Iraq Debacle was a fraud. "They had to know" that Wall Street was a crooked casino. "They had to know" that banks were abusing HAMP. And so on.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | Feingold Forms "Progressives United" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    After reading Harry Markopolos' book, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:55:11 AM EST
    No One Would Listen, it would be pretty hard to believe that "no one" knew that something wasn't right with the Madoff funds.

    And it was a pretty damning indictment of the SEC, to boot.

    Fascinating reading that I would highly recommend.

    He was interviewed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:07:50 AM EST
    on NPR about two years ago.  The interview was very, very interesting- he really blasted the SEC.  Looks like it's time for a visit to Amazon.

    You can read a fair amount at (none / 0) (#4)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    the Google Books link in my original comment.

    I read the book some months ago, and I found it hard to put down.


    I will read what is available online today (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    As for everyone knowing, well they know now and it doesn't matter :) They know the whole thing is a Ponzi scheme and if your nextdoor neighbor was trying to get you to buy into their own version of this they would be in jail by sundown.

    The rule of law does not exist for all.  And there is a religion too that goes with it and the rules don't exist for Wall Street and its court because Wall Street is a magic diety.  Like a God or a Monarch, it is above all accountability and we are taught that it must be this way so that the rivers will run and we will all eat and drink and be clothed and sustained.  It has amazing powers like a new gravity defying voodoo too.


    As long as they get their cut... (none / 0) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    Honestly, that's actually why it is unfair that Madoff is the only person in jail.  He had a lot of people who took their cut and looked the other way who participated.

    I don't understand how the SEC (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    gets to pick and choose what rules and laws they are going to enforce.  But they do these days, in a very disgusting manner IMO too.  They have allowed so much lawlessness it is almost not believable.

    During the Bush Era they were (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    instructed to be a "client friendly" service to business.  That isn't the exact phrase, but the directive was actually fairly well reported at the time it was given to the agency.  They were, in effect, told by the Bush Administration to stand down.

    None of this happened by accident or was the result of some rogue effort by the grunts at the agency.  The reality is that the current narrative about people not pursuing investigations into wrong-doing because they plan on getting jobs on Wall Street later is something of a red herring.  The agency worked well for many years under Administrations that allowed and expected them to do so.


    I know that little weasel Dubya (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    hated the SEC because they busted his insider trading A$$.  Just like everything he touched that he had a vendetta with, he created a new market.  The Iraq War came to a point that it created its own need for its own fricken self to be.  That was lovely.  But at least it destroyed the military and made it all unsustainable.

    When the SEC no longer regulated, the markets morphed like they always will when consequences are removed....and now if you regulate them the whole world will blow as the Greenspan bubbles REALLY explode.  It is all going to fall down though eventually, regulate it or watch it blow.  People do eventually refuse to die and starve for stupid bull$hit.  I'm so P.O.ed today


    Hey...funky (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    Look who else is talking about this today.  And he has done recent face to face investigation of the parties involved.

    That was a great article. (none / 0) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:56:24 PM EST

    As Markopolous describes it (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    The SEC guys he reported the fraud to just did not understand what he was saying. They were not educated about the types of products Madoff professed to be selling. It was like explaining it to my dog. I don't think they were picking and choosing what laws to enforce (and law enforcement is not their job per se, is it?)

    I don't know what they (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:12:32 PM EST
    were doing all those years when there were SEC Investigations that were ultimately prosecuted if they were not law enforcement.

    According to Matt (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    They'll inflict a fine.......upon billionaires, and it is meaningless and that is exactly how the power that be want to keep it.

    Yes - that is now - but I remember (none / 0) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    when an SEC investigation could result in a prosecution and jail time.  In fact, we do not have to go all that far back to Martha Stewart - remember her conviction?  I remember someone from the finance world suggesting that her problem was that she was a Democrat...

    Was Martha really the last inside trader (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:21:27 PM EST
    to do time?  I think about that and how that went down and what it was that demonstrated her guilt.  She was the last one I heard about.  The stuff that the rich men have done since though could amount to war crimes while she's a candy bar thief.

    Technically (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    She didn't go to prison for insider trading - she went for lying to the FBI.

    Her trade was somewhere in the (none / 0) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    low hundreds of thousands of dollars IIRC...  The people Taibbi talks about are in the millions and billions right?  If you've won millions or billions, you're probably in a better position to fight the justice system - and give to candidates who will protect your wrong-doing, I suppose.

    I believe that is true (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    My generation has no comprehension of what can really happen and where all of this can really lead you.  What is that called?  Can't remember, there's a word for it.  But we have never experienced it in our lifetime, therefore the majority of us believe it is impossible for it to happen to us.

    We once had legislation and the will that was followed and protected us.  People had seen some bad times, they knew the consequences that lurked out there.  Over time though, those who lived it died off, and those of us who did not want to believe that such consequences were out there argued for all that draconian legislation to be removed.  It was keeping us all from realizing our full potential....then we blew ourselves up :)


    Removal of legislation (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    The point made by inclusiveheart above rings quite true to this ole' bureaucrat (me.) Typically, Bush II followed the pattern that I first saw during the Reagan years. Mr. Reagan went after federal programs--especially Interior & EPA--with a ferocious club. In the name of such niceties such as "streamlining" and "reform," he wanted to forge a way out of regulation. Eg., when I served as Enforcement Director for a time in my region, I was told very directly by the Administrator of EPA under Reagan that there was no room for environmental "advocacy" in the EPA. This was the Reagan way; and, everyone got the message or fought in their own way. We were to view the role of the regulated community as customers. And, to underscore that sometimes direct and usually implied directive, performance ratings were tied into customer service. (At one point during the Reagan fiasco, I stumbled into my Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder who helped us get testimony to the Hill. Ah, the "good ole' days.)

    Seriously, MT: Review the conservative assault that raged over this country like a storm in the 1980s...a storm to clean out us liberals. He included with that regulatory purging some almost infamous judicial appointments to back up the drive. While Bush I did not adopt the punishing approach toward federal programs & federal employees that Mr. Reagan did, the move toward privatization continued on different fronts. By the time Bush II arrived, the protectors & defenders of the Reagan were either still in place in the government structure or were outside awaiting their restoration in one form or another. And, that is what happened...the privatization and voluntary approach to regulation went up a few notches (starting with the Texas model of "voluntary compliance" for Agencies to follow.)

    So, MT, all I can say is (1) Reagan would be proud to hear Speaker Boehner's comment "So be it" in responding to the press the other day that federal employees (as in hundreds of thousands) may have to lose their jobs AND (2) Even tho I know that the Democratic structure is well aware of the Republican methodology of purging & punishing in the bureaucracy, we still don't act with equal ferocity in marshalling the Executive Branch in support of the Administration's goals (that is putting it nicely.) Yet, there are some encouraging signs that a hardball finesse within the regulatory structure is starting to emerge under this Administration...justifiable transfers and whatnot well within civil service rules...changes that might slowly begin to address your justifiable concerns with the SEC, e.g.


    Well, Issa has announced he's going (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    after Dodd and his lawless unethical Countrywide friendship.

    And the Democrats are now going after Issa, they have a website up now to do nothing but attack him even though he is investigating something that is truly unethical and vile and lawless and played a role in the recent destruction of our economy.

    Sorry, this isn't just a Republican lawlessness.  The Democrats are just as corrupt and just as lawless at this time too.  They are every bit as much a part of the problem.  Maybe moreso because they now oversee almost everything and by God they like them some lawlessness.  I wonder if the new attack group going after Issa will hire HBGary and that guy from JSOC who hunted and killed insurgents coming into Iraq along the Syrian border, that guy must be a great human being too and a credit to soldierhood huh?


    I have not looked at the aspects you raise on Issa (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    But, I was trying to be responsive to your earlier concerns about the SEC situation...and where did the pattern begin and what is it and all that.  (I'll have to read up on your allegations about the Issa situation. At first blush, it may be a preemptive classic in view of earlier statements attributed to Issa about holding hearings every day of the year on Democrats.  But, who knows?)

    I am still reluctant to lay all of this (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:11:53 PM EST
    regulation failure at the feet of Republicans.  Clinton took part in stripping regs too, and after I got to know Daschle much better in my "adulthood"....he would have sold his mother for a baloney sandwich :)

    As for Issa, someone is investigating some Wall Street/Politician corruption and collusion and it isn't the Democrats who have been running this circus for the past two years either.  I'm almost orgasmic about that.  If Issa proves to be a man bent on bringing about some justice, it is conceivable that I would contribute to HIS next campaign.


    And Hillary these days (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:13:47 PM EST
    Hillary is very very into hiring scumbag crooks to work our foreign policy for us.  Snap out of it girl, your slip is showing

    Hmmm. You may want to research Issa (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    and his interesting background too, MT.

    Just think (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    He could bust the Democrat crooks.  And then maybe the Democrats will get to bottom of that fire.

    But they always say the best crook catchers are crooks.


    Heh...Issa should know then, say what? (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:37:14 PM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:42:35 PM EST
    That fire has been extensively investigated and nuthin. He is ex-military, he does know how to turn in a hard days work and live not looking for shortcuts around accountability.  He even worked under Wes Clark who gave him an excellent officer evaluation.  I think the Democrats are terrified of him because he has a few more ethics than the rest of the Republicans and it would seem most of the Democrats too these days.

    Tyco....Worldcom....Enron.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Rojas on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    Was that Reagan or Bush I or Bush II?
    28 years and damn 30% of it has gone missing....

    "justifiable transfers and whatnot" (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 09:39:01 AM EST
    I see.

    Apparently we're happy to meander our way to a version of justice when there are ample opportunies to act decisively.

    When did everyone become so easily mollified with a taste of the frosting when there is real cake out there?


    Well, we want to show that we can (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 10:47:16 AM EST
    rock the boat, shake things up a little, but not so much that it gets in the way of the business of making money.  So, we have to go slow, see how big the ripples are and how much can be tolerated before there's a "problem."

    Pardon me while I roll my eyes...

    Do you ever wonder why most of the Bush US Attorneys are still in place?  Same thing.

    Raises a real question in my mind about the level of commitment this president and his administration have to the things that matter to us Dinosaur Democrats who have been starving for some real transformative change to be undertaken in government and regulations and oversight and the rule of law.

    Guess we'll just keep wandering in the desert until we all die off or are willing to accept the deliberately slow incremental steps being taken as "better than nothing."


    Actually, it is surprisingly difficult (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    (and that is putting it mildly) to move "burrowed in" political appointees who were finagled into civil service positions. It is a mix of the arcane nature of a bureaucracy and of the very important rights that civil service employees have/and should have. Sorry for the shorthand of "justifiable transers" in the context of the earlier screed. My point is that some of these longtime "burrowed in" types are being moved. "Burrowing in" btw is a practice used by some administration to shelter political employees in hard sought government positions under civil service.  While it sounds like government-speak or even trivial, there is a very real effect if an administration--once voted out of the WH--keeps its policies in place or furthers its policies through many skillfully burrowed in advocates who extend unacceptable and outdated practices that touch all of us personally.

    IOW, the idea of a thorough housekeeping--throw everyone out in the government that we don't like--would be extremely difficult to bring about legally. I would argue that the sweeping, immediate change that you might be suggesting in government hallways could not be done legally (because of the inherent "adverse actions" and the cost & time the legal challenges would take) except through a methodical, organized, steady change via reorgs, permissible job abolitions, transers that lead to demotion or attrition, etc.

    I would be glad to talk further about this...but, suspect that everyone (myself included) might go into a trance from boredom. The upshot: No one that I worked with is content to meander...that is why there is reason for optimism that the internal moves in the various departments now are producing some long-sought results in a methodical, legal way.


    A very good read (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    Not dry at all either.

    My thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    That is a great book, and I agree with Madoff - it was willful blindness that kept them from ignoring the obvious.

    'They had to know' must be the flip side (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    of Condi's 'No one could have known'.

    What is the old saying? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

    Credit for that quote (none / 0) (#10)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    goes to the novelist Upton Sinclair.

    Finance is the new Meatpacking... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    we're the meat.

    Tippecanoe and the banksters knew...Turk 182!


    True (none / 0) (#13)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    Mr. Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" in order to fix attention to the exploitation of workers in the meat industry, he didn't intend it to lead to the creation of the FDA.

    Similarly, the real lead is how inadequate the SEC was against someone as 'rich and famous' as Mr. Madoff and how they didn't have any staff that had the brains to realize what was going on as well.


    The SEC? (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    please Harry...its just another weigh station where one shows their willingness to play ball, before the big private-sector payday.

    They spend more time watching pron than watching the markets...its a big fat joke.


    A Czech proverb (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:42:19 AM EST

    The big thieves hang the little ones.

    Good one... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    I'm fond of this, not sure of the origin...

    Behind every great fortune is a crime.

    Balzac (none / 0) (#20)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    And instead of hard time it's an invitation to join the country club.

    Well... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    one way of looking at it is hanging at the Country Club with the Country Club crowd is a form of punishment...ya couldn't pay me to hang out there.

    Great (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:06:11 PM EST

    I live with a bunch of Czechs (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    That's the damned truth :)

    I don't think disparaging casinos is (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by seabos84 on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:11:48 AM EST
    appropriate - as a math major the odds and percentages and probabilities and whatnots of casino games are pretty well laid out -

    while most everyone who is sentient knows that the house takes a cut because more is lost than won, most everyone who gambles is gambling that it will be the other guy is the chump!

    the stuff that the wall street community has created over the last few decades -

    except ... stocks which pay a dividend?

    - the stuff they've come up with is fabulously clever, psychologically, cuz they play on the fools thinking that the fools ain't fools, that the stuff the fools are putting their money in is smarter than throwing dice or playing 5 card draw - when in fact the stuff is just a bunch of ridiculously complicated rip offs meant to rip you off AND give you the silly impression you're better off with wall street scum than with putting your money on a roulette wheel.

    at least the rules in casinos are clear.


    There is some crazy $hit out there to buy (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    And its worth is premised by some other guys crazy $hit that has a worth premised by some other guys crazy $hit :)

    I've never understood (none / 0) (#23)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    Pork belly futures.  Who would want to buy pork belly futures?  (Actually, I am made extremely uncomfortable by any kind of futures trading on food commodities.  It's too easy to manipulate the markets, causing food prices to rise for those who can least afford it.)

    I agree with you on that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    Anybody who follows such things is split down the middle though on whether or not that is possible, and even sometimes yelling at each other now.

    I still think that you and I are correct, and it isn't as if we don't have the history of the Great Depression to back us up either.  Some people were starving, and some people were out destroying food supplies in order to keep the price up.


    Food, Health Care, Energy... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    they manipulate the lot of it...free market forces my arse, I can see the strings from here.

    I don't care so much when the manipulate the price of television sets via degenerate gambling...lifes necessities are another matter.


    Companies who (none / 0) (#27)
    by me only on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    use pork bellies.  People who sell pork bellies.  This post is not a joke.

    Actually, I know (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    I was being snarky.  If you sell, buy, or eat bacon, you know what pork bellies are, and why someone might be interested in their price.   ;-)  
    My main point was my general objection to commodities futures, especially food commodities, but, as kdog pointed out, you get problems with oil and other energy futures, as well.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster knows, they've certainly manipulated oil prices in the past.  It bothers me that prices of things like food and energy can be so easily manipulated.  If someone can't afford to buy a brand new car or a new boat, that's one thing.  If they can't afford to buy food or to heat their homes, that's quite another.

    Just a little explanation........ (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 02:52:04 PM EST
    "Futures," by themselves, are not evil, and they do have an appropriate function in taking some of the risk out of business people's planning. A farmer, who has to make a big investment in the Spring, needs to know that when harvestime comes he can sell his product at a price that will cover his expense, and, hopefully, a little extra. So many variables can effect his business (weather, disease, demand, etc) that its not a bad thing that someone out there (the seller of "futures") is willing, for a price, to assume some of the risk so that the farmer can concentrate on what he should be doing......growing our food.

    As to "manipulation," its not a simple thing that can be explained by one-liners. Like in most every endeavour, there are rules. For most of its existance, the SEC, and the other regulatory bodies, worked quite well. "Manipulation" is a serious crime, but The Markets are so big that the money needed to "manipulate" prices makes it extremely difficult to do. It's only since Reagan's "get Government off our backs" mantra that the criminals were given a tacit "wink" which made it somewhat easier.

    The answer, of course, isn't that "Big Government is Bad." It's that "Bad Government is Bad."


    I'll agree with that (none / 0) (#42)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    The lack of appropriate regulation has made a whole slew of things worse.  

    For the record I like me some pork bellies (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    The only pork belly product I ever purchased that disappointed me was Baconnaise.

    I'm fine if people speculate in Baconnaise (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    It is not a necessity :)

    From Cracked.com: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 10:37:22 AM EST

    Just a few months ago, on May 6, the Dow dropped about 1,000 points in minutes, which is usually about the kind of rate that kicks off something like the Great Depression. Stockbrokers barely had enough time to get their office windows open before the word spread that it was a false alarm. The cause? Robots.

    Someone realized that human traders, no matter how sheeplike or pessimistic, couldn't have freaked out fast enough to drive the Dow down 1000 points in 10 minutes. Computers are just designed to do everything faster and more efficiently, including stock panics.

    Stock trading algorithms, or "algos," as financial people fondly call them are responsible for 70 percent of trades today, which means that most of the stock market is literally just computers making deals with each other.

    These programs trade in millionths of a second, millions of trades a day, and are even trained to prey on other algorithms by recognizing their patterns, stealing their stock picks, and selling them back to them. They even get names, like, "Dagger," "Barcode" or "Crystal Triangle," that apparently come from the Drug Dealer Brand Name Generator.

    Malfunctioning algos have shut down the London Stock Exchange and briefly paralyzed the New York Stock Exchange among others. In one incident, a guy not double-clicking fast enough triggered a bug in the program.

    Instead of slowing down to work out the bugs, finance companies keep rolling out bigger and more aggressive algorithms. The bank that crashed the NYSE didn't even know they'd done it until they got a (probably very angry) phone call the next day.

    Some firms have gone even further and put the algos in charge. At Rebellion Research, computers and humans have actually switched roles. The program (named "Star") is the boss, analyzing over a decade of stock market data and coming up with a long term strategy, giving humans a list of buy/sell instructions every morning. The humans then make the trades at the computer's command, and are not allowed to modify them in any way.

    Click or Cracked Me(NSFW)


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#1)
    by Yes2Truth on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 08:51:00 AM EST

    They knew, and so did Obama -- then and now.

    No, the phrase is (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    It's Morning in America!!  Yay!!!!!!!!!

    They had to know (none / 0) (#28)
    by me only on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    electing Obama was a mistake?