I'll accept your numbers and analysis for argument's sake, and modify my own view accordingly (i.e., the poor are but one part of the problem), but also invite the political discussion below. (My analysis stems in part from the WSJ blistering half page editorial post-Fannie May collapse in which Paul Gigot congratulated himself on having predicted the demise and outlining everything except what to do with the poor now that they have nowhere to go).

In my view, McCain is losing big time in the polls because investor class voters of all stripes, starting a week ago Monday, saw their stocks swoon and for some crazy reason imagined Obama would do something productive about it. When the Fed announced the bailout plan, those same voters got excited and probably were ready to see the race settle down, but then were treated to "marathon negotiations" which dragged past the debate, no doubt to McCain's chagrin. If the Bill finally gets passed and investors get their bad debts taken off the books, presumably Wall Street goes up and the "crisis" recedes. Will the rank and file taxpayer revolt? Unlikely -- the cost will all be piled onto the national debt, and probably will be paid off eventually with tax hikes on the same "rich" voters who benefit from the bailout now. This whole crisis seems comparable to me to a year-end "dues crisis" at the local country club.

Now, for the $64,000 question. With Obama at 50 in the polls and McCain slipping from the high to low 40's, will the Bailout bring him back? If it doesn't, I think it's over. If it does, I think we'll get back to 50:50.

I don't understand the K.B. Hutchinson point. If McCain had picked a pro-life woman twenty years older than Palin, it would no longer be cynical? I understand KBH might be considered more qualified, but what makes the difference "cynical"?

You also mention youth and good looks. In all seriousness, do you think it was cynical for John Kerry to pick John Edwards in part because he was very telegenic? If so, I can at least follow along the logic of your thinking. However, I think that type of calculation might be a lot of things -- maybe superficial, maybe irresponsible -- but why "cynical." I just don't get the use of that word in this context.

Good retort, but I don't think the good of the country has much to do with Letterman's thinking.

Letterman is famous for his tiffs with people he doesn't like. There was Cher, and then Oprah. Others I am forgetting. It was written all over his face on Night One of the McCain diatribe -- this guy is for a long haul with me. I've seen Letterman do this to people many, many times. On Night Two, he declared -- you don't come on my show, and I will do everything I can to keep you out of the White House.

Now, why is he doing it? First, as I said previously, Letterman has been going soft on Obama all summer -- not just a disparity here and there, but a nightly monologue disparaging McCain and never mentioning the Democratic ticket. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Letterman has never done very well with black audiences, or guests (e.g., Oprah until recently, Bryant Gumbel), and I don't think he understood how to deal with Obama from a comedic standpoint, so he just air brushed him out of his dings.

As many peole have observed, there is a connection between Leno/Letterman/SNL and how apolitical undecided voters think. That is why I think having one of these guys go "full Obama" in the final stretch has some signifance. It is interesting to see you compare Letterman's jihad to Rush Limbaugh -- that is my point exactly. By bringing in the likes of Olbermann and making the statements above, Letterman is turning his show into something I don't like. Which is why I am not watching it again.

Still not getting it. Cynicism has been defined as "scornful and jaded negativity." If your point is that Palin is underqualified, why is that jaded, scornful, and negative? Why not just say she is underqualified, and should be voted against accordingly? Everyone I know who doesn't like her says, "It's just so cynical."

By comparison, a lot of people thought Mike Huckabee was a nice guy (and glib, and telegenic) in the Republican primaries, but underqualified, and thus unworthy of votes. But no one said -- oh, he's just getting votes because people are so cynical. What's the differene?

Let's be honest. Congress could have voted on the bare Paulson plan from the get go, and reserved amendments for later. Get the markets settled down, and then deal with the rest.

The Democrats did not do that, in part, as a matter of leverage with the White House. They were willing to take some stock market swoons in exchange for hoped for goodies. Obama also benefitted big time from the swoon, and may continue to going forward. The "marathon negotiations" are really quite silly; they consist of simple horse trading over bills that have been laying around for years. There is no "crafting" going on, just haggling over well known positions (e.g., bankruptcy amendments that failed back in 2005).

My guess is Obama does not want this settled before the Thursday debate, so Biden can make two points ("change" plus "crisis" management). Incidentally -- lest I be accused of attributing base motives to politicians, let me state I am confident that the markets will bounce back when the bill finally passes. In the meantime, it is all politics.