Happy Anniversary, Barack & Michelle

When Barack called it their 15th anniversary (it's actually their 16th), he made Keith's "Worst Persons" list. But apparently it was Michelle who forgot their 15th last year. That's Barack buying her flowers yesterday--they're celebrating in Chicago today. Then a wedding photo, the family this year, and Barack and Michelle after the first debate last Friday. Happy Anniversary!

Palin Lies About Darfur

Of all the "misstatements" and lies VP candidate Palin told or repeated in last night's debate, there is one that is truly immoral.

Palin made a big point of saying she supported a measure in Alaska for that state to divest its portfolio of investments in Sudan, because of that nation's sponsorship of those committing genocide in Darfur. She made it sound as if she backed it, it passed and was now being carried out in Alaska.

It's all lies. Her administration opposed it. Her lack of support--says a co-sponsor--caused the measure to fail.

It's all in this report from ABC News, supported by fact-checking from the Washington Post.

Her revenue commissioner testified against the bill in the legislature, even though it had bipartisan sponsorship. The Democratic co-sponsor was Les Garra, and he told ABC News: "I walked out of that hearing livid," Gara recalled of the February meeting. Because of the Palin administration's opposition to the bill, "We could not get a vote in that committee," he explained. At no point did Palin come out in support of the effort, Gara said.

There was some softening of total opposition later, when the move proved controversial. But the fact is that nothing has yet been done, and right now Alaska holds $22 million in Sudan-linked investment.

Sarah Palin's Alaska is investing in genocide. And before some 70 million Americans, she lied about it.

Update: Two other Palin matters before we forget her for awhile. First, Bill Clinton pointed out in his speech in Florida last week that the next President will need to concentrate on the economy and other domestic crises for at least his first two years, and it will be up to the vice-president to mend fences with world leaders. Think about that for a minute...

Second but not least, Jonathan Turley pointed out Friday evening on Rachel Maddow that VP candidate Palin is the first candidate for president or vice-president who is refusing to honor a lawful subpoena during the campaign. Why is this not a major issue?

Beginning

The House passed the economic rescue package, with some additional Republican votes but even more new Democratic votes, after Barack Obama assured these members that there were provisions in the bill that would allow him to help homeowners and give money back to taxpayers, should he become President.

On the campaign trail, Obama ended his comments on the bill with this: "And the final thing is understanding even if this rescue package works exactly as it should, it’s only the beginning, it’s not the end. Because we still have 150,000 new people who lost their jobs this month, 750,000 since the beginning of this year. We still have a healthcare system that’s broken, we’re still overly reliant on oil from the Middle East and so we’ve still got these structural problems; the fundamentals of the economy aren’t sound and we’re going to have to do a lot of work moving forward.

So if we can stop the bleeding with this package, implement it effectively, and then move forward to deal with the broader problems on Main Street, then hopefully we can get our economy back on track."

Obama in Wisconsin

Obama in La Crosse, Wisconsin on Thursday.
Photo stolen from Al Rodgers (he also has some
interesting debate response captures.) Click photo
to enlarge.

Obama is Winning

Once again, instant polls, focus groups and many pundits--including Republicans-- agreed that Joe Biden won the vice-presidential debate. By maintaining a camera presence and repeating talking points, vp candidate Palin "survived." But as CNN's Bill Schneider said, "Palin's answers do not lack confidence, they lack coherence."

Biden answered questions and Palin's attacks, while Palin avoided answering the moderator's questions and could not defend McCain policies. Biden was most effective in linking McCain to Bush, and in countering Palin's insistence that McCain is a "maverick." Here are the operative quotes from the New York Times account:

“The issue is how different is John McCain’s policy going to be than George Bush’s,” Mr. Biden said. “I haven’t heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush’s."

“He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education — he has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college,” Mr. Biden said. “He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that generally affects the things that people really talk about.”

The debate's one authentic emotional moment also belonged to Biden--a moment that Huffpost blogger Leah McElrath wrote: "Joe Biden did more for the equality of the sexes with his honest display of paternal emotion during the vice presidential debate than Sarah Palin's presence on the executive ticket has or will ever do." Biden appeared to choke up as he talked about his young son, injured in the auto crash that killed his wife just after he was first elected to the Senate:

“The notion that, somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child you’re not sure is going to make it,” Mr. Biden said. “I understand as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it’s like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They’re looking for help.”

In one of the first published "reviews," columnist E. J. Dionne began: "Early in last night's vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin said that she might not answer the questions as moderator Gwen Ifill posed them. This was the Alaska governor's way of saying she was going to stick to the talking points she had stuffed into her head, no matter what the subject. " He concluded: At the time of her selection, voters were often compared with 'American Idol' watchers who put personality and stage presence above everything else. But it turns out that Americans take the presidency very seriously. And surviving 90 minutes on a stage with Biden did not transform Palin into a plausible president."

Both Obama and Biden showed in their debates that in serious times, they are serious people, and they are ready to confront the grave challenges we face.

But what also impressed me about the instant polls is that they tended to mirror the percentages by which Obama is ahead in the polls. Even Thursday, McCain lost ground in the polls. His campaign is leaving Michigan completely--a state that two weeks ago looked to be the crucial battleground. For the first time, it's all suggested to me that America may have already made up its mind who will be President.

Boomers for Obama

Boomers and seniors care about issues affecting their lives, like health care. But they also care passionately about the future of today's young, and beyond. This 11 minute video addresses both sets of concerns, along with some Obama biography. It's so well done that by watching it you can learn not only why Barack Obama should be President, but something about the boomers and seniors in your life. It's 11 minutes well spent for everyone.

The Senate Steps Up

After the House shocked the markets and the world with the chaos surrounding their proposal and the vote on it Monday, the Senate decided it was time for the adults to deal with it.

And deal they did. The Senate bill has lots of stuff, some of it strengthening oversight and other elements of the House bill that Democrats especially required in order to support it. But statesmanship requires some politics, too, so this bill was loaded with popular programs Senators wanted to vote for anyhow. But along with some of the goofier earmark-like provisions the media passed around on Wednesday, there were provisions that actually will help the economic recovery. For instance, says the NY Times:

Instead of siding with a $700 billion bailout, lawmakers could now say they voted for increased protection for deposits at the neighborhood bank, income tax relief for middle-class taxpayers and aid for schools in rural areas where the federal government owns much of the land.

The approximately $150 billion in new tax breaks, which offer incentives for the use of renewable energy and relieve 24 million households from an estimated $65 billion alternative-minimum tax scheduled to take effect this year... "

Those tax incentives for renewable energy are themselves important, as Tom Friedman has been saying for months, especially to new firms and established ones ready to jump into the renewable energy business, but needing the same sort of help that such industries get in other western countries. And they aren't even new--they have been on the books but were expiring, and Congress hadn't yet renewed them.

As for the bail-out part of it, Paul Krugman is among those who think this bill is necessary, but at best it just stops things from getting very much worse. More will be probably needed to turn things around. On the Senate floor, Obama said "This is what we need to do right now to prevent the possibility of a crisis turning into a catastrophe....passing this bill can't be the end of our work to strengthen the economy, it must be the beginning."

"Now, the fact that we're even here voting on a plan to rescue our economy from the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street, and some in Washington, is an outrage," Obama said. "It's an outrage to every American who works hard, pays their taxes, and is doing their best every day to make a better life for themselves and their families. And understandably, people are frustrated. They're angry that Wall Street's mistakes have put their tax dollars at risk. And they should be. I'm frustrated and angry, too."

But he used the analogy he has developed on the campaign trail--when your neighbor's house is on fire you first put it out, or it could spread to yours. Then you deal with how it caught on fire.

"We're in a very dangerous situation where financial institutions across this country are afraid to lend money. And if all that meant was the failure of a few banks in New York, that would be one thing. But that's not what it means. What it means is, if we don't act, it will be harder for Americans to get a mortgage for their home or loans they need to buy a car or send their children to college. What it means is that businesses won't be able to get the loans they need to open a new factory or make payroll for their workers. And if they can't make payroll on Friday, then workers are laid off on Monday."

"In other words, this is not just a Wall Street crisis, it's an American crisis."

Obama spoke for 13 minutes on the Senate floor, and his speech sums up the situation. John McCain was also present, but didn't speak. Obama, McCain and Senator Biden all voted for the bill, which passed 74 to 25. The House is expected to be ready to vote on Friday. So far its leaders are optimistic it will pass, but assurances are that it won't be put to a vote until it is certain to pass.

Meanwhile, today's set of national and battleground state polls shows Obama with significant leads.

To the Rescue

After the market meltdown on Monday centered their attention, on Tuesday government officials and legislators quickly put together the pieces of what they hope will be the rescue package for the financial system.

Some critics of the $700 billion bail-out proposal asked for two fairly simple changes they believe will help greatly. One is an accounting change that the SEC agreed to make. The other is a increase in the amount insured by Federal Deposit Insurance, which Barack Obama endorsed Tuesday morning, followed by John McCain and the Bush administration, and which will now be part of the new rescue package to be introduced and perhaps voted on in the Senate Wednesday.

The Senate bill includes some tax cuts and items on energy that legislators say will make the plan more acceptable to already chastened House Republicans. But no details of the plan were available as of Tuesday night.

(For those with long civics class memories, this little trick is possible because, even though the Constitution says that bills on fiscal matters have to originate in the House, this new bill is appended to legislation that the House has already passed.)

The hope is that the Senate will pass this, followed Thursday or Friday by the House. But, you know, stay tuned.

Hope is on the way

Barack Obama before many thousands in Detroit.
He'll be in Nevada today, and back in Michigan Thursday.

What Happens Next?

The bail-out bill aka rescue plan was brought to a vote today because Congress is off for the Jewish holiday tomorrow, and the idea was to reassure the stock markets as soon as possible. Ha ha ha. So if there is still a stock market after tomorrow, Congress gets back to work on Wednesday, reconvening officially on Thursday. Then what happens?

Probably the same bill with some face-saving modifications will be introduced, unless widespread opposition is expressed tomorrow to the extent that it would be a predictable failure. If it isn't reintroduced, or if it fails again, then...

One idea making the rounds is that the Democrats write their own bill and pass it. That will probably take us into next week. Bush is speaking to the nation tomorrow morning when nobody will be listening, except Wall Street, which is who he is really speaking to. If he can announce some executive measures to loosen credit for awhile, the immediate crisis may simmer down. In which case, a Democratic bill makes very good sense, politically as well as economically.

Because the Dems have the votes to pass it, it will then also be a dare to Bush to veto it. This prospect may in fact scare enough Republicans into voting for a slightly modified version of the current bill, or another compromise proposal. Robert Reich suggested in a TV interview that this might be a much more modest and more targeted rescue, amounting to a billion and a half bucks. While all of these are possibilities, the extent of the political revulsion to the idea of a Wall Street bail-out as expressed and assessed on Tuesday--especially in light of the extreme drop in the stock market-- may be the deciding factor. What Bush says in the morning may even influence these decisions, if there's any actual action in it.

Some have argued all along that if the Bush administration really believes the situation is as dangerous as they say, they will come up with administrative measures that deal with the immediate situation, while Congress works in a more deliberative manner to address larger and longer-term consequences. If indeed the administration is going to do that, tomorrow morning would be the time to announce it. Simply pressuring Congress to come back and vote on the same bill is unlikely to work. Meanwhile, the din of competing ideas to address the crisis will only get louder.

Black Monday

The House of Representatives unexpectedly voted down the $700 billion bail-out rescue bill--so surprisingly that John McCain had already taken credit for its passage.

The stock market promptly lost 777 points, with a value of $1.2 trillion.

It was considered a "catastrophic" political defeat for Bush and Republicans, who failed to come up with the votes they promised in the House. However, it may have brought a little sobriety to Wall Street execs and traders, who earlier in the day reportedly fretted that the package wasn't big enough or sweet enough for them.

Barack Obama counselled calm, assuring voters that a rescue package will eventually pass. He continues to insist that this economy must be rebuilt from the bottom up, by changing the emphasis of government from favoring Wall Street and the wealthy, to providing programs (jobs, health care, tax relief, clean energy economics), oversight and incentives that favor Main Street and working families.

It's Your Economic Future

Obama's new one minute ad.

The Big Deal

In a brief speech on the Senate floor, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said: “It’s not just going to be Wall Street. The chairman of the Federal Reserve has told us if the credit lockup continues, three million to four million Americans will lose their jobs in the next six months.”

This quote from a Sunday NY Times story signals what Americans are going to hear as a bail-out agreement is expected to be announced Sunday, and the House is expected to vote on a bill Monday, then the Senate. Administration and Congressional negotiators said that there are no major outstanding issues. But just how much CEO pay will be restricted, for example, or how much help there will be for those facing housing foreclosures, won't be known until the bill is written.

But negotiators felt it was necessary to get this done before the Asian markets open Monday. House Republicans, who stopped a deal on Thursday, are said to be on board now. Senators Obama and McCain had input and were kept informed by phone.

Still ahead however is selling the deal to individual members of Congress, and to the deeply skeptical American people.

Update: It took until Sunday night for House Republicans to sign on, but they finally did. They were careful not to call the plan a bail-out, but a working out of the problem. Just as House Speaker Pelosi described it not as a bail-out but a buy-in. Members of Congress are digesting the more than 100 pages of the final bill, while their leaders are counting votes. More will be known about that tomorrow.

2nd Update: The first of many economic analyses in the New York Times.

Obama/McCain =JFK/Nixon?

Last night's debate was held 48 years to the day
after the first JFK/Nixon debate, which commentators
thought was close, with the edge to Nixon. But voters
gave it to JFK to the extent that history records it as
the turning point in the campaign. Today a consensus
is emerging that the same thing happened last night:
a combination of substance and style, plus the electorate's
desire for change, gave this debate to Obama despite
some pundit's initial reaction. And it may have all
but sealed the deal. It's expressed for example, here
and visually in the brilliant image above, by Al Rodgers.

The Winner

Flash polls, focus groups, many pundits agree: Barack Obama won the first debate, demonstrating his foreign policy and commander-in-chief credentials, his presidential demeanor, and vastly increasing his favorability. More on Friday's events and the debate at American Dash.

Thursday Post Mortem

The most recent rendering of what happened at that White House meeting Thursday comes from the AP, headlined "A Bad Day for the GOP." Like other accounts, it says that the plan that was close to acceptance was stopped by House Republicans, who presented their own plan, the major premise of which the Republican Treasury Secretary said wouldn't work.

But this article's writer, Charles Babington, provides a new detail: At one point, several minutes into the session, Obama said it was time to hear from McCain. According to a Republican who was there, "all he said was, 'I support the principles that House Republicans are fighting for.'" Some at the table took that to mean the conservatives' alternative proposal, which stands little chance of passage."

A late night meeting called to try to salvage a plan broke up when House Republicans essentially boycotted it. Babington writes: "This is the president's own party," said Rep. Barney Frank, a top Democratic negotiator who attended both meetings. "I don't think a president has been repudiated so strongly by the congressional wing of his own party in a long time."

By midnight, it was hard to tell who had suffered a worse evening, Bush or McCain. McCain, eager to shore up his image as a leader who rises above partisanship, was undercut by a fierce political squabble within his own party's ranks.

The consequences could be worse for Bush, and for millions of Americans if the impasse sends financial markets tumbling, as some officials fear. Closed-door negotiations were to resume Friday, but it was unclear whether House Republicans would attend.

Republicans and Democrats alike seemed unsure which way McCain was leaning. His campaign's statement late Thursday shed little light.
"At this moment, the plan that has been put forth by the administration does not enjoy the confidence of the American people," it said. It was unclear whether McCain would attend Friday night's scheduled debate against Democratic nominee Barack Obama in Oxford, Miss."

The New York Times story this morning on these events adds some details as well as more evocative language. Of particular note: McCain met with House GOPers before the White House meeting. Right now, if I were Rachel Maddow, I'd be trying to get somebody to talk me down from the suspicion that Thursday events were all an elaborate set-up for something Friday that would cast McCain as the hero and embarrass Obama, perhaps by McCain announcing he's convinced the House GOPers to go along--but not until Obama is in Mississippi for the debate. I may be giving McCain too much credit, or I may just be paranoid. But if I'm wrong, this indeed was a perilously bad day for Republicans and potentially for the country and its future.

Quick Read on Today

After a few hours of "monitoring events" I'm taking a walk. Here's my gleaning of what happened today:

Leaders who have been negotiating the bail-out had the basic agreement on a plan that phased in the big bucks over time, and met the other basic conditions that Barack Obama and others stipulated. On the strength of this, the markets rebounded.

But at the White House meeting, a bizarre looking event, things unraveled, perhaps temporarily, perhaps as part of a plan to make it look like McCain will later today announce he's rescued the plan. Or not. Nobody knows. Senator Dodd said that the meeting was more in the nature of a rescue the McCain campaign than the country, although McCain apparently had very little to say during the meeting.

At this hour it seems that McCain's gambit of Wednesday is itself unraveling. He hasn't really suspended his campaign--his ads are up, his campaigners are on TV and he's doing interviews. Plus his threat to diss the debate tomorrow has been widely castigated, so he has to find a face-saving way of showing up after all, regardless of where the agreement is.

If all of this was orchestrated in advance, then shortly before debate time tomorrow we'll hear McCain announce that he's brought the House Republicans into an agreement, and he has saved the day. Then he gets on the plane to Mississippi. However, there are indications that his latest moves, like others previously, have been improvised, so there's no telling how this will play out.

Meanwhile, there is real discontent in the country with the idea of a massive bail-out of Wall Street multimillionares. If this political gamesmanship goes on too long, then we may find out in real time just how bad things can get without some sort of solution.

Obama on the Economic Future

A one minute message on what he will do to fix the economy.

Obama in Florida

Although he will be in Washington this morning,
Barack Obama has been preparing for Friday's
debate in Florida. He took time out for a rally
Wednesday.

Economic Crisis Wednesday

As fast and as weirdly as things moved on Wednesday, Thursday's events could move even faster.

Wednesday began with a morning phone call from Barack Obama to John McCain, requesting that they issue a joint statement of principles they both believe should be in the bail-out package Congress is considering. A reasonable request, since they both had talked about an oversight board, reigning in CEO pay and helping homeowners avoid foreclosures.

But McCain didn't take the call and didn't return it until mid afternoon. Shortly after agreeing to the statement (which when it was finally issued didn't say much at all, although Obama appended his own five point substantive set of principles), McCain unilaterally announced he was suspending his campaign to go to Washington Thursday and work on the crisis proposal, and further, he requested that Friday's presidential debate be cancelled. McCain admitted Tuesday that he had not read the 2 1/2 page administration proposal. Obama has been talking to the principals in the discussions every day.

Obama said the debate should go on as scheduled, saying "It is my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess,” Mr. Obama said. “It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once.”

Then the debate commission announced that the debate would go on as scheduled, and the McCain campaign let it be known that if the economic crisis bill isn't set by Friday, McCain will not participate in the debate. (A Survey USA flash poll showed that only 10% of those polled thought the debate should be cancelled.)

Then President Bush invited both McCain and Obama to the White House Thursday for a meeting with congressional leaders to discuss the crisis proposal. Obama accepted, and presumably McCain will also be there.

Then at 9pm, President Bush addressed the nation on the crisis. His explanation for how it got so bad seemed to blame citizens more than Wall Street or the failures of government regulators, but his statement on the bail-out plan did include several provisions Democrats and some Republicans have been insisting be part of it.

Meanwhile, while all of this highly visible drama was going on, those negotiating the actual bail-out package were getting closer to agreement. Eventually Dem Congressman Barney Frank announced the deal was all but done, and though he's been on the optimistic side before, several reporters confirmed this.

So what may very well happen Thursday is a meeting which crosses the ts and dots the i's at the White House in the morning, with a done deal shortly thereafter. It might even be passed tomorrow or Friday, in plenty of time for the debate.

But it might take a day or two longer, and that's when things get crazy again. Lawrence O'Donnell on the Rachel Maddow show pointed out that McCain has no reason to go to Washington because he has no function in these negotiations--he's not a member of any of the relevant committees trying to hammer out the deal, and he doesn't have all that much political pull with the House Republicans who seem to be the biggest barrier to an agreement. O'Donnell sees this as presidential politics mucking up the process--which is precisely why Obama wasn't in Washington. Bush's invitation to both candidates gives McCain cover--something to go to, where he can look like he's involved. But apart from that, he has no function there.

O'Donnell thinks a deal is a few days away. So if it isn't concluded by Friday afternoon, what happens to the debate? No candidate has ever refused to participate in a debate previously agreed to, for any reason, not even sitting presidents. Barney Frank called this the most Hail Mary Hail Mary pass in the history of football, and Marys. This one may have already hit the turf.

Obama 52% McCain 43%

The new Washington Post/ABC poll shows Barack Obama leading McCain 52% to 43% among likely voters, and 52-42 among registered voters. The poll was taken Sept. 19-22, and these photos are from campaign stops during that period and since, in Colorado, New Hampshire and Nevada. (Click on the last photo to get a better idea of what Obama is pointing to.)

Economic Crisis Tuesday Roundup

Tuesday saw a contentious hearing in the Senate on the Administration bail-out plan, and House negotiator Barney Frank continues to say that a deal including what Democrats say are necessary additions and modifications is still on track. But it's not only Democrats who don't want to be rushed into a bad deal. The Bush administration attempt to scare Republican House members into solid support failed miserably, as they roundly rejected the intervention of VP Cheney.

The NY Times reported that Barack Obama outlined four conditions for the bail-out plan: a payback plan for taxpayers if the bailout succeeds; a bipartisan board to oversee the bailout; limits on any federal money going to compensate Wall Street executives; and aid to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

Here's a link to some video from Obama's press conference Tuesday, as well as the text of what he said.

Obama on the Bail-out Today

From First Read: "In his strongest language to date regarding the hotly-debated plan to rescue America's financial system, Obama called on President Bush to be more flexible about changes to the proposal and warned Wall Street CEOs against being selfish about the terms of the bailout.

“Yesterday, the President said that Congress should pass this proposal to ease the crisis on Wall Street without significant changes or improvements,” the Illinois senator told reporters, arguing that everyone has a stake in solving the crisis to protect the jobs and the life savings of millions. “Given that fact, the President’s stubborn inflexibility is both unacceptable and disturbingly familiar. This is not the time for my-way-or-the-highway intransigence from anybody involved.”

“There’s been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multi-million-dollar salaries,” he said sternly. “I cannot imagine a position that’s more selfish and more greedy at a time of national crisis.”

He said he wanted to deliver a message directly to those CEOs: “Do not make that mistake,” he said. “You are stewards not only of your companies, but of workers and communities all across the country who have put their trust in you. With the enormous rewards that you’ve reaped come responsibilities and we expect and demand that you to live up to those responsibilities. This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives.”

Obama also reiterated his plans to go forward with his agenda for middle class tax cuts, universal healthcare, investments in renewable energy and other areas despite the tax burden of the bailout, arguing they were necessary to strengthen the economy. He again urged Bush and McCain to join him in supporting an economic stimulus plan to help working families, though he made it clear that he was not insisting this package be included in the bailout legislation.

The Danger Zone

Not many of us can understand in detail how to solve this economic crisis right now, and we depend on people we trust to do the right thing. So let's say they are right, that some sort of action is necessary immediately to prevent what everybody is calling an economic meltdown, which sooner rather than later would result in Great Depression II. And let's say that it involves the government intervening with lots of money that might all disappear, leaving a huge bill for taxpayers.

Now there is less agreement on this than there was a couple of days ago, but still, even critics of what's been proposed--like Paul Krugman of the NY Times--say that some major government action is required, soon. The reason, according to Barack Obama, is to "maintain liquidity," which means, among other things, the ability of businesses, large and small, to borrow money even for a short time, to meet payrolls, buy supplies, perform maintenance, and meet other costs of doing business. Beyond that, it means investment borrowing to expand, to start new businesses to employ people.

The first proposal by Bush Secretary of the Treasury Paulson was stunning in its oversimplification and the sweep of the power he wanted to grant to himself, completely unreviewable by courts, unsupervised by anyone else. That overreaching made everyone stop and look at other deficiencies: the need to support home buyers and prevent foreclosures, the need for transparency, accountability, and the need to not reward the businesses and the executives who screwed up so royally in the first place.

While those debates go on, ordinary Americans have responded from the heart. After all these years of being told that we can't build or repair infrastructure, we can't have affordable and universal health care, we can't lower middle class taxes, we can't support the next generation of clean energy technology that is our best investment for the jobs of the future, we can't even help our fellow citizens in need even in emergencies like Katrina--because we don't have the money. Now we're told that we have to potentially throw away as much money as we've already wasted on a useless, needless destructive war in Iraq. We have money to buy up companies that through unrestricted greed have brought our entire economy to the brink of collapse. And probably hire the CEOs of those companies to help figure out what to do with them.

The stories online with comments and the blogs, as well as columns in newspapers, there is a theme: if you're bailing out Wall Street, what about me? I have a little business that could use such a small piece of that $700 billion that you wouldn't miss it. How about bailing out my balloon payment on that mortgage I was fraudulently suckered into? How about paying those predatory credit cards? Or this woman: Dear Mr. Paulson: "I know you are busy bailing out financial institutions but if you have a minute I was wondering if you could loan me $3000.00 I haven't been able to afford health insurance for years and would love to get a mammogram."

While this Secretary of the Treasury is, as they say, the only one we've got, and so some deference is due him, his own background and acuity in these matters is suspect. But the even bigger problem is who he works for. We're being asked to trust the administration that has brought us Iraq, Katrina, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the rule of Blackwater and other mercenaries, the gutting of the Constitution and the Courts, the stripping of professionalism from every department of government, beginning with Justice; rampant corruption in the Interior Dept. and elsewhere; a war on science that doesn't benefit oil companies, huge tax cuts for the very wealthy and decimation of the middle class, the outsourcing of our remaining productive capacity, and this very economic crisis.

This is the administration of a president whose approval rating hit 19% today, and nobody noticed. His rating for handling the economy is 17%. It used to be said that if Bush announced that he was Satan, he would still get a 30% approval. Now he's got the support of fewer than 1 of 5 Americans. At best, he is the lamest lame duck in history. But that's still his Treasury Secretary.

Americans haven't seen many effects of this crisis yet. But they will. Senator Bob Casey made an acute observation to salon: "The magnitude of what happened on Wall Street is hard for anyone to absorb. Maybe it hasn't fully sunk in because the image of real economic calamity is so based on the 1920s and the Depression. Maybe things will change as people begin to look at what has happened to their retirement accounts over the next few weeks."

And when people do begin to realize the extent of this, then the real danger begins, especially if a bipartisan plan is not in place and already showing signs of working. We're going to be in uncharted territory.

But crisis is also opportunity--not only for the unscrupulous this time. Barack Obama is making a consistent argument that suddenly makes sense as not only a vision of hope but the best way forward: change the emphasis from supporting the wealthy, globalized corporations and Wall Street, to supporting workers and small business, with support for housing and credit problems, but more broadly, support for universal health care (which is a huge cost for families and businesses, and an enormous drag on the economy), education (to compete for better jobs, to have better lives), and for community. It means incentives to keep and encourage good jobs in America, not the previous emphasis on supporting global corporations in their never-ending quest to find the cheapest labor. Suddenly the "change from the bottom up" philosophy of his politics becomes more clearly an economic vision.

That support also means new productive enterprises, an America that builds things again, and the growth opportunity is clean energy technology, retrofitting, infrastructure for the new reality of less dependence on oil and the changes needed to save the planet from the global heating that is the ultimate economy (and life) destroyer.

This is the way to a better future, that can begin in November if Americans make the right choice. And that may depend on how we navigate this danger zone between now and then.

Bail-Out Plan Progress

Rep. Barney Frank told the AP that a lot of progress has been made on a bail-out plan that includes several layers of oversight, help to prevent mortgage foreclosures, limitations on executive pay in exchange for these government funds, and a more limited time period (one year instead of two.)

While stories earlier today suggested that widespread opposition to the Bushite proposal by Democrats and conservatives might stall the plan's passage until next week, this story asserts that it may get done even earlier than the end of this week, perhaps by Wednesday.

In the meantime the stock market dropped 372 points, although it had been even lower earlier in the day. The price of oil, which had been falling, suddenly jumped $16 a barrel, its largest one day increase on record.

Update: by Monday night, Barney Frank was saying that he overstated the areas of agreement with Bush reps, and that the process could take longer than this week. However, House and Senate Democrats are in general agreement on what they need in this bill, he said. In the Senate, Democrat Chris Dodd has stepped up with his own proposal, which is getting good support and praise for being more detailed than the Bushite government proposal.

Obama in Charlotte. N.C.

Photos posted at dKos taken at a huge rally in
Charlotte--25 to 30,000--where Barack Obama
spoke about the economic crisis. See video and post below.

Obama on the Crisis Today

Barack Obama today before a huge crowd in Charlotte, N.C. This excerpt is about 10 minutes. He outlines the principles in the post below.

Obama Refuses to be "Shocked"

Barack Obama issued a statement on the Bushite bail-out plan that includes this sentence: "But thus far, the Administration has only offered a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan."

Obama emphasizes seven principles that must go into such a plan, and the first one is: "No blank check. If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight. Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check."

Among the other principles: We cannot underwrite continued irresponsibility, where CEOs cash in and our regulators look the other way. We cannot abet and reward the unconscionable practices that triggered this crisis. We have to end them.

Taxpayers should be protected. This should not be a handout to Wall Street.

Help homeowners stay in their homes.

A global response. The United States must lead, but we must also insist that other nations, who have a huge stake in the outcome, join us in helping to secure the financial markets.

Main Street, not just Wall Street. The American people need to know that we feel as great a sense of urgency about the emergency on Main Street as we do the emergency on Wall Street.

Build a regulatory structure for the 21st Century. While there is not time in a week to remake our regulatory structure to prevent abuses in the future, we should commit ourselves to the kind of reforms I have been advocating for several years. We need new rules of the road for the 21st Century economy, together with the means and willingness to enforce them.

"The bottom line is that we must change the economic policies that led us down this dangerous path in the first place. For the last eight years, we've had an "on your own-anything goes" philosophy in Washington and on Wall Street that lavished tax cuts on the wealthy and big corporations; that viewed even common-sense regulation and oversight as unwise and unnecessary; and that shredded consumer protections and loosened the rules of the road. Ordinary Americans are now paying the price. The events of this week have rendered a final verdict on that failed philosophy, and it is a philosophy I will end as President of the United States."

Update: The NY Times reports that congressional Democrats have joined Barack Obama in structuring the bail-out along the lines he suggested:

Meanwhile, top Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill said on Sunday that they would act swiftly on the administration’s request, but not without setting their own conditions.

“Congress will respond to the financial markets crisis by taking action this week in a bipartisan manner that will protect the taxpayers’ interests,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. She added that the administration’s proposal did “not include the necessary safeguards. Democrats believe a responsible solution should include independent oversight, protections for homeowners and constraints on excessive executive compensation.” “We will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street and hope for a better outcome,” she said.

The Times story also said: "Democrats pushed for assistance for distressed homeowners and for oversight authority of the bailout program. Some lawmakers also said they did not want to be rushed into approving extraordinary new powers for the Treasury secretary and the government without full consideration of the consequences."

Beware the Shock Doctrine

The bail out plan offered by the Bush administration has the distinct odor of the Shock Doctrine: using a crisis to scare the country into precipitous action that will increase executive department power and benefit wealthy Republican supporters.

Its brevity alone is a red flag. Its insistence on its acts being "non-reviewable" is outrageous but fully in tune with the fascist tendencies of the Bush presidency.

Here's the full text, and I note that I'm not the only one who thought of N. Klein's Shock Doctrine. Paul Krugman in the NY Times and Sebastian Mallaby in the W. Post have already written columns against it.

But Republicans in Congress are trying to pressure Democrats to give the Bushites all they want. This is classic Shock Doctrine stuff. Democrats need to resist this attempt to panic them and make sure this plan has real oversight, doesn't further benefit the rich and penalize everyone else, and incidentally, that it will actually work.

On Economy, Obama Offers Ideas, McCain Blames Rival

--that's the headline in today's Washington Post:

"As officials in Washington raced to put together a bailout plan for the nation's teetering financial system, Sen. John McCain hammered Sen. Barack Obama as part of the problem while Obama said any rescue should include a new stimulus package for working families. "

McCain, who has supported the Bush push for the deregulation that led to this crisis, whose main economic advisor was the architect of the deregulation that is most directly responsible for the banking crisis, and whose campaign manager and many other advisors were big time lobbyists deeply involved in gaming the system, attacked Obama for ties to one person (Franklin Raines) who was never an Obama advisor at all. In a separate story, the Post called this assertion "particularly dubious." Yet the McCain campaign cites the Post as their source.

McCain also attacked a former Fannie Mae exec who was briefly on Obama's vp selection committee, saying that Jim Johnson had been paid with "your money." But the Post points out:"the severance packages were paid by company shareholders, not taxpayers."

On the plan to save the economy currently being devised by members of the administration and Congress, the Post story quotes Obama yesterday: "We'd better do it in an intelligent, systematic, thoughtful fashion. I'm much less interested at this point in scoring political points than I am in making sure that we have a structure in place that is sound and is actually going to work."