finknottle

Only because of the clean matching T-shirts. Otherwise the children singing their praises in a classroom is more of a Chavez thing.

On the money. But it should have called out the role of Barney Frank too, since he figures prominantly in the Democratic narrative of what happened and who can fix it.

The link you posted was from the NYT - do you have one from the CQ? (I searched unsuccessfully.) I've gotten accustomed to NYT/WP favorably editing the content of Obama's speeches and debates, but I would have expected CQ to be accurate about what is said on the floor.

That's why the issue of Obama's inexperience never came up until now. (A first-term community organizer from Chicago is *just* what we need to chair the Afghanistan committee!)

I bought a house 18 months ago - now down 25% - and (having no pension) had my entire retirement take a hit on the market yesterday. By my estimate, my retirement date was just pushed back four years if the market doesn't recover. I can either join your pity party and demand that the taxpayers pony up to replace mine and everybody elses losses (me being the disporportionate taxpayer) and keep funneling money to prop up market values, or I can face the fact that my property was over-priced and it will take a decade or more to get back to what I paid for it. So forgive me if I'd rather just swim to shore than sit in your leakey ship bailing water.

One of the under-reported stories is that there is a very strong correlation between the areas hardest hit by forclosure and the illegal alien sanctuary counties. Over the past few years, certain banks (BoA comes to mind) have been particularly aggressive in extending credit (cards and mortgages) to undocumented borrowers.

Increased lending at the lower end of the market drives up prices at the lower end of the market. This in turn drives up prices uniformly (better houses will always cost more than lesser houses). That's not so good for middle-class buyers, but the samerelaxed lending standards must be applied, so now everybody can finance the over-priced house appropriate to their strata. And leaves them just as vulnerable, when their mortages are 2/3 of their salary.

Yeah, X Benedict probably read something put out by the Democratic leadership. I listened to about an hour of the whole debate on C-Span, and she was ripping them a new one. What was odd was that the debate (or at least what I heard) was entirely civil up to that point. The previous speakers, for and against, laid out their concerns without regard to politics. Then Frank gives a gushing intro to Pelosi, and she launches right in. It was wierd.

I'm glad you raised that. I've been a 20 year subscriber to the Post, and what's been going on over the past two years has finally nudged me to the Times. I will probably let the Post subscription lapse. Here's the difference: The Times is more overtly slanted on the editorial pages. But the reporting is fine - it's not any different from any other papers. And it is equal-opportunity-expose. Case in point: today they ran a front-page story delving into Palin's personal finances and possessions - how many boats, etc - to question whether she was a 'regular Alaskan.' Not the sort of thing Obama has undergone. The Post, on the other hand, has crossed into the territory where I no longer trust the facts of the reporting itself, especially on the issues they are concerned about: Obama, Bush and Iraq, African-Americans, and Illegal Immigration. The very fact that their own 'fact check' column, in recently debunking a McCain ad, discredited it by noting that the claims came from Washington Post reporting and were therefore not credible evidence, speaks volumes as to the papers agenda.

So the governing party has no obligation to get its members to vote for an unpopular bill, but the minority party does. Got it - thanks.

On the other hand, maybe it was never really there - in terms of actual value, whatever that it - and that the bailout bill (followed by others) would only temporarily keep inflated an overvalued balloon. Maybe we simply have to recognize that property values are 25% overpriced, a game of musical chairs gone awry, end of story. While the ramifications of the cash fluidity crisis are real, failure to accept losses stemming from overvaluation puts us at risk of imitating the disasterous decade-long failure of Japan to clean up its books after the 1990 real estate collapse.

And what happened with the 95 democrats that opposed the bill?

He would have voted 'present.' Getting the 95 Democrats onboard who voted no was a job for somebody else too - his time was better spent in the service of his country by polishing his debate skills so that he can win the Presidency and make everything better. (Kinda like the courageous sacrifice of Romney's sons.)

No - the 'offense' just gave them cover to play it safe on a charged question that they didn't know what to do about. If you genuinely don't know how to vote on a putative solution, it makes your decision pretty easy when one side say's it is all your fault because you are corrupt, and that only they have the integrity to fix your mess (and by the way, you can expect them to campaign on that slogan too).

Yes. Even without the recent gaffes, Biden represents the opposite of everything Obama claims to represent. He is the poster-child of long-timer empty suits. His actual accomplishments - voting against the Gulf War I, voting for the removal of Saddam Hussein later on, support for lobbyists, protecting the credit card companies against personal bancruptcy - are a quixotic bag that won't play well if they were examined as closely as Palin has been.

People didn't vote against it because of Pelosi, not exactly. Many (Dem & Rep) voted against it because there is genuine uncertaintity over whether or not it is a good idea, even among supporters. Sentiment ranged from 'no, this is wrong' to 'maybe this is neccessary, but I'll hold my nose,' and the positions were fluid. What Pelosi did by grandsatnding was give the wavering that much more cover to a vote on the side of caution (and the voters) by saying no.

No. It isn't about Obama at all (though he is the benificiary here). We trust the media to delve deeply into all the candidates to reveal the good and the bad and lay the facts bare, to let us decide what is important. They can do real investigative journalism, we cannot. The media (and I mean mainstream, not a blogger or partisan think-tank) isn't doing that any more. It is pursuing stories on the basis of an activist agenda, not on the basis of getting a scoop wherever they find it. The information we have access to, and hitherto to could trust to be objective, is no longer complete. To point again to the NYT, regardless of our opinions about extramarital affairs (and I couldn't care less), how usefull is it for the them to run a series accusing McCain of an affair (since discredited) and yet not investigate Edwards despite the existing allegations? When they start shaping the news coverage and slanting the facts they disclose (rather than simply shape their editorial position on on the facts), they have become nothing more than a personal blog with a really big market reach.

Well, whether productive or not at least he made a visible effort. You can't say that about Obama, who apparently felt that his intervention would not be neccessary.

You left off "present"

In time it was covered - as measured by airtime - but I think it was investigated far less than it would have been had it been any other candidate. Think about the investigative stars of the media: the Washington Post, the NYT, etc. They have done no features on Wright and what he preaches, or indeed no substantive investigative reporting whatsoever on anything potentially damaging to Obama. McCain and the possibility that he had an affair with a lobbyist? NYT, page 1. Palin? The Post is all over the conversation she had at the library. Do you have a book coming out that slams the administration? They'll serialize it for you. But no investigative journalism about Obama, not a single in-depth feature about his past. When it comes to Obama, the only damaging things they will print will be other peoples reporting, and portrayed as such.

Agreed. The only significant difference is that psychology can effect oil prices, as they are driven partly by future expectations, but it won't effect current bottom-lines. (In fact, a better analogy would be this: setting all this stuff in place won't effect the profitability of a company for decades, but the improved long-term outlook would effect the stock price favorably.)

Pretty much. They played it passively - what kept Wright in the news was, well, Wright. I'm unaware of the major media outlets, for example, doing feature pieces chronicaling Wrights teachings, or investigating the family connection (like I've seen recently with McCains aide). They stuck to reporting what was reported elsewhere

President Clinton's deficit reduction budget was passed with unanimous support of the Democrats and over unanimous opposition of the Republicans. (In the Senate, anyway. Don't remember what happened in the House. But it can be done.)

Again, favoritism I don't mind - it's inevitable. What I worry about is the lack of professionalism stemming from partisanship. In the past, you investigated potential scandal/insight regardless of your preference. Getting a story seemed the goal, but no longer. There is a complete disconnect, for example, between the investigation intop McCain's recent affair (apparently completely false) and the lack of investigation into Edwards (which was true). The same with the speed with which reporters rooted about in Palin's education, and the (still) absence of any investigation into Obama's academic record. The media defends Obama being a community organizer, but does not mind the fact that the records and activities of his organizations are being kept secret. Nobody seems interested in telling the national public the story of his rise in politics, how he disqualified the other candidates in his state run, whatever connections he had to the Chicago political machine, and so on. Maybe there is something scandalous/uplifting/whatever there, maybe not. But it's the willfull disinterest in even looking that I find disturbing. I don't think they care about news any more - getting Obama elected has become the main priority, and news takes a back seat.

But I thought it was all ironed out a week ago, and there was no need for the candidates to get involved? Maybe if Obama had talked to a few of the 94 no-voting Democrats it would have passed...