Sunday Open Thread

Some things I'm reading:

It is not enough, however, to revel in the irony or the hypocrisy of the Administration's current plans. Two things are central: one is solving the financial crisis, and the other is doing so in a way that preserves constitutional values of oversight, checks and balances, and accountability to the rule of law. The government must have the power to act, but only the powers it actually needs, and not those it would enjoy having for the foreseeable future. It must be able to make decisions, but not without any accountability or oversight. That is what the debate is and should be about, and even though it nominally concerns the passage of an emergency measure, it is ultimately a debate of constitutional proportions.


Here's an open thread. What have you been reading and thinking about today?

< S. Dakota Abortion Law Aims to be Test Case on Roe v. Wade | One Third May Vote Early >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's statement on the Paulson plan (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    And American taxpayers deserve to know that their money will not allow for a continuation of the status quo: short term profit at the expense of long term viability; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk taking that have placed the markets in so much jeopardy; rewards for those who foreclose on middle class families and sell mortgages designed to fail to turn a profit; and outsourcing of good jobs to serve short term stock prices instead of America's long term economic health. The prevailing dynamic of corporate America, where the sole priority was the dividend, the inflated bonus and the quarterly earnings report, must give way to a new respect for the long term prosperity of the American worker and the well being of the middle class.

    I will only support steps that will prevent a widening crisis, tackle the worst kinds of abuse tolerated for too long by the Bush Administration, and address the root problems at work.

    Well, she can theoretically stop it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    The plan will take an act of Congress, after all.

    She would need a lot of support. It sounds (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    like the rest of them are ready to cave. Maybe they will surprise me. I also read Pelosi's statement and it was better than I expected.

    If Pelosi says no, it's not gonna happen (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    The key is that Democrats have to come up with a unified message an alternative. I don't have much confidence in that.

    BTW, Obama apparently just said (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    "no blank check."

    If he says no, Congress will not defy him. Not now.


    See (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    Nice statement. I hope he follows up and (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    pressures the rest of them to follow through.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#17)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    Is he goint to show up to vote?  Will he be, dare I say, present?

    Well, here's the question: (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    does no mean no? If it does, Paulson is going to have to negotiate.

    Don't think he has (none / 0) (#29)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    that much power.  Think that the Democratic congress people care more about themselves than following Obama.

    As I understand what Schumer and Dodd said this a.m., it has to be done NOW and the delay will be lead to a penurious
    future for all of us.  Like Great Depression II.

    I am not sure Obama needs to say anything except what he already has said. There may be things he does not know and
    it seems appropriate to say little. Calling for him to lead on this may b e setting him up.


    He's the leader of the party now (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    so of course Congress will do what he says on an important issue like this so close to the election.

    Here's his chance to answer the "ready to lead?" question. It's being teed up for him perfectly, and I think this speech is a good start.


    If he is able to coordinate (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    a bit with Hillary and perhaps some other leading Democrats, the push back on the blank check could get rolling.  Hillary could help lend some credibility to whatever Obama says among certain demographics.  

    And I expect Bill Clinton will have something to say about the economy tomorrow (tomorrow?) on the View.  Maybe he can give Hasselbeck the smack down and we can all watch it on TV and laugh.


    I'd pay cash money... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    ...to watch Bill take on teh Hasselbeck.  It would be just so...satisfying.

    He's on the whole hour and each host will (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    get to question him. Ha! This will be worth watching and I have never watched that show before. I did read Jeralyn's live blog and it was funny.

    You won't even have to pay (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    since it's on ABC.  

    The best things in life are free!


    When I set the DVR, it says he is there to (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    discuss his Global Initiative. I hope they can ask him some other questions considering what all is going on.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    And people trust Democrats on the economy, so it shouldn't be a hard sell to say that the "George Bush plan" is wrong.

    Thanks for the reminder. I'm going to set (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    my DVR right now.

    Saw a clip a little while ago (none / 0) (#38)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    of Dodd saying, 'no blank check.'

    Don't agree that (none / 0) (#50)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    because "he is the leader of our party" the Democrats in Congress will listen to him.

    From what he said in his release, so said Barney Frank and Hillary.  He was a little late but I also know he needed the cover.

    Why do you insist he needs to lead on this?  He wants to win and he is a politician.  This crisis is so hot that I think he would be wise, as he has been, to say he needs some time. Are you saying you have so much faith in Obama that whatever he says on a two day old international crisis that he would have the answers?

    I think he is smarter than that.  He is doing the right thing.


    because the way to win is to show leadership (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    Daschleism will not work now. I has never worked.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:39:47 PM EST
    they will. They'll have no problem defying him. The only thing can stop this is if Pelosi doesn't allow a vote on it. Lots of the congressional reps don't want to be associated with Obama anyway so voting against what he wants would be a way to show their "independence."

    Bail out "DECIDER" (none / 0) (#39)
    by wlgriffi on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

    This is what the Administration is asking Congress to authorize. So if anyone thinks the public as well as Congress DO-DO's aren't being snookered the country deserves what it gets.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adx nnlx=1222013397-lNykFcRIEz1cCcwj3M8Z/Q


    Will there be separate... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    ...actions (or groups of actions) to address the rescue plan/bailout on one hand, and the morgage mess and other causes of the larger problem on the other hand?

    Both of these things need fixing, and both need the sort of oversight, checks and balances, and accountability to the rule of law that Balkin mentions. (Plus transparency!)  

    But it seems to me that if we try to fix all the causes of the problem on the same week and in the same bill that we use to set the rules for the $700 billion plan, it might add a lot of loopholes and clutter and fuel for partisan squabbling in the months to come.

    I keep wanting to try to compare this whole thing to a heart attack suffered by someone who hasn't taken care of themselves.  Long term, they'll have to change their eating patterns, excersise levels and other parts of their lifestyle, but those hours that they're on the operating table or in the emergency room may not be the time or place to be getting into the details of their diet and various drug addictions.  It would be the right time and place to set the appointment for that sort of separate treatment to fix the causes, though. In my opinion anyway. But that's just my thought.

    Please do not ask such questions (none / 0) (#14)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    Just trust Hank Paulson, he's doing a heckuva job.  Now.

    Good analogy... (none / 0) (#28)
    by santarita on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    The short term fix can't prevent or inhibit the long term solutions.

    Among other hot buttons, I will find it galling if the same institutions that benefit from the bailout funds double dip by earning enormous fees for acting as the agents for the Fed (as the bill proposes) in evaluating and liquidating the financial products that got them into trouble.


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    The Paulson plan has to be acted on right away or we're all in the soup.  I expect Congress will put some general restrictions, time limits, that sort of thing, on what he's proposing.  But they're going to approve the basic outlines quickly and overwhelmingly.  Paulson is an extremely smart and knowledgeable technocrat, not a Dick Cheney ideologue.

    Wall St. bailout deep-sixes healthcare (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by pluege on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:33:40 PM EST
    that's what this is about. It will be simple for the plutocracy to make the case that Healthcare for all Americans will no longer be affordable since Americans rescued the infinitely greedy and wealthy this coming week.

    That's what American's elected representatives will be trading for this week: more yachts and endless globe-trotting vacations for the obscenely wealthy in exchange for less and less healthcare for average Americans.

    Shock Doctrine = no healthcare.

    Major catastrophe in US's 4th largest city (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jpete on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    We just got our power back.  8 days without electricity, about 5 without drinkable water (unless boiled, which could be hard without power), most things closed, long lines for federal rations, etc.

    And that was the easy part.  We didn't lose our homes or our jobs.  Being 'legal' we don't have to avoid FEMA, police, anyone looking federal.  We have a healthy pet, an intact family.  We got electricity before many, though 5 days after our very wealthy friend.

    We do unfortunately have two properties in Galveston, one of which we were trying to sell.  Not likely anytime soon.  Probably we'll end up with a hit to our savings, but it could be so much worse.

    As I predicted a couple of weeks ago (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    Obama now has a better shot at Florida than Ohio. His map is looking more like Al Gore's than John Kerry's.

    Problem: I say he has only a 40% chance at Florida. So, it's down to CO and VA, which is see as about 50:50 shots.

    Ohio would seal it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    He needs to work hard at both Ohio and Florida. And Michigan and Pennsylvania. None of these are a lock for him or McCain. Colorado is only 9 electoral votes. I think people are paying too much attention to it.

    They're all important (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    But I think it's important to keep in mind that there's a natural domino order of the states, subject to some variation based on the particular candidates.

    If McCain is losing Colorado, he's almost certainly not winning Pennsylvania.


    The financial crisis ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    has marginalized the Presidential campaign.  It's been pushed past the first commercial in most local and network news broadcasts this week.

    The real news in the coming week isn't going to be the Presidential debate. It's going to be the debate in congress.

    Three of the candidates are members of congress.

    Shouldn't these candidates be in Washington for this important battle?


    Please elaborate re "natural domino (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    order of states."

    Look at three maps: (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    1996, 2000, and 2004. Then look at the national popular vote, the popular vote in each state, and the state/region the various candidates were from.

    How about a diary? (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    You wanna do my homework for me? ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    I thought about that as soon as (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    I hit "post."  Hope all goes well.

    Florida (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    Sept. 19, 5 pm: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL - Black Box Voting has received word that a decision was made not to deploy the six-figure video surveillance system purchased by Palm Beach County Elections in the Aug. 26 primary election, where 3,500 ballots went missing. Black Box Voting was told this after filing a Freedom of Information request for the surveillance video. We'll keep you posted.

    My gut feeling is there are several states where the fix is already more than in.  We have proven we cannot hold an honest and clean national election and we have done nothing, zero, zip to address it adequately.  I guess I'm okay with a tainted Obama "victory", but every day the election nears I get more and more cynical.


    I find comments like this to be a waste of space (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    You are free to your own opinion (none / 0) (#59)
    by standingup on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    I am disturbed that we have reached the point where people question our ability to hold free and fair elections?  Dadler is one of many concerned with this and there are just as many on the right who believe the system is compromised by "voter fraud."  Doesn't a lack of faith in the integrity of our elections end up undermining a democracy?    

    Maybe (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    So stop inculcating a "lack of faith in the integrity of our elections."

    Generally speaking, it's false.


    See, that just tells me (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    that you haven't read studies such as the book Deliver the Vote.  The problem for you is that some of us have read up more on this and know the evidence.

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:33:27 PM EST
    People always say this just before they cite Bev Harris.

    That's just idiotic. You clearly do not know (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 08:24:03 PM EST
    the book.  As for Beverly Harris, from what little I recall of her, I bet she hasn't read it, either.  That makes two of you.  

    Good strategy (none / 0) (#70)
    by standingup on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:30:26 PM EST
    By preventing discussion of a perceived problem, we will eliminate the fear of the perceived problem.  

    Fla has 2 new laws (none / 0) (#66)
    by Amiss on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 04:49:14 PM EST
    Now comes the bigger task: making sure inexperienced voters can navigate two new state laws. The first is the so-called "No match, no vote" law, which requires a match between a voter's driver's license or Social Security number and a government database. Critics say database records are riddled with errors.

    A second law allows citizens to challenge the legitimacy of fellow voters. Challengers need not prove their accusations. Instead, the challenged voter has two days to justify his right to cast a ballot.

    State Republican lawmakers who pushed the law say it will help combat fraud. Democrats call it a vote-suppression measure. "Now why would the legislature make it easier to challenge, instead of, say spending more money on voter education?" said Chuck Lichtman, a Fort Lauderdale attorney. He heads a Democratic effort to put volunteer lawyers in every Florida precinct. Mr. Lichtman says 5,000 lawyers have signed up for the task, up from 3,500 in 2004.



    Does anyone really understand 538's methodology? (none / 0) (#6)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    Aside from the statistical terminology, eg, regression analysis, etc, he seems to be basically factoring in trends that he sees in the national traking and other polls to give states to Obama that the state polls do not yet justify.  Ohio and Virginia?  Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

    He has a special sauce (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    Think of him like Zogby and put your money on SUSA.

    This is how it works: (none / 0) (#20)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    Let's say the last VA poll taken was last week and showed Obama -2 when he was even on the trackers.

    Now the national trackers have him +4 a week later, but there's no new VA poll this week.  538 assumes that if a state poll was taken this week, it should be 4 points better for Obama than last week (more or less, if you assume a national trend can be attributed to the same number in each state; it depends on state and some other things).  Therefore, it is more likely that VA is Obama+2 than it still is O-2.

    He also looks at state-to-state comparisons....so last nights PPP which had NC tied would imply that a PPP poll of VA would show Obama up, since VA is always considered a better state for Obama than NC.


    Well, he does stuff like that, but he (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    doesn't tell you exactly how he does what he does, and his "model" is constantly being "adjusted," even though he's promised various times over the months that he was going to stop.

    He's a little bit better than Miss Cleo, but probably worse than the Pollster or RCP composite.


    I think RCP's are useless (none / 0) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    since they just straight average the last X number of polls, regardless of who the pollster is, sample size or methodology.

    Pollster is better because at least they weight more recent polls more highly.

    I find 538's methodology interesting--basically it says that every poll has some kind of useful information in it, as to national trend, other states.  And it should be weighted by the pollster's reliability, sample size, etc.

    The only thing he really tweaked is how fast his trend model reacts to new information, that's why it got jumpy recently.

    An as an aside, his graph of what the 2 convention bounces would look like was almost dead on--like it was pre-ordained no matter what with the economy or Palin.  


    They all make choices (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    about how much noise to introduce into their model.

    I trust my brain to tell me where a state is, based on the most recent polls and what I know about the particular states.


    ultimately a debate of constitutional proportions (none / 0) (#8)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    But you gotta say yes by Monday morning at 9:30 am when the market opens on Wall Street.

    That letter is bad news (none / 0) (#12)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    If the Democrats are viewed as obstructing a deal for political reasons and the markets tank, the advantage on the economy will switch to McCain.  The public doesn't care whose fault it was.  They don't care about being punitive.  They just want the problem fixed and the crisis averted.

    Ah No (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by dissenter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    I think the public cares a lot. It is all people are talking about. Most people I talk to don't even want this bail out. They think it is welfare for the rich with no punishment for their actions...which it is. I don't support this bail out at all.

    If dems give these guys a free pass and they will pay for it. I think this is one of those rare moments in American history where there will be consequences to political votes.


    They'll change their tune (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    when the markets and the economy tank.  It's a dangerous game of chicken.  Worrying about the CEO's golden parachutes is like worrying about the store clerk making out with some merchandise while the store burns.  

    More like... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST

    Worrying about the CEO's golden parachutes is like worrying about the store clerk making out with some merchandise while the store burns.  

    A more accurate example would be the manager of the store emptying the safe as he sets the store on fire.  Then get everyone to pitch in money to keep the business open and letting the manager keep his job.


    No, that isn't right (none / 0) (#73)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:42:52 PM EST
    First of all, this was not an intentional action.  They aren't trying to lose money on purpose or conspiring to steal the nation's wealth.  This was incompetence, not malice.

    Second look at the dollar amonts involved.  The compensation we are talking about amountd to a candy bar compared to the total amount in the store.


    Using the.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    700 billion dollar figure, that would be $2,331 from every man woman and child in this country to accomplish the bail out. Forgive me if I see that as a bit more than one candy bar.

    That is not what we are talking about (none / 0) (#81)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:37:50 PM EST
    We are talking about the size of the CEO parachute (10's of millions) compared to the size of the bailout.  Yes, CEO compensation needs revision but getting credit flowing and averting disaster is higher priority.  We can address CEO compensation and other structural issues later.  Reminds me of these lines from Dylan.

    As the island slowly sank
    The loser finally broke the bank in the gambling room.
    The dealer said, "It's too late now.
    You can take your money, but I don't know how
    You'll spend it in the tomb."

    Debate camp? (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST

    Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, will be hunkering down for "debate camp" in Florida starting on Tuesday. The Times's Jeff Zeleny notes that while Mr. Obama will have no big events in the critical swing state next week, Mr. Obama's "mere presence (fueled by a few photo opportunities) will surely draw considerable local media attention and put to rest any suggestions that he does not intend to aggressively compete in the state with Senator John McCain."

    I'm glad that Obama is taking the debates quite seriously, as I am sure many millions will be tuned in.  But...is he really shutting down for almost 4 days in order to prepare?  Throw all the advisers on a bus and keep campaigning, I say.

    It amazes me the first debate (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:50:44 PM EST
    will be on a Friday night and the topics will be national security and foreign policy.  

    Small events are OK too (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    as long as they get on TV.

    Palin is (none / 0) (#30)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    going to hunker down in Florida to prepare for the debates too.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    Since that article I read here ("Palin Costing McCain Support in Florida") suggested that Floridians do not like Palin much at all...I wonder what votes they are trying to gain by having her sit in Florida.  She seemed to be driving people away from McCain.  

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:45:28 PM EST
    I think she just wants to be in FL with her family.  Read that everyone is coming down for a visit.  Probably going to Disney World.

    Need to be careful on what you read about FL.  We are like three states and American Cuba.  Very different in culture and ideology  in all 4 areas.  

    Probably won't really know 'till Nov 4.


    That's so true. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    There's an practically a state's worth of Northerners retiring down there.  Unfortunately, it's the older generation who bring plenty of their long standing cultural biases with them.

    Seniors mostly vote Democrat (none / 0) (#51)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    and many are snowbirds who vote in other states. McCain may change that this year.  Who knows.

    NW FL (panhandle) is the South as is some of NE.
    Central, the I-4 corridor, has a lot of conservative voters; S FL, Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale, is Democratic and South, Miami, Democrat and Cuban influence who usually vote conservative. The Fl Keys are a mix.

    There are some variables this time; Bush, economy, AA vote and Gov Crist.  Jeb Bush was well liked; Crist is getting some flack right now and he is too new.  The Jewish

    That's why I said probably won't know until 11/4.


    Good synopsis (none / 0) (#53)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    I would add, Tallahasse in the north is very different than its surroundsings.  Usually votes quite liberal, like Cambridge in many national elections.  

    I read the Ocala paper one time (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:39:34 AM EST
    The place is all horse farms and retirement communities.  A definite SoCon flavor.  (Which is much nicer than what I originally going to say.)

    So true (none / 0) (#55)
    by Amiss on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    I have lived all over the state, and each part of the state is like a different cultural area. I believe it is the most diverse state in the Nation.

    Apparently, Obama's last stop this week (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:17:01 PM EST
    will be in Wisconsin tomorrow, in Green Bay.  A rather late-scheduled stop, as word wasn't out until today, that I saw -- and it's the first for which tickets are not needed.  McCain and Palin were there this week and well-received.  Green Bay is one of the few sometimes-Dem pockets in a predominantly red state.

    They're also rolling out Michelle Obama to three stops in Wisconsin this week -- upstate to spots I don't see going blue but one in Dem stronghold Milwaukee (i.e., West Allis, a working-class burb so old it might as well be in the city) without even a time set as yet, per local media.

    Interesting, for a campaign that has been so scheduled.  I gather that the "debate camp" is nearby, back home in Chicago.


    Florida, per NYT (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:51:54 PM EST
    Can you provide a citation? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Manuel on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    Your facts differ from Wikipedia

    As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion.[4] In 2007, the public debt was 36.9 percent of GDP [5], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[6] The CIA ranked the total percentage as 26th in the world.[7]

    Perhaps you meant 83% of the annual budget but that doesn't seem right either.

    Net interest on the U.S. national debt was approximately $240 billion in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This represented approximately 9.5% of government receipts. Interest was the fourth largest single disbursement category, after defense, Social Security, and Medicare.[53]Paying off the debt would free up these funds for other purposes.

    I am in favor of government ating quickly to deal with this crisis.  The risks of not acting are real in economic terms.  I don't want to be playing a game of chicken over philosophical and political differences.  There will be plenty of time to deal with those once the crisis is averted.

    Now 538 has Nevada in the lightest shade of blue (none / 0) (#71)
    by robrecht on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:39:26 PM EST
    discernible to the human eye.  So he's saying 311.5.  If only we had some confidence in his mojo.

    I don't (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM EST
    trust him one bit. BTD says he is an Obama apologist and I agree with him on that. Certainly all polls are faulty to a point but he does some serious massaging of number to be putting OH in Obama's column right now.

    Paulsen's (none / 0) (#77)
    by sas on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 07:52:36 PM EST
    plan is worse than you think....worse that he is letting on....


    Thanks for that link (none / 0) (#82)
    by Amiss on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:02:00 AM EST
    This really is little more than a scam to make the taxpayers provide the money to cover the losses for all the bad debt issued by the financial industry. What the Democrats have to do is refuse to get on board and put forward their own legislation that actually addresses the problem, send that to Bush and dare the bastard to veto it. Hang this around Bush's neck and stop letting the High Broderists shame the Dems into backing down. Barney Frank and Hillary are showing them how it's done.

    Yes, Harry & Nancy, it IS class warfare, there is no "bipartisan" option, and you have a world historic moment in which to redefine both your party and your nation for the better.

    Do you stand with Hoover or with FDR?


    I also followed the link in the story which was very very interesting and I feel that everyone should read.


    Titled "Why you should hate treasury bailout proposal" about half way down the page.