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".

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.

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?

Atrios has been talking about "Big Shitpile" for most of 2008, if not longer. There's been plenty of time for debate. As Glenn points out, this problem has been years in the making, and astute financial observers like Warren Buffet have known about it for a long time.

No, the world "didn't change" (and no, it didn't "change" on 9/11 either, but I digress). If, perhaps, the media gave 1% of the attention to budgetary matters that it does to the inane trivia that governs our discourse, these problems could have been dealt with rationally in a timely manner, over the course of many months.

Ignorant ass.

Ignore the content of any comment that disagrees with your conclusions and just resort to namecalling.

Go outside and get some sun and spare us your drivel.

Where is the $700 billion coming from?

How is the US economy supposed to handle the shock of a 25% increase in government spending? I'm presuming that, since it's an election year, nobody is going to even whisper about raising taxes to cover that. So, we're talking about a massive increase in the US debt, happening all at once.

How about that?

A lot of people who favor the bail-outs talk, correctly mind you, about the bad things that will happen if the institutions are "allowed to fail". But let's be realistic about the problems of passing the cost on the the taxpayer, shall we? It seems like people view a $700 billion solely from a political perspective, and don't give a damn about the economic damage that increasing the debt does to the US.

I agree, that it's a Shitpile one way or another. But why should it be our shitpile?

I, personally, think my individual lot would be better off if AIG and some other institutions were allowed to fail, as opposed to being forced to see the US bail them out. Yes, the former option is bad, but so is the latter. And the former option is less bad for me.

McCain objected to the bailouts, said he would fire the chairman on the SEC or FEC. I would fire both just to be sure.

You would fire the chairman of the Federal Election Commission?

As for the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, if elected President, John McCain would have no more authority to fire him than you or I would. The commissioners of the SEC do not "serve at the President's pleasure".

Its time to turn our government upside down and McCain is liable to do it.

Can we use that as a bumper sticker?

People need to pay attention to who is on Obama's advisory team.

(random talking points omitted)

You do know who Charles Keating is, don't you?

Congress has no greater fan of banking deregulation than John McCain. But he's a communist compared to his financial advisor, Phil Gramm. Gramm, unlike the assorted of Obama advisors that you refer to, was a leading figure in the movement that led to all the banking deregulation and all the lack of oversight that has led to the current mess.

But go ahead, keep your fax machine on, so the RNC can tell you what to think next!