But Fox reports today that Huckabee seems to be calling McCain on it:

You can't just say, 'World stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything.'

I was a Clinton supporter in the primaries.  Until recently, I was not really looking forward to November, and was only intending to grudgingly vote for Obama.  However, the Democratic Convention (and obviously all the recent financial calamity) has completely changed my attitude.

I am now very excited, and I am looking forward to casting my vote for Obama.

Unfortunately, here in Ohio, the polls keep showing Obama tied, or 2 to 5 points behind.  He is also tied or trailing in Pennsylvania and New Hamphire - where he should be well ahead.

I saw the NYT poll results, with a big Obama lead, and I truly hope this isn't merely him overperforming in states where he is already ahead.

Remember, this is still a state-by-state race.

I could easily see him winning a big popular vote, and still lose the electoral vote, depending on which states he carries (or doesn't carry).

Sheesh, this is like trying to determine the condition of a forest by having to separately examine each leaf.

I've heard some political analysts say that, if people are nervous or angry about the economy, then they will generally vote for the candidate who represents "change" - in this case, Obama.

It's obvious that these jokers don't know anything about business, the markets, certainly not about insurance.  

Worse, they actually want less regulation.  Are they slow learners?  Do they have amnesia?  How do they think we ended up in this ridiculous predicament anyway?  There program is a true example of closed minds...they refuse to admit that their economic philosophies are the root cause of our economic crisis.  

It's sad that they're being taken seriously.

"Funding:  Only $250 billion will be initially funded immediately and an additional $100 billion will be provided when the Treasury Secretary asks for it.  The final $350 billion can be denied.  To do so, Congress would need to make a "joint resolution of disapproval.

Taxpayer protection:  Treasury Secretary is to reduce inappropriate executive compensation for companies that participate.  Taxpayers are to receive some sort of equity (shares?) in the companies that participate.  And most of any profits are to be directed to pay down then national debt.

Oversight:  Similar to the Dodd plan, an oversight board that can issue cease and desist orders; regular reports to Congress but no timeframes specified;  a new Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary;  GAO audits of funds.

Struggling Homeowners:  The government is required to modify mortgages which it owns or controls outright to prevent foreclosures and where possible coordinate efforts to modify loans it does not control.  Also, a portion of future profits from the plan are to be used to fund existing affordable housing programs."

So, no mention of HOLC and weak language on modifying loans but, "future profits for the plan are to be used to fund existing affordable housing (ACORN anyone)?  Never heard this before and this is a signature Obama issue with ACORN.  I thought this was to be "clean" bill without any "extraneous" macroeconomic policy such as investment in alternative energy and infrastructure?

Financial crisis, leadership, and governance

I have to say, first, that I think it's completely inappropriate for any presidential candidate to be injecting himself (and thereby, the whole business of election-campaign politics) into the present situation of crisis-time economic governance. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has any responsibility under the law for dealing with the current crisis that is any greateer than that of any of the other 98 US senators. They are not the leaders of-- or even, as far as I know, members of-- any of the relevant Senate committees. Yes, they need to be kept informed of what's going on in the negotiations in Washington (which are reported to be nearing completion.) But they are not members of the current congressional leadership. It is that leadership, the leadership of the administrative branch, and the heads of the Federal reserve and SEC who between them need to reach agreement on the size, terms, and modalities of the bailout package.

McCain's rushing around acting as though he is currently the "leader" of something is childish at best, an active distraction at worst.

This is a grand iopportunity to really deliver the message that Republicans caused this, so republicans have to bear the responsibility (read blame) for the solution.

Even thought the numbers are truly wonky, no serious person who has any attachment to businesses involving financial instruments or operates a business requiring access to credit can deny that some sort of bailout is necessary.

I disagree though, with all of the pundits and politicians who are saying that this is not the time to discuss fault.  This is exactly the time to discuss fault.  Who's fault?  The Republican led Congresses of 2000-2006.  Most certainly the rating agencies (I mean, c'mon...we're supposed to hede their pronouncements as if they were the burning bush.  Where were they, and don't they have some culpability here?).  The executives and product developers.  Marketers.  Financial analysts at the banks.  IB's.  there's a lot to go around, and it's all high level guilt.

So the Democrats should place the onus of the problem squarely where it belongs.  they must illustrate fault...not just regulatory inaction, but also blind adherence to an economic philosophy that has been proven not to work.