that $700 billion is not chump change, not even for the richest government on the face of the planet.

To put this number in perspective (and I think journalists need to do that whenever they talk about budgetary numbers), $700 billion is greater than the defense budget!

In 2007, the US government spent $2.73 trillion (according to Wikipedia). This one bill proposes to increase the spending by more than 25%!!!

Just like that! No public debate, no "deficit hawk" talking to the media about "big government", nothing!

This albatross, if passed (and like Glenn, I have little doubt this will fly through Congress) will hang over the American taxpayers for decades!

Moreover, given the collapse of the dollar in recent years, I would have to think such a sudden, massive demand for more credit by the US Government would lead, yet again, to more stress in the currency market.

Where is the accountability?

I certainly hope nobody, anywhere, ever again, is allowed to talk about how they favor "free market" economics as opposed to the "welfare state" unless they come out loudly and fiercely against this proposed bill.

I'm sure that Pelosi and Reid will do some window-dressing like throw $100 million of food stamps into the deal, and thus create the illusion of "bipartisanship".

Where is HL Mencken when you need him?

As others have pointed out, racist comments made "facetiously" are still racist, esp. when they are made by a person with a history of using racism.

Let's not forget Rush's "Barack the Magic Negro" song-and-dance. Some people are not "facetious" when they are pretending to be racist. The are racists who pretend to be facetious.

I find the ongoing hand-wringing by people who opposed Obama in the primaries to be confusing. It seems that some people would prefer to be "right" about Obama being a terrible candidate than willing to look at polls objectively.

This article notwithstanding, McCain is having a terrible week. I suggest any interested parties consider the sum total of all the polls that have been released this week. McCain, who has been trailing in the national polls for most of the past three months, has lost his convention "bounce" and is trailing again.

But really, it's more important to make snide remarks about "the chosen one".

This thing that Salon seems to be doing, namely presenting selected polls at random, without providing internals or context with respect to other polls that have been recently taken, is not terribly valuable.

I'm looking forward to explaining to any potential grandchildren exactly when it became accepted in polite society to view subpoenas as optional.

This 'case' against Ivins should be a primary issue in the media right now. Sadly, the media simply passes along uncritically whatever they are told by the FBI. It is clear to anybody with even a cursory familiarity with the science involved that the FBI literally has no case whatsoever against Ivins.

The scandal here is the net effect of the FBI's actions. By intentionally blaming the wrong person, the FBI is giving up any serious effort to determine the actual culprits.

With that in mind, I have to ask the question: why does anyone think that the Republicans are better at dealing with terrorism?

The "joke" is clearly aimed at the notion that Latinos are domestic servants.

Right?

Is it offensive? It doesn't offend me, but I'm not Latino. Why do questions like these always seem to come down to some objective notion of what is offensive? Aside from: if a lot of people were offended, then the joke was offensive.

Because that's the only objective definition of "offensive" we have.

Shanahan decided to go for 2 before the drive started, since his defense was getting torched in the second half. He has said as much. He wanted to end the game then and there.

"I know it sounds stupid," he says taking a long drag from his Maverick cigarette, "but Barack Hussein Obama?"

Yup. It sounds stupid all right.

How does a story like this get written. Somebody sits back and says to himself "Gosh, Obama's so wonderful, how can it possibly be that people are not deciding to vote for him?" And then, with the narrative in mind, the reporter goes out and fills up his story with the people he's looking for.

Why are stories like this always written about Democratic candidates, and why do they always take place in rural America? Is rural America some kind of fantasy destination for reporters? It seems to me, from a demographic perspective, that far fewer people live in rural America than in towns and cities, and that is true even in "red states".

I hope at some point, we'll have reporters go around cities and ask the hard questions. "Why is it that McCain cannot get any 'traction' among black, urban voters?"

Why do these narratives always come down to identifying rural, white Americans as "typical" Americans? They really aren't.

And yeah, somebody who thinks a Semitic middle name is a good reason to vote against somebody is a good argument for cancelling this democratic experiment altogether.

Obama doesn't let the media nonsense rule the day like Gore did, and he doesn't simply ignore it like Kerry did. He confronts it like Bill Clinton did, and he does so quickly and efficiently.

I don't know how we dismantle the noise machine, but it must be done, since it is a constant blight on our system. But one thing that should help people feeling discouraged by the latest polls is the fact that many of them are utterly fabricated by improper party sampling.

The fact that Gallup and other polling organizations are willing to play along with the Republican agenda, just as the media are, is itself very troubling. But we should keep in mind that the population is not as stupid as the pollsters and the media would have you believe.