But she ain't getting my six pack. She can wink all she wants to. (*besides, I don't date married women.)

It may have been the six pack distorting my hearing, but I didn't hear no debate whatsoever. ...just a come-on from Sarah down on second ave, maybe.

bah.

~re. financial shambles (i.e. The Great Panic of 2008). I find it more than a little odd that nobody, nobody in any position of authority, was even sounding a alarm less than a month ago. (*ex. McCain 'the fundamentals are strong'.) I tend to think the greater 'fear' in this case, is the fear itself.

Biden's response was directed at, and followed, this statement from Palin:

No, of course we know what a vice president does, and that's not only preside over the Senate -- and we'll take that position very seriously also; I'm thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also, if that vice president so chose to exert it, in working with the Senate -- and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies

Article I, Section 3, Clause 4

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

No provision for Palin's perceived "expanded powers" in the Senate here. When Biden referred to the VP being in the Executive he was shooting down Palin's (and Cheney's) wet-dream of control of the Senate, and he was quoting the section of the Constitution that laid out the limits. He didn't do it in the clearest fashion, but he was correct. There are no provisions in Article I for "more authority" for the VP in the Senate.

Taxpayers can obtain information with much detail taking apart this bailout deal from many sources. The Nader/Gonzalez website contains a ten point plan that shows how to legislate in the public interests of the workers, consumers and tax-payers, punish the wrongdoers and prevent another such financial collapse of casino capitalism from a repeat future rush to Washington to feed at the trough of socialism.

Ask why they didn't require speculators to fund their own bailout while you, the taxpayer, pay 5-10 percent sales tax for necessities. Speculators buy $500 trillion of securities derivatives each year and don't pay one penny. A mere 1/10 of 1 percent sales tax on purchases of these derivatives would raise $500 billion per year to pay for their bailout. Let the speculators fund their own bailout.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/45368484;_ylt=AixuWQ3LdewNQi3M7u5BDWwDW7oF

It's a beautiful day in the midwest. I think I'll go outside and exchange winks and "You betchas" with all the neighbors while we discuss how good the polls are looking.

...but is ? ≠ ! actually claiming that Article I of the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly says?

Talk about proving Glenn's (and Joe's) point.

.

You betcha. And also, I am one who has just winked to your preposal. Maverick. Outsider. Kitchen Table. One of you(s).

Say, Glenn --"can I ask to ask to call you Glenn, so that later on in this alleged debate I can clumsily and gratuitiously throw in a highly rehearsed groaner that rhymes with your name and is followed by a Ronald Reaganism?"

If you're a woman, you can easily see how Palin was trying to flirt with the men out there in tv land: the plastered beauty contestant smile, the calculated bug-eye opening timed a couple of seconds before each wink, the head tilts, the barroom-level casualness.

My hope is that while the old guys who like McCain anyway probably got their jollies, any guy under 60 just laughed at the obviousness of it all. One thing's for sure: I think we can all retire the idea that the poor l'il gal needs a reassuring hug.

The same question could be asked of the right wing pundits as of Sarah Palin: are you serious?

Palin has to answer yes and tweet on because she's the candidate and has a campaign agenda to follow, over the cliff if necessary.

But what is the excuse for supposedly independent thinkers and writers who, even allowing for a professional ideological stance in the service of journalism and commentary, throw over their minds to find a way, some way, any way, to say that this woman is going to serve the country well as vice president?

It's hard to believe these writers don't cringe a bit while serving up this bilge.

In a related note, Howard Fineman of Newsweek had an exchange with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on the Biden-Palin go to.

Fineman said the McCain campaign will keep Palin completely under wraps until the election, except for public appearances where she does reasonably well, like stump speeches and "town hall" events with friendly voters, a la Bush.

Fineman called the McCain tactic of simply ignoring reporters from here on out a "new trend." It is not. The right wing rants, ongoing for thirty years, have created conditions such that the "mainstream" or "drive-by" media can now be discredited completely by being ignored completely. It would be interesting to hear stronger reporting on the slant of the "reporter stiffing" tactics from here on out - with some history on it - and with some hint of how this suggests unconstitutional behavior by the Republican Party.

Palin talks about her "world" and her people and her wowie-wow interest and belief in the "team of mavericks" she's aligned with.

She's really describing, in her massaged talking points, which include a new level of attack and dismissal of regular, everyday American reporting, the maturation of an alternate American narrative, enhanced greatly after eight years of the Bush administration, and almost thirty years of Reaganesque themes and cloned, bobble-doll candidates, assisted by the "zoo watchers": the hack political consultants and columnists who have helped to concoct this alternative reality.

Is it within the left/right paradigm, or is it something else, something outside of the real mainstream?

When will you finally let go of the false "right-wing"/"left-wing" nonsense? If yesterday's unimaginably massive corporate welfare bill can alert us to anything, it should be that there is no longer any difference between the "two" parties.

Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. And even before that, as a minority party, they had plenty of opportunities to be a real opposition (which is the entire purpose of having political parties) to the steamrolling forces of totalitarianism of which the GOP has been only the target-friendly face.

Even in the wake of these debates (prez and vice-prez), I defy you to name one single MAJOR policy difference elucidated by the two candidates. The only thing they are "debating" is who will be most effective at implementing the exact same policies. Can you name Barack Obama's number-one corporate donor? Here's a hint: it starts with a "Goldman" and ends with a "Sachs."

The Republicrats have arrived in earnest, and they don't give a damn what any so-called "constitutent" thinks.

Please stop the polarizing rhetoric. We all have serious work to do to fix this madness.