One commentator, on the US' goalkeeper Kasey Keller, who plays for a German club: "He lives like a Kaiser."
After George W. Bush offered advice of 'go to war' and 'give 'em hell' before the US were set to play the Czech Republic, a (possibly Democratic) commentator replied "Yeah, [Bush] knows all about that."
But it's nice hearing commentary that doesn't refer to 1966.
To show how little I know about football, especially at international level: why are the USA ranked higher than England? I think the USA are 4th or 5th whilst England are 10th? Something like that. Just curious.
The ranking system is a strange one that was organised (factoid: by Coca-Cola) based upon how well a team performs over an 8-year period, with more recent results taking a priority over older results. America consistently hammered sides in its region to qualify for WC 2006 and did well in the 2002 World Cup, so they get a better overall ranking than us, who lost a few games (especially Northern Ireland) in our qualifying campaign and didn't do better than them in the 2002 event. Also, friendlies count (to some extent) in the ranking, and England don't usually tear teams apart for those games.
Most people are bemused that the US are ranked so highly in this system, so FIFA are altering the system a little, which may make things more sensible in the future. Until then, there's alternate ranking websites, such as the ELO rankings (which seems closer to the truth) and the more entertaining than serious Unofficial World Champions. Wikipedia has good articles on all of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating - ELO Ranking, based upon chess ranking. Seems more realistic, though is very volatile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFWC - Unofficial World Champions are currently Uruguay.