I don't disagree with either of your points, and this "bailout" (and it's repercussions) is one of the most important topics ever facing the country. There are multiple threads addressing it.

The point I was trying to make is that whenever a specific point is made that is critical of McCain or Palin, some of the RW posters instantly go into "hey, look over there!" mode, whether it's changing the subject, or blaming the Dems of similar, blaming Carter (the newest Dem villian responsible for all the nation's ill), blaming minorities, you name it.

They never wanting to address the specific allegation, just an attempt to change the subject.

Fey's answer's were pretty much in league

Regarding the bailout and foreign policy cred, Fey wasn't spoofing at all, she used Palin's actual words.

She added some things at the end, but the "funny" stuff at the beginning, was all Palin.

Kind of scary, actually.

I was just teasing myself.

Though I've since thought about it, I think the real reason the RW scream machine has (finally!) stopped their endless attacks on all things Clinton, is they are hoping to tap into disgruntled Hillary fans.

Okay, that made me laugh out loud, it might have been funnier than the Fey-Palin interview.

I liked Bill, always did, but that spoof was funny because it was close to the truth. Chris Rock's joke/comment the other day was cutting, too.

Eric Cantor-R is on CNN right now blaming Carter for the financial crisis...because minorities got loans.

Sorry, but you're waaay behind the times, there are new boogeymen.

Now it's much more fashionable to blame FDR and Carter. Especially Carter...because he was so strong that he made changes to the government that could never, ever be undone by such weaklings as Reagan, Bush I & II and Republican majorities. Carter is also personally responsible for all the unrest in Middle East.

Back to the topic, I have to think that Bill Clinton has to be concerned about his legacy and he is damaging his reputation with the people that liked him, supported him, defended him.

Thanks, your list was a great addition to HH's article and spot on.

AL has an article about the bailout right before this one.

Deflect, deflect, deflect...

No one is opposing Indian gaming. Raed the article, it's about making the Indians pay to play....and pay heavily.

Greg Mitchell over at Editor and Publisher has some good comments on why the average viewer saw Obama as winning as opposed to the pundits who all declared a tie.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003855844

I completely agree with his conclusion, I yelled it at the TV at the time...

Should wait until there is a plan.

The original Paulson plan was dead on arrival (thank God) and was 2 1/2 pages long. That was opposed solidly by both sides of the aisle.

As of Thursday, the R's and D's on the banking committee (too many ties to banking interests, but the only people with real expertise in the area) started hashing out an outline of a new plan, details to be worked out.

There is no "plan" yet, pledging your undying support or your undying opposition at this point would be silly and reckless. You could oppose or support it in principle, but anyone that is serious and concerned about our economy would wait to see what is proposed.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Entities who were chartered by Congress many administrations ago to purchase and hold or sell mortgage backed securities that they buy from banks and hedge funds to final investors.

They've been private entities for quite awhile...the bailout made them government entities. It's okay, Sarah Palin made the same mistake. A Clinton supporter wouldn't have.

They were bailed out for the same reason this newest bailout is proposed (I disagreed with that one, too). One of the largest (too big to fail?) bond funds, PIMCO, would have suffered huge losses if Fannie and Freddie weren't rescued.

In the resulting fallout, what we are facing today would have just happened a little sooner.

This new proposal on the table changes everything. No party should take ownership of it. It will be bad if it passes, it rewards guys that have made millions when the getting was good and adds to our already crippling debt with no guarantee it will work. If it doesn't pass, the stock market will plummet and more than one bank will likely fail, that might cause greater panic and even jeoperdize decent banks.

Either both parties work out a reasonable plan, or not. But they both need to suffer the consequences of their actions.

There is no good choice.

p.s. If the Repubs were truly against the deal, all it would take is one brave soul to filibuster it in the Senate, but my guess is that won't happen, they just want to appear to be fighting for the populist cause, not actually derailing the thing.