...anyone thinks this is an effective ad. It's like living in an liberal echo chamber that's a mirror image of what the Republican echo chamber was a few years back. Anyway, keep cheering. I'm not sure what you're cheering for with this ad, but as long as it makes you happy...

Having watched the video and seen where the handbook bans "distracting hair colors", I have to ask...would it be 'distracting' for a girl (or boy) to go bleached blonde? What if their natural hair color was a flaming red and they were the only redhead in school? What if they decided to shave their head?

The only 'distraction' I see here is from some administrator who doesn't like a child with a non-traditional hair color. I expect that any 'distracting' novelty from this color would have worn off among classmates and teachers rather quickly.

...and more about what Biden actually does. What sort of "moral backbone" is it that prevents him from voting to cap credit card rates at 30 percent interest because 30 percent is too low? (Too low?!) What sort of moral backbone is it that leads Biden to lead the charge (again and again and again) to push through an odious bankruptcy bill that reads more like a credit card company welfare act? What is it about Joe Biden's moral backbone that leads him to be among the leading advocates of DRM (so called digital rights management which is really digital restriction management) that so effectively kills the very idea of "fair use" under our system of copyright?

I am sure that Joe Biden is a wonderful family man. I am sure that his personal moral backbone is strong. It's his public moral backbone, the one that would be needed to actually stick up for the public, that I am worried about.

Biden's attempts to run for president were derailed swiftly in 1988 and 2008. Perhaps his utter lack of support was for good reason.

You wrote "Palin, for her part, said, "We are going to reform the way Wall Street does business and stop multimillion dollar payouts and golden parachutes to CEOs who break the public trust."

But when Fiorina was deposed as head of HP after overseeing a decline in the value of the company's stock, she walked away with a nice little chunk of change valued, by different estimates, at $21 million or $42 million. In doing so, she became a symbol of the kind of payouts McCain and Palin were speaking out against.

That makes no sense at all. None. How in the world does a CEO fired over a decline in a company's stock price equate with breaking the public trust? It does not. And while I am no fan of Fiorina (as I hold her personally responsible for trashing "The HP Way"), the fact is that in hindsight, her actions set HP up for its surge which had led HP to at times be number one in PC sales in a market where Dell was considered unbeatable.

Your article makes no sense. Take off the partisan blinders. Geez!

...the second that this piece of trash, kneejerk, "Do it now! Now! NOW!" legislation went down to defeat. Everyone who voted against it has my gratitude.

Why in the world are Dems so determined to follow the advice of Hank "Goldman Sachs" Paulson when he has been nothing but wrong so far? Why are Dems determined to "bail out" the fools that got us into this.

Not no, but HELL NO!

If you are afraid, then you probably should not be reporting on this issue. The defeat of this bill was a GOOD thing.

I read somewhere that if you broke down the $700 trillion, it would come to about $30,000 per person in America.

700 billion divided by roughly 300 million people (and that includes the old, the infants, the infirm and those in jail) works out to about $2300.00 for every man, woman and child in the USA.

Send out $2300.00 checks to everyone. The rest will take care of itself.

She is exactly right when she says "While I am fully aware of the seriousness of the financial problems in the market, I do not believe the bill Congress voted on today was the right approach. The bill has insufficient oversight and protections and does not address the root causes of the crisis or the poor economy.

Or, if you did read the article, you apparently only paid attention to the parts that were "scary".

Quote: Merrill, based in New York, also provides financing for McDonald's franchisees.

Janna Sampson, who helps manage 268,216 McDonald's shares at Oakbrook Investments in Lisle, Illinois, said Bank of America may slow lending until it determines how much it and Merrill are collectively loaning franchisees.

See, BoA bought Merrill...and Merrill also made these same financing loans to MacD's...and they sort of need to figure out between the two of them just how much they have tied up in the financing of cheap lattes.

Ya know, if I were in the financing biz, I don't know that I would be looking to finance lattes right now. When people cut back, two and three dollar coffees are going to be one of the first things to go.

Calm down. The sky is not falling. Yes, bad things might happen but right now you're not too far away from "By the time we see a mushroom cloud, it will be too late to invade Iraq!" territory.

NO BAIL OUT FOR WALL STREET!

The reps that voted against this bill DID do the right thing for the country.

Mr. Leonard, you really need to stop it, and you understand exactly what I mean. Calm yourself down. Stop grasping at every straw you can find that shows some sort of "support" for this piece of crap bill just because you personally are living in fear to the point of panic. STOP!