Un-Suspended: Live-Blogging the Debate

McCain seems off and tired.. could be an opening for Obama.

I'm going to try to be objective here. I think Obama did great answering the question about the bailout plan.  McCain is talking all over the place about everything BUT the question which was asked regarding the economy.

Sure, but he goes off the answer and blah, blah, blah..

McCain, has a fundamental belief that under the right leadership are best days are ahead of us. The right leadership is Obama! He helped O'man on that one.

I have a hard time listening to him but isn't McCain sticking talking points willy nilly into sentences instead of actual rational thoughts?

DNA of bears?! come on!

McCain did ZERO preparation and he's just remembering history stuff from the books that he wrote in addition to the few months he actually worked in the Senate on ear marks about 8 years ago.

I can't even claim to be objective.... but I really like what I'm seeing now.

BTW msnbc says Teddy is already home.

Does anyone know what this running meter is on CNN?

I love it, he interupted McCain. I have paid for every dime of what I am proposing. The fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not how we are going to get the middle class back on track.

With all DUE respect, perhaps he thought he was told to referree a boxing match instead of moderate a debate?  "C'mon guys look at each other, I want to see some undercuts"  what the hell...

McCain wants to spend the entire debate on spending.  God, this is embarrassing.  Obama doesn't even know how to argue against this insanity.   Biden will have the same problem tracking Palin's train of thought.

This can't be playing well, can it?

Obama is rebutting every point McCain is making.  Not an expert, but O-man's responses seem very pointed to me. 

The look on Mc Cain's face is anything but respectful  and certainly "unPresidential". Obama is all business in talking right to the average American. So far, so good. 

I couldn't believe when McCain mentioned his health care credit - good on Obama for making sure to mention the tax part of McCain's plan.

Jim Lehrer (I'm paraphrasing):  Say that to him!  Say what you just told me to him!

 

President Obama is being very specific.  I kinda miss nuance - but he's sure crisp.  The Old Guy is back to spending....jeez...I'm having trouble listening to his one track mind(?)

He said a couple of minutes ago that the "US is the world's largest exporter."

 

That's not true - Germany holds that position, and to show such ignorance on a widely known statistic is indicitave of McCain's knowledge.

I can't take this old man.  And that we got another almost old man in Jim Lehrer getting pissed that he can't get an answer to his weird bailout question.

Quick response!!!  Freezing spending is like using a hatchet when a scalpel is needed.  Nice

Have you noticed McCain never looks directly into the camera to us out here?   No eye contact...

Good analogy. 

 

anybody else giggling everytime the Old Man says he's don e such & such for many, many years!!!

Loved the O line - he'd use a scapel not a hatchet in cutting expenses!  So cool.

Values will determine my spending decisions...

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

Does anyone know if McCain is against "spending"?

 because of the Iraq war. Obama-John, it's your president who you voted with 95% of the time thats created the overspending.

Mentioned Palin lol

Obama sounds passionate about this and that's great.  McCain - I came in in the 8th inning and caught a fly ball and made an out.  Hey I won the game all by myself!

McCain: "We have succeeded" sounds like "Mission accomplished."

How freakishly alike. And so bothersome that this is his answer to the lesson learned. So for McCain...no lesson learned.

and you were wrong and you were wrong.  End of debate.  Can we vote now.

Interesting that McCain is willing to lie in the middle of a live debate. Wow.

Did he (McCain) just use Bin Laden and Patreus to support that the action is in Iraq?  Woe

If we get one on the reclist at DKos it could raise a fair bit of cash tonight.

(I tried earlier and used up my one diary for the day.)

If you do put one up, put "REC UP: Debate Money Bomb" or something like that in the title.

 give me a link to your diary.

Here it is:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/26/52939/3277/198/611021

 

It's old so it can't make the reclist anymore.  (If you don't want to embed an ActBlue link, then you might just link direct to the Obama donation site.)

 Are you seeing this? Squinting into the camera. Creepy!

Bomb. bomb Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

lol.. "sung songs about bombing Iran.." Unfortunately, only political addicts will get it, but great line nontheless.

President must be prudent but coming from you, who sang songs about bombing Iran....

What a smackdown

amk

McCain just said it... it's about Vietnam..."his" war that was not won. He will do anything to win Vietnam.

Maybe he's saving it for his lowest point in this debate....

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/26/215732/641?new=true

McCain keeps saying Obama "doesn't understand."

That almost seems, dare I say it, racist ... just fill in the rest of the stereotype -- "boy."

When's the last time you heard one presidential candidate say something so demeaning and dismissive to another. I think McCain's 20th Century thinking is showing threw in Freudian ways.

ohhh.  I think Johnny Mac's gettin' mad.  Obama's getting under his skin, I think.

at the very least, saying over and over that Obama doesn't get it seems rude and condescending.  Not attractive.

McCain's tie must have been picked out by the Green Background dude.  Dizzying!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/26/215732/641/351/611901

 

Thanks for posting it, Christi.

Was thinking about that statement just as I read your comment.  My initial thought wasn't that it was racist, but that he was trying to demean, trying to highlight lack of experience, a certain naivitee (sp?).  I guess I see it as condescending...

I do wish O-man would start a rebuttal with 'I fully understand....

 Post it on BO's blog too.

McCain actually rolled his eyes... his smirking is extremely offensive. any minute i expect him to suck his teeth.

I'm sure Putin will be disappointed.

I'm confused about the independents.  It seems like they approve of most of what's being said.  Is that why they're undecided?

I think a donation diary at Daily Kos could raise $100,000 tonight if we get it up on the rec list.

Obama keeps repeating, calmly and firmly, "when I am President of the United States" putting the statement into the public sphere. McCain has not (that I've noticed) said this at all nor disputed it.  I expect that Obama will get hit by the conservatives afterward for saying this but he's successfully getting this heard by millions of people as a statement of fact.

I'm curious to see if this will be commented on and how. I remember during the Democratic debates he qualified it more like "if I am president". For me it's a powerful psychological statement of Obama's calm confidence in the state of the race.

If he says "doesn't understand'" once more - I really hope O takes offense!!!  THis is really too much!

A friend of mine just said, "Talking about Iran and Israel, McCain sounds like Dr. Evil" (i.e. the Dr. Evil from Austin Powers).

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Why is he being so dramatic ? Because he doesn't have the stuff ?

amk

I just donated too...

I have to say, I think Obama won the diplomacy debate.

McCain just sounds bitter and angry, and keep repeating about preconditions. But I don't understand what on earth those preconditions would be and why any foreign power would possibly bother to meet them, just to speak with "The Great US"

 Obama, tell him he is the one who does not understand.

I expect that Obama will address this in some form now.  He's too smart to let it slide.

I like this. I think Obama began some serious momentum with that comment. I find it irritating that McCain won't address Obama, hostile. If Obama seems like the less experienced one, then McCain seems self righteous. Obama is not intimidated, speaks with authority, which is impressive in the area McCain is prob going to be the most formidable in.

McCain is very cleverly stringing together four or five lies in quick succession so that Obama doesn't get a chance to correct all of them.  Obama has already said that McCain is misrepresenting his positions; how does he get from that to a direct challenge to the lies?

Obama's right in not taking the bait. He doesn't need to show any defensiveness.  He looks confident, presidential.

Did he really just call O naive????? Did I hear that correctly???

I hope a journalist counts the derogatory comments - and brings up the points Bill Conroy makes.

Yeah, he's hammering the 'you don't understand' meme.  But O-man's crisp performance tonight mitigates potential harm, I think.  Suspect it will be addressed however.

I find this debate pretty boring. It's a carefully rehearsed ritual dance.

Is offshore drilling a bridge....to nowhere??

With the "naive" and "Obama doesn't understand" memes, McCain is trying to sell his line that Obama isn't ready to be president, while Obama is proving just the opposite.

Whatever the motivation (and it might operate on more than one level as code words tend to do), the "doesn't understand" seems to be scripted into his presentation, like he was told to pepper his responses with it.

By the way, I prepared this comment prior to his next use of the phrase, anticipating it would be used yet again to test the theory, and hit the post button when I heard it.

yammer...yammer...yammer...yammer.

Again, McCain doesn't seem to "understand", there will never be a honorable victory in an illegal war.

amk

 We knew he would bring it up before the end. I really wanted to Barack to hit him back on the 'does'nt understand' comments.

I like this. I think Obama began some serious momentum with that comment. I find it irritating that McCain won't address Obama, hostile. If Obama seems like the less experienced one, then McCain seems self righteous. Obama is not intimidated, speaks with authority, which is impressive in the area McCain is prob going to be the most formidable in.

Folks, that was bait, to try to get Obama to respond to that and go off message. He didn't take the bait.

Also, he needs to avoid appearing as the "Angry Black Man". McCain has thrown every other racial stereotype at him, he would go to town with that.

I think (or at least hope) that McCain's contemptuous manner will not go over well with people, who will contrast it with Obama's politeness and willingness to recognize good in his opponent where it exists. It will be interesting to see the reactions to the debate.

One thing I know is that just when I would think I understood what McCain was saying, he would stop making sense. It was bewildering.

I spent a lot of time yelling at Barack for not countering the way I wated him to.  I wish he hadn't said "John is right" so often, even though he always followed it up with why "john is also wrong".

On the whole, I give the points win to McCain, but I give the presence and appearance win to Obama, and that can make all the difference in the world.  But damn, there were times I wanted to be at that podium and countering McCain.

that no matter what the idiots on TV say (which so far is favorable to McCain) they have been wrong a lot!

CNN basically called it a tie- "Obama held his own"

I read on 538 that ABC was praising Obama saying he "did what he needed to do".

Any other reactions? On 538 someone said that MSNBC calls a win for McCain (Buchanan was specifically mentioned though, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did, trying to be bipartisan or something.)

Everytime McCain pulled out "he doesn't understand", Obama made it clear from his comments that he quite clearly did. Much more effective than an argument that would go "you don't understand", "yes I do", "no you don't", "do!", "don't!"

Lehrer was a great, informed, non granstanding moderator, thank God.

I like your take on the "understand" comments and McCain was really trying to get under Obama's skin. To me it was clear from his responses that Obama *did* understand and I thought it only made McCain seem more petulant.

On CNN the panel is commenting on the "understand issue" wondering if it will make McCain seem like a lecturing cranky old man. They point out that the ratings of McCain by the indepedents being live tracked went way down when he attacked and that they liked the bi-partisan talk by Obama.

Just before they went to commercial the talk seemed to shift (by the older, thoughtful, soft-spoken commenter, I can't recall his name) that because it wasn't a win for McCain that it was a loss because of how he's doing in the race now.

McCain blinked constantly throughout the debate.  I wonder what that means.  I kept having the no doubt incorrect idea that he looked sleepy.

Anyone notice this?  Obama wearing a flag pin and McCain not?  LOL

From what little I could stand of watching pundits, it seems clear they had their scripts already rehearsed for what they thought would happen. There were no big moments of sound defeat for either candidate, and so what I keep hearing is, "well, naturally McCain really led on the foreign policy portion." Well, naturally! That's what the narrative says, and so that's how it must be told!

These "experts" are all so spineless - call it like you see it, say what you think, stop hemming and hawing over who might be the winner in order to appear non-partisan. What a joke - back into hibernation goes my television until the VP debate.

what matters is how this is played out in the media over the next few days.  I remember in both 2000 and 2004 where polls taken right aftre some of the debates showed both Gore and Kerry as winners, but then the media focused on other things, i.e. appearnace and attitude of Gore, Kerry's comment on Cheney's daughter and the public view changed again.

 

Let's see how it looks after a few days.

Obama does not need to "win" on foreign policy in the sense of getting higher ratings than McCain in poll questions on it. What he needs to do is to seem plausible as commander in chief. Everything I have read about undecided voters is that they are sick of Bush and the state of the economy but are not ready to take a chance on Obama yet. He needs to reassure them that he is ready to be president. Once they are reassured on this point, they will then be able to vote based on the economy. Think: Clinton in 1992.

Obama has already achieved a lot of this in his handling of the financial crisis (I cited some polls in another thread that show this). He still needed to show it on foreign policy and national security, but I think there was less pressure on him than there would have been without the financial crisis and the leadership he has shown.

I am completely biased and it is hard for me to judge what a genuinely undecided voter thinks, but I do believe that Obama achieved what he needed to this evening.

Another point - since Obama is ahead in the polls, McCain needed a clear victory tonight to change the momentum of the race. He did not get it.

Brad DeLong puts this better than I could about "John was right":

Y'all should remember that it's not about you. It's about undecided, independent voters. They don't want to see a partisan attack dog. "John is right" beats "Senator Obama doesn't understand." A president who recognizes truth wherever he sees it is a much better bet than one who has contempt for and won't listen to the other people in the room.

Obama *killed* McCain among CNN's focus group independents -- about the only section of the debate McCain clearly won was his riff on Russia (not because he was particularly right, but because he sounded authoritarian), while Obama won numerous sections, including in the foreign policy second half.

Does anybody know if there is a graph or video or something where I can see CNN's audience reaction gauge? As someone who hasn't watched CNN in years, I didn't know there was such a thing, and now I want to see it for myself as well as show it to friends to prevent Chicken Littleism.

I think that one moment really mattered: When McCain interrupted on meeting with or without conditions and said something rhetorically like "so he says 'I will wipe out Israel' and then you say what, 'no you don't'?"

I don't know what effect, if any, it will have, but it was the only 15 seconds I remember and it was to McCain's advantage.Another good point for McCain was all these stories about how he went to Waziristan and Georgia and all these dangerous places all by himself to check things out. Obama can't beat that.

On likeability, another important thing in such debates, I think Obama won because he's much more gracious. So I don't think there's a clear winner but the polls will show us soon enough.

called McCain as John, which was somehow supposed to be derogatory. (rolls the eyes...)

amk

Nate made a very good point during his liveblog:

9:34 CDT: [Nate] The media who wants to cop out from picking a winner will probably just say "Obama wins first half, McCain wins second half". But the first half is likely to matter more because (i) it was about the economy and (ii) this was a boring debate that will have a lot of people zoning out by the end.

has 67% saying Barack won, 28% McCain and 6% neither.  Only 40,000 votes so far, and yes it is unofficial, but interesting.

Obama was clearly the Alpha on the stage. McCain look irritated and on the defensive.

Obama A

McCain C

Given all the hoopla raised over earmarks by McCain, I expect some media folks might focus on his history on that front over the next week or so.

ProgressiveAccountability.org offers the following compilation on that front.

Here is a survey, look at each category, specifically at the independents. In every instance, they broke for Obama.

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7526027&version...

Yes, the link is to a fox web site... Sorry. :(

Remember that these debates are not about how those of us who already support the candidates think they did.  It's about convincing the undecided.

And I think Obama came across as forceful, and importantly for a Democratic Presidential candidate, as someone who is not a wimp.  When McCain barked at Obama, Obama barked right back.  That's a huge improvement over Kerry and Gore.  I think I can sleep at night knowing that Obama is responsible for mine and my kids' safety.  And I bet a lot of people who were hesitant about Obama can now imagine him as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

 

General consensus of CNN panel was that Obama pulled through and that he won the independents (who are these people anyway ?)

My rating :

BO - A -

JM - B - (I was hoping that he would lose it, but he didn't)

amk

Al & Others:

 

I know this is a bit off topic but could you please tell me what you are thoughts are on the bailout? I am uncomfortable with the way he seemed to have signed off on the Paulson plan without much consideration for alternatives and the fact that it may very well tie President Obama's hands to do the things that are going to matter (healthcare, infrastructure & education). Sorry to hijack the thread, but this REALLY is bothering me.

 

Thanks

 

RW

The focus groups and instant polling show Obama winning.  And this was on a topic that is supposed to be McCain's home-field advantage.  And McCain is the one slipping in the polls, so only a decisive "victory" could have helped him.

I will sleep soundly tonight.

this debate stuff isn't about how I feel -- Obama got my support last summer! (But just for the record -- I'd have liked a bit more sting on the economy).

The great news from the whole evening, I'm so glad to see, was winning the independents. He did a great job being the adult in the room, and not falling into the trap of responding to the "don't understand" bait. By his answers and deportment, Obama obviously understood more than McCain ever will. 

on what Al just said here.

Team Obama had a strategy and Barack executed it perfectly:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/27/01636/2654/149/612087

This wasn't about giving us all a catharsis for the entire Bush presidency. It was about being the adult in the room, so as to reassure those on the fence that it's time to try another path. Obama got in a few zingers, but he didn't rise to McCain's bait -- making the GOP candidate look mean and angry in the process.

A very smart play by Obama. All he needs to do is gain a few more points in the polls and the electoral map becomes a landslide. He came into the debate ahead, and solidified and extended that lead with his steady performance.

Obama did not sign off on Paulson's plan. He has stated over and over and over again the conditions he needs to see in a bailout plan. And guess what? The Bush Administration caved on all those points - the compromise solution that was nearly agreed until House Republicans scuttled it had all the things Obama and the Democrats wanted.

I discussed this more in another thread. People really, really need to actually read up on the issue and not just go with what somebody spouted off about on a blog.

I believe the commentator you're referring to is David Gergen.

One of my concerns has been that O-man's poll ratings re the C in C question has remained relatively low throughout the campaign. He clearly passed this test tonight IMO and it will be interesting to see what new  C in C polling shows.

I believe McShame's 'you don't understand',sneering and esp., McPalin's inability to even look at O-man will not play well with the general public.  It reminds me of the public's perception of Nixon's bad makeup and darting eyes in the 1960 debate against Kennedy.  Tonight Obama showed he could be tough as well as gracious. I think most Americans want tough but are tired of the saberrattling.

A very good night for O-man IMO.

  

 

All the polls are calling the debate for Obama, none for McCain, Halperin and Dick Morris have called it for Obama and no independent pundit has called it for McCain. This was the one McCain needed to win and for the most part McCain did a solid job.

But he didn't win. Coming up are Palin v. Biden and the economics debate. Obama was winning and had to look presidential and he looked much more presidential than McCain.

I don't know how McCain's gesturing will play, but I can't imagine a mentor showing a tape of McCain's reactions on a split screen and telling debaters to emulate him, but I can imagine people pointing to Obama's composure. Obama didn't let McCain take him off message or take the risk of responding to one of his low blows about readyness.

What I also think is most important in a debate that doesn't have a major decisive moment that stays on policy is how the candidates draw advantages from the policy positions they take. This is where the polls disagree with the 'draw' called by many pundits. Obama repeatedly clarified his position on taxes in a highly rated venue, refuting the false claims in the McCain-Palin RNC speeches that caused 51% to think Obama favored a tax hike. Where the Iraq debate didn't bring any new, compelling argument for one position, it's one where the public agrees more with Obama. Ditto earmarks vs. corporate tax breaks.

Verdict: Yooooaaaahhh, Barack!!

The MSM fact checkers didn't mention McCain's Pakistan error, which followed one of his unpresidential displays of condescension. I hope that the MSM takes this up, and surrogates and netroots push the point:

Obama: And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."

McCain: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.

FACT: The Musharraf coup was immediately condemned by the U.S. State Department, The European Union, Great Britain, and Germany, all of whom called for a "return to consititutional order" to a nation whose recent development of nuclear weapons was not met with major international concern.

Actually:

 

I am well read on it and I am an economist by training (at the undergrad level at least) and I have a problem with the government spending $700,000,000,000 in an effort that may prove to be wasteful and is certain to cause inflation, a devaluation of the currency and MORE DEBT, all the while not addressing the root cause of the problem, with IMO will lead to another bailout, or perhaps a series of bailouts. So to the extent that Obama has agreed to spending $700,000,000,000 (in total this is what it is going to cost), yes I think he has signed off on a very major part of the deal. What I also asked, and this was not answered, was what effect this is going to have on his ability to implement his programs and the fact that it is very likely that he will have to ***raise*** taxes because this bailout will require a substantial increase in tax revenues as noted by the CBO (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR200809...). This is a question that neither he nor Senator McCain really answered, and IMO where an answer was given it was elusive and borderline iffy. Now don't get me wrong, in hard time like this, I think we need a strong leader. Barack Obama is that man. I just take issue with the bailout in general and the ramifications (fiscal and macro-economic) and possible (or probable according to some economists) lack of benefit surrounding this bailout, though I disagree with the CBO in that any exposure to the true picture assets and liabilities at these financial instiutions is likely to have an overall good effect by giving some transparency to the market (now there are definitely cheaper ways of doing this). Thoughts Laura? Al?

I found it to be one big yawn. Obama had specific moments were he could have nailed McCain on his voting record for ie and he let it slide. Neither one of them wanted to touch the economy. And the spending issue would have been a great time to mention the costs of the war wrecking the economy.Being calm is great but why so much deference to McCain? I'd say it was a draw at best.Obama is not a great debator. Biden may very well get his head served on a platter by Palin next week. She may be a bit of a nimwit but she will not fight fair and this may give McCain a temporary bump.

Maybe you were yawning too much and missed Senator Obama's repeated reference to our spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while we need to take care of issues at home. I also suggest this was not an entertainment event but a serious debate on serious issues and perhaps, as I said, you were yawning so much you missed the persuasiveness of the performance Senator Obama gave us. Wake up.

I come here all the time for rational commentary. Just now, however, I am offended and disappointed by the ageism in some of your comments. Do you hear what you are saying? I have listened to Jim Lehrer for years. Does he become an object of ridicule and dislike if his hair is greying and his face is lined?

It makes sense to me to question McCain's health and competence. But are you going to start to criticize those you consider "old" before they get a word out or when you know nothing about them?

A Republican spinner on the Field!

You answered your own question. You were watching a different debate. When McCain doesn't decisively win a foreign policy debate he loses. And as Al has pointed out above, with independent viewers (the ones causing the fluctuations in the polls, Obama didn't just win, he triumphed).

And your comments about Biden-Palin are, well, odd. Biden was on CNN and NBC after the debate and just cleaned up for Obama. Smart, quick, commanding. Watch the McCain camp this week to see how confident they are in Palin. Will a sudden Alaskan emergency call her away? Will the McCain campaign throw yet another ridiculous Hail Mary to distract attention from her debate? Will Putin rear his head in Alaskan airspace? Stay tuned!

 

 

Please give an example of what you mean when you said:

"But are you going to start to criticize those you consider "old" before they get a word out or when you know nothing about them?"

 

While agreeing with the idea that ageism has no place in these discussion, I think the comments here are clearly more about competence and temperament. One can mention that someone looks "old" without ageism.

Nobody here was critizing anyone at the debate before they got a word out (and I'm unsure whether you meant Lehrer or McCain) and this is certainly not the site to try to say that commenters "know nothing" about McCain so I'd ask you to explain yourself a little further.

 

I am thrilled with the debate results and I generally am happy to hear any criticism of McCain in any context. I am happy to be able to come hear and listen. I suppose what bothered me most was the posting "I can't take this old man. And that we got another almost old man in Jim Lehrer getting pissed that he can't get an answer to his weird bailout question."

You will find a similar ageism comment on DU this morning.

I am not going to rant on about it and now wish to return to my role of listener. I generally really enjoy Al and all of the commentary. I never thought I would ever say a word here and I probably never will again.

Here's why I think Obama won last night, despite what the Obama-haters think, I truly believe that many people WANT to like Barack Obama, the fact is that Obama consistently is viewed as a nice guy, but some undecided were still wary of Obama. Yes some of it is race, some of it class, some wonder is he "ready to lead" ya know the whole C-I-C thing. McCain may have won the debate on points, but the voters aren't scoring them on points, it's all about perceptions to non-pol voters. And I would say that on the stylistic or "perception" front, Obama won hands down. McCain just seemed too condescending and insulting towards Obama, not in a policy-oriented fasion, but on a personal level. Seriously, McCain refused to even look at Obama. People tend to like nice guys and with the majority of the country pissed about the economy, and pissed at the Bush Administration, it's not surprising to me that people want a change, and no matter how "maviericky" McCain may be, you just don't "see" change when you look at him. He may not be perceived as the "typical" republican, but he is still the Republican, and while McCain's campaign tactics can guide the media narrative, it don't change the fact that a majority of the country want the Repubs out of power

Responding to RW's legit concerns:

The false polarization between Wall Street and Main Street is convenient for political purposes, but it vastly oversimplifies American capitalism, particularly with respect to the bailout and subprime crisis.

I'm being pragmatic here, leaving the issue of ethics and moral culpability on the sidelines for now. 

The major issuers of these subprime loans and securities (mortgage-backed securities) included both the private sector (via Wall Street firms like Lehman as well as Main Street lenders, like banks, even possibly some credit unions who started to get into the mortgage biz) and the federal government (via the Mae siblings, Freddie and Fannie). And the major buyers of these the securities were U.S. pension funds, banks and insurance companies, among others.

So you can begin to see the problem. This bad debt is now held by far more than the usual Wall Street suspects, even if they are guilty of launching the virus. And because of this, and the lack of transparency with these bad securities, no one really knows for sure how bad the other guy's books are, so everyone is afraid to lend money to the next guy -- which has slown the velocity of money down in the economy drastically and is pushing us dangerously close to a total lock up -- which means all of us suffer because we won't be able to get credit for anything, panic sets in, runs on the bank begin, because cash suddenly becomes the only real currency and it does no good sitting in a bank if you need it now.

That's the dilemma. Capital is frozen, or nearly so, and it threatens our entire financial system -- from your bank, to your pension/401K fund, to your insurance policies, to your credit card, student loans and auto loans. All these companies make money on money, and when it's not moving, they don't make money -- and the leverage on their books starts to suck them under.

That's the dilemma, and it's very real. How to fix it is what everyone is arguing over -- and frankly, to a large extent, it likely can't be fixed absent a period of extended pain for everyone. But the extent of that pain and the length of it can be minimized by taking some action to get the money moving again, which is the real goal of the bailout -- to put a stent in the circulatory system of the economy with the hope that it will prevent a heart attack.

I won't argue here that the only way to do that is to use $700 billion to have the government buy up a bunch of this bad debt to get it off of the books of the investors (again banks, insurance companies, pension funds) who bought the stuff. That amount of money, as big a sum as it is, isn't enough to buy all the bad debt -- which is continuing to spread as the bad debt was used to leveage other debt. It means that only certain key players will be targeted, likely the biggest players in our financial system, and the rest will be left to deal with it on their own -- many of which will fail. But the clock is ticking, and absent some action, it's nearly certain that a heart attack for the economy is imminent.

Now, unlike the S&L crisis of the late '80s (when we essentially had a back-up "Main Street" financial system in the banking industry), we now only have one banking industry -- and it is far more consolidated than at the time of the S&L crisis. The failure of two or three of these major banks (WaMu failed Thursday) and an insurance company or two (beyond AIG), and throw in a couple large pension funds to boot, and it could well create a cascading effect that would break our economy. That's the fear.

So, to say this is a bailout of Wall Street is really not accurate. It's frankly a bailout of the capitalist system of this country, and we all have a stake in it because, as a friend of mine once said: "You need capital to survive in a capitalist system" — even if you're not a capitalist.

As I see it, the economy does need CPR now, but after that, it needs to put on an entirely different diet that assures its continued health. The days of binge eating are over.

Bill, Thank you for your very concise and understandable explanation of the bail out.  I particularly found this analogy helpful:

That's the dilema, and it's very real. How to fix it is what everyone is arguing over -- and frankly, to a large extent, it likely can't be fixed absent a period of extended pain for everyone. But the extent of that pain and the length of it can be minimized by taking some action to get the money moving again, which is the real goal of the bailout -- to put a stent in the circulatory system of the economy with the hope that it will prevent a heart attack.

About the bailout thing, I confess to not being well informed on wall street, bailouts, and the like so I guess you can call me a low-info voter on that.  So take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.

Americans hate the bailout right? Well I guess it depends on who you talk to.  It seems to me that if you are one of the Americans whose retirment funds are intertwined with the markets, then if the market fails, then ur retirement is essentially wiped out right?  So if that's the case, I would think that retirees would be the ones who really want the bailout, to "keep the markets going?"

On the other hand, if you are not of retirment age, and you are middle class or lower, then you would probably see the bailout as a copt-out to Washington fatcats, and people who "got themselves into this mess".  So you would I guess oppose the bailout.

I honestly think that the average voter is more fickle than we think.  Yes they may hate the thought of a bailout, but I would place a bet (based on purely antecdotal(?)evidence) that they would hate it more if nothing is done, and more banks like WaMu go under.  Because while the FDIC(?) says that the personal funds of WaMu customers are insured, how much money could the FDIC really match if there are more banks/financial institutions go belly-up.  How soon after that would people be running to withdraw their funds from the respective banks (BTW, I already know of a few friends of mind who are already comtemplating taking their money from WaMu)

Anyway, I'm probably wrong about this since like McCain, I don't really understand the economy, but this is how it seems to me anyway.

you said:  "I never thought I would ever say a word here and I probably never will again."

Don't go away! This is a respectful place for opinion whether folks agree or not; as long as disagreements are logical, thoughtful rather than personal attacks, all are welcome to comment. We do have to be careful regarding ageism as well as other "ism's" and your caution is not out of line. However, I will also say that there is "old" and then there is "OLD".  My mother is 82 and can run circles around most in their 60's (just ask me! my next bday is the big 6-0). While I wouldn't want her for president, she behaves and sounds much younger than McCain. I think what we fear in McCain is the combination of his age, his intractability, and his ill health... and I happen to believe his PTSD as yet undiagnosed, but one of the biggest reasons he should never be POTUS. 

Just my thoughts, and hoping you'll continue to engage here!

lam31, you're right on the money.

Between Sept. 15 and the date of the federal regulators' takeover of WaMu this past Thursday, some $17 billion in deposits were drawn out of the bank by customers -- an old-fashion bank run that was a major factor in the timing of its failure this week.

Fortunately, JPMorgan Chase was in line to pick up the good assets from WaMu for a song, $1.9 billion, which means the shock to the economic system was greatly mitigated.

But if a bunch of these banks go under at the same time, there won't be anyone left to pick up the pieces. That's the scary part.

Obama talks about this being the United States of America. Not red/ blue, white/black, rich/poor, gay/straight, democrat/republican. Maybe he has said old/young [I'm not sure]. But it is true.

I am "old". I have income from employer retirement and SS. If the financial markets collapse - and my income is frozen, then what?

My point is younger folk [who are years from retirement and planning for those years] will face the challenge of what to do about Ma/Pa/Grandma/Grandpa.

It is not just saving the fat cats - it is putting the break on to let family remain independent on Elm Street.

While trickle down economics doesn't work [IMO], trickle down debt will work - and each one of us will pay a price that is more than tax debt. Not pretty and all the more reason to get the Obama/Biden ticket elected.

Thanks for explaining so carefully. I appreciate your thoughtful answers and with Kathleen, hope you'lll continue to add your comments now.

 I would like to add that I too hope you stick around and have dialog with us at least once in awhile, it is always nice to talk with lurkers.