How will "fail" be defined, so that the need for nationalization is susequently accepted? And is "success" to be defined as where the taxpayers get stuck with with the "toxic assets," Wall Street and the big banks clear their balance sheets (and their investors are bailed out of their bad gambles) and are allowed to continue business as ususal? And so we all go back to the status quo of a debt based bubble economy, with rapidly increasing economic disparity between the elites and the rest of us? Is this success? I'm sure this is exactly what the plan will achieve. If this is success, how can Gaithner's plan ever be recognized to "fail"?

The only question is how much of the bad debt the taxpayers will have to assume. I would bet it's going to be close to 100%, given Wall Street's genius in thinking up ways to game any system. I'm already seeing variations of a trading scheme being discussed whererby a bank buys its own (or it's buddy's) toxic assets at auction at an unusual high value, using TARP or other bailout money to put up their "investor" contibution, putting all risk on the taxpayers, and virtually all gain going to the bank).

And meanwhile we're all supposed to be happy with our (and our children's) new lower standard of living as a result of having to pay off (somehow) this enormous debt. That job you lost? That house you were foreclosed on? Too bad! We're supposed to be satisfied that the financial elites have suffered too, losing (maybe) this years bonus. And of course will suffer immensely by being 'better regulated' in the future. But be happy - The world as we (and they) know it has been preserved.

It's time to bring out the pitchforks, and storm the castle.

That's all you got out of this hearing? A criticism of a Republican congresswoman you don't like? She wasn't the only numbskull on that committee, from the questions I heard. And they all didn't have "R" behind their name, either.

What hard hitting coverage from Salon on this hearing.

Huckabee's comparison may be a bit of a stretch. But the fact is, with abortion you're taking an existing life that otherwise eventually would have become a human being. We can argue over and then set laws defining when a human life begins with regard to constitutional protections and the law. Just like how we decide at a certain age (usually 18) that a person is legally an adult, and can sign contracts, etc.

But determining when a human life begins in terms of ethics and morality is a completely different agenda. And I don't think there's any easy answer to be found for that one. Shockingly, some don't see this as an a serious moral issue at all. Their contribution to the discussion is to tell dissenting parties to "fu*k off" or "a woman can control her own body" or "unless you're a pregnant woman it doesn't concern you" and the like. Or they use innappropriate arguements only applicable to the legal definition of human life, or discuss the pragmatic aspects of the issue rather than the morality.

That so many supposedly educated, liberal posters don't have any qualms about killing a future human being, don't see the moral dilemna, and take refuge in politically correct slogans and insults is absolutely frightening. Maybe the comparisons about slavery and Hitler and worse bandied about aren't as far off as I would have thought.

Years ago, these presidential news conferences may have meant something. But now they're so scripted, they're no more than campaign events. Certainly Obama is a good salesman. But the problem is that if people like the salesman too much, they don't focus like thay should on the product being sold. I predict a lot of "buyers remorse" when the ramifications of this economic recovery package become clearer.

The conflict in this country at the moment is not Democrats versus Republicans. Or bigger versus smaller government. Or conservatism versus liberalism. Or capitalism versus socialism. It's simply the governmental/financial elite versus all of the rest of us. They want to keep the economic status quo in place as much as possible. The one that has let them take increasingly mammoth shares of the country's wealth and power for themselves. But the current structure has not been satisfactory to the rest of us for years. We want it changed.

So we all voted for change - Even McCain ran against Bush. Unfortunately, BOTH parties' big wigs are really part of the same elite. Especially the Congress. They've been bought and paid for. And Obama won't change anything really - He comes from congress and is very much part of it. Just look at who he's hired to run his administration, especially the economic planning. Oh sure, the Democrats will throw their supporters a few bones if necessary to keep them at bay. But that's it. Any real change that will threaten the status quo? Forget it!

Those posters (and some correspondents) here at Salon that continue to bash "Bush the incompetent" and the "criminal Republicans" (or conversely on the conservative blogs bash the "Savior Obama" and the "socialist Democrats") are just following instructions or being played for fools. The elites want us to do that; it keeps us occupied, makes us think they're making the "change" we want, and keeps us from really focusing on them.

It sort of like the Super Bowl - when your team wins, the NFL and owners make money, the players/coaches make money, and the teams fans get exactly what? Good entertainment and some bragging rights? How are our elections really any different now, for the vast majority of us?