A more accurate way, Glenn: Paulson has the right to use $700 billion of taxpayer money to buy -- at fire sale prices -- securitized mortgage obligations that have a positive yield, though not as big a yield as they had when the hedge funds borrowed untold zillions to buy them. When the dust settles, these debt obligations can be sold, perhaps even at a profit; but even if not, NOT pulling them out of the system they're choking right now -- the system that provides commercial credit essential for all companies, no matter how profitable, to operate -- is a prescription for economic disaster far beyond the risk of not making money on the eventual resale of the debt.

No, Joe, we're not. We're buying assets. Risky assets, but not that risky. We might even make money on the deal. Please don't join the ranks of the many who are lamenting that the taxpayer is writing a check to the bad guys so they can get away with their crimes. Do your homework; it's not like that.

Can't. Type. Busy...vomiting...

Lay off the lady. She's going to be consigned to history's dustbin, can't you see that already? The Palin Bounce was what in the stockmarket we call a "dead cat bounce." Everyone but the true wingnuts know we can't have her a heartbeat away from the presidency. It's over. Let's get back to the issues.

Does Sarah Palin really need glasses? Or are they a fashion accessory? An intelligence-appearance-booster? Anyone see that telltale line of refraction? I don't....

I don't know about Ramesees, but I wasn't talking about start-up companies that leverage. I was talking only about financials. Just as homeowners shouldn't have been allowed to borrow with zero dollars down, Bear and the rest of them shouldn't have been allowed to borrow 95% of the money they put into CMO's, CLO's and the like. It's a house of cards that can't handle the slightest breeze -- the second there's any question about underlying value, the margin calls start and everyone's running for the exits. That's why my original suggestion was that financials, banks, brokerages, be required by law to have some equity in the game, just like commercial banks had to under Glass-Steagal. Ramesees felt that was impractical; I hear his argument but am not entirely convinced. I still think it might work -- again, on the basis that people -- homeowners or investment bankers or hedge-fund operators -- will be a bit more careful if they're playing with a bigger chunk of their own money.

Most important, I think this is something a politician can articulate simply and directly.

Okay, I get your point. I was being simplistic. I'm casting about for something Obama can say that's real and honest and can still compete with empty "I'm gonna clean up Wall Street" statements by McCain for simplicity and sound-biteability.

Let's face it, if when brokerages were allowed to start acting like banks in 1999, they had been regulated like banks, none of this would've happened. Or if there had been a bubble, as there have been many before, it would not have had such a tsunami effect. So maybe that's it...regulate the financial industry as if they had a fiduciary responsibility to the public -- because we now know that they do.

How does that sound?

If she's done nothing wrong, then why not have an investigation? If the investigation concurs that she's done nothing wrong, that will send a much more powerful signal than McCain's people simply saying she didn't do anything wrong. Won't it? Huh?

But I keep waiting for Obama to say what I think would be the simplest way to talk about "fixing Wall Street," one that could be compressed into a sound bite, speak to the masses and not be altogether inaccurate or unfeasible: "We're going to pass laws that prevent financial companies from leveraging themselves beyond a certain point -- because the lesson we're learning right now is that people don't play as carefully with borrowed money as they do with their own."

What's odd about it? Power is fun.

But the sound quality is still sub-standard.

Anyone parsing his "carefully chosen words" would have realized that Palin is the lipstick, not the pig. Which is more a more damaging truth for McCain, thus the accusation of name-calling.

...to question whether Sarah Palin is up to her parenting responsibilities even as a small-town mayor or oil-rich governor.

Those who say she isn't the issue are right, at least now. But at first, it was pretty important to take the time to show how shallow and bone-dishonest her contribution to the campaign is.

I hope you're putting this article out for publication in other venues. 99% of Salonistas are already convinced. Revelations like these need to get to the folks who still don't see what they're being asked to vote for (and, of course, some will greet them with great pleasure, but we can't convert everyone).