If we start teaching Christian beliefs in our schools In our public schools. Unfortunately, the Chicago Board of Education has been taking over parochial schools that the Archdiocese was about to close and turning them into "charter" schools. A masquerade. Public funding of faith-based schools. http://www.substancenews.net/issues/2007/november2007/articles/charter_news/november2007_chicago_news_cics_security.html An outrage to say the least. For me, it was crystallized in a comment made to me by Myra Hart, a retired senior faculty member at Harvard Business School who studies women as entrepreneurs: �By and large women believe that the workplace is a meritocracy, and it isn�t.� Truer words were never spoken. Nothing has changed. Now getting on the more pressing discussion (I watched Sarah Palin's speech this morning, as I wasn't home last night) (Sarah) during Palin's acceptance speech, they keep showing this blonde woman next to Todd Palin. My favorite images were of Cindy holding Sarah's baby during Rudy's speech. LOL! Maybe she should've pretended to be breast-feeding him. ;-) Regardless, Sarah Palin gave a really good speech last night. I'd heard she was articulate and she does know how to deliver her lines to utmost effect.

I, too, am looking forward to the debates. She is articulate, yes. I had to LOL at Todd shoveling the baby into one of the little one's arms so he could take his bow. the Chicago Board of Education has been taking over parochial schools that the Archdiocese was about to close and turning them into "charter" schools. A masquerade. Public funding of faith-based schools. So they're keeping the same curriculum, which in a parochial school usually includes some sort of religious classes? What exactly is a "charter" school? Is that like a magnet school?

(Dorine) So they're keeping the same curriculum, which in a parochial school usually includes some sort of religious classes? My understanding is that religious classes are held "before" or "after" official days. Whether they are mandatory I couldn't tell you. What exactly is a "charter" school? Is that like a magnet school? Big difference is that they are not part of the Chicago public school system, like a magnet school. Like parochial schools, their teachers are not union. Are their teachers nuns? I don't know.

BTW, charter schools exist in many other states and were proposed and endorsed by the AFT. They are regarded as alternative schools and have an accountability for results to the state. However, the difference is how the chartering authority is being used by the State of Illinois, with the mixture of public funding for what are, in essence, nothing more than parochial schools.

Last night's Daily Show had to be one of the best I've seen. The opening, which was from the Minneapolis airport/men's room through the contradictory statements (with video) by a number of people was a scream. Then there was the cartoon characterization of Fred Thompson as Foghorn Leghorn and Joe Lieberman as Droopy Dog (?)...really funny stuff. Definitely watch. All the vids are available below. You can stop with Newt. http://www.thedailyshow.com/

I thought last night's Daily Show was great, too, Karen, though I didn't catch the very beginning. I'll have to go and watch that vid - thanks for the link. Loved the cartoon comparisons, they were spot on and hilarious!

Palin in her speech last night: I said thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere. Well, after she was elected, and found that it was no longer politically expedient, anyway. :-/

BTW, charter schools exist in many other states and were proposed and endorsed by the AFT. They are regarded as alternative schools and have an accountability for results to the state. However, the difference is how the chartering authority is being used by the State of Illinois, with the mixture of public funding for what are, in essence, nothing more than parochial schools. Riiiight. I think these are the schools that Jeb Bush was trying to push in Florida using vouchers for kids in poorly rated public schools to go to private schools, or something like that. Or maybe not the same thing at all. I'd have to look it up. It's been too long that I've lived there and paid much attention to what goes on. I've watched a couple of the Daily Show videos. The one with the video bits on Palin and Newt. Very telling that interview with Newt IMO. Also, did anyone see the cuts to him on Sarah during her speech last night? I'd seen all those bits Jon used the comparisons on Palin. Onblogs that pointed them all out already. But more fun when put all together. I need to go back and watch the airport men's room bit and cartoon comparisons.

(Sarah) Well, after she was elected, and found that it was no longer politically expedient, anyway. :-/ But kept $27 million for it to build the road to nowhere. It ends where the bridge was to begin.

Why does Jane come up on the front page where the posted topic list is, but it's Sarah at the actual post? Which is it? Who are you? ;-)

I'm actually Sarah, but for some unknown reason, the darned message board software keeps insisting that I'm Jane!! Sorry about the confusion. Another background bit about Sarah Palin. She is in favour of "hunting" wolves and bears from helicopters in Alaska. Pretty disgusting practice. Here's a link, but please be warned - the video is really distressing if you love animals.

More background on Sarah Palin from a Wasilla resident who has known her since 1992 here

I'm actually Sarah, but for some unknown reason, the darned message board software keeps insisting that I'm Jane!! Sorry about the confusion. Two ways to fix that. Your name in any conference is first controlled by what' on your overall Preference page: http://www.spring.net/yapp-bin/restricted/userinfo Easy to fix; just make the change and hit the button. Don't worry if you get a strange result. It will have gone through. Way 2 is via the main page on an individual conference: http://www.spring.net/yapp-bin/restricted/browse/news/all/new Right there, toward the top, it says: "Your full name in this conference is" Whatever is in the box is how you will be shown. Change it there and hit the button on the right that says Change It. A person can post under different names in conferences.

Yeah, won't be watching that hunting video, but I heard about tha I actually just read that letter a couple of hours ago, but I couldn't verify the veracity of the person, so I didn't post about it myself. I try to vet potentially inflammatory and false information such as that letter (with apparently more effort than the McCain team! ;-)), or try to at least post it with a healthy dose of skepticism myself if I can't get much more info. There's no telling if that person is real or not. But some Alaska newspapers and a blog or two have been quite helpful with info.

Thanks for the advice, Karen. I'd already changed it in the first place (userinfo), but changing it through the second link appears to have done the trick. Dorine, that link I posted was from Anne Kilkenny, a woman who lives in Wasilla. As it says in her letter, you can verify that she is who she says she is by googling her name + Alaska. I did so. The letter appears to be 100% genuine. Here's another article which mentions Anne Kilkenny (though her name is misspelled - sloppy journalism, if you ask me!)

The second link overrides the first, but that is where it all starts.

Yeah, I knew who she was, though when I read it, I was thinking she could say she was anyone. And some of what she said wasn't news to me as I'd read it either at Alaskan news sites or elsewhere, but she did have some significant detail I hadn't seen yet. I'll admit I didn't read through the entire thing (it was long and I was trying to make dinner at the same time!). I'll finish it and check out your other article tomorrow. From what I've seen/read, Sarah Palin isn't the "innocent" hockey mom-of-a-special-needs-kid reformer she's been made out to be so far by some. Just like Obama isn't the pristine agent for change he's made out to be either. And it seems John McCain isn't the "maverick" he used to be either when I used to be a supporter of him years ago. And Joe Biden....no surprises there.

18 Million Silenced In Denver http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=66F18E6004051BFAA7328A6F2FCEA993?diaryId=917 ARKANSAS: "I was so angry at the sham of a roll call that I just wanted it to be over... " "the last time I felt such unbearable group pressure was on a jury" " Obama representatives yelling, you'll be sorry" to "hold outs". It was brutal." An alternate kept calling out that the state voted 70% for Hillary yet recorded its 47 delegate votes for Obama - "how could that be?" CALIFORNIA: Chris Stampolis reports "I cast my signed vote for Hillary this morning. It will be added to the roll call count for California". Except, we may never know how California voted... Delegate Ray Panko reports that, "The California vote was about 230+ for Obama to 160+ for Clinton which did not reflect the state vote. The process was completely controlled by the DNC and the Obama campaign. They had us all vote at breakfast. They took our votes and tallied them. They did this to see how close the numbers would be between Obama and Clinton. The aim was to prevent the public from seeing the closeness of the race. California passed because the Obama/Dean,Nancy Church(DNC) told it to pass. It was a sham, show, farce, gimmick. Overall, the process was reprehensible. Each delegation was told a different story. No one was told the actual rules of the DNC which say delegates are required, in good conscience, to vote on the first ballot a vote that reflects the will of the voters who sent them to the convention. Gloria Allred was prevented from speaking to the California Hillary delegates to inform them of this rule and that it applies regardless of whether or not the candidate releases us or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... People understood that pledged delegates would do what they came to Denver to do - vote for one of the nominees to reflect the votes of those who sent them. We expected there to be respect for the 18 million votes and Hillary's historic candidacy. We even thought that Super Delegates would be allowed to do their job - to select the electable Democrat. But that was not to be. Instead, the roll call turned into one chaotic caucus rigged to be sure that the final vote would never be known, without any sublety or reverance for the sanctity of the vote or individual obligations." A Super Delegate reported that "CA "passed" without ever recording its votes because the Hillary delegation stood firm and had the vote been given accurately, Hillary would have been temporarily ahead in the roll call". Clinton delegate and LA attorney Gloria Allred grabbed a napkin from the tables at the California delegation breakfast and wore it as a gag to protest not being allowed to speak at the breakfast. "I was not elected to be a potted plant," Allred said through her gag, holding up DNC rules that say delegates must vote as they are elected. Californnia had 204 delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton, versus 166 for Obama." CONNECTICUT: "I felt blindsided, bullied, mugged. I saw delegates being verbaly arm twisted with threats of loss of positions." "One Obama delegate was bright red, yelling right up in my face". FLORIDA: Barbara Bassett to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "Do not be party to the DNC and its efforts to further disenfranchise the voters of our state. Had our votes counted on Jan 29, 2008, we would be looking at the nomination of Senator Clinton. Again if our votes counted on May 31, 2008 we would be looking at the nomination of Senator Clinton... Stand up and say, 'We the People of the great state of Florida vote for Hillary Clinton'. I want to be heard, once during this election. I want to be heard. ONE person, ONE vote. I count, I matter. We voted, we spoke and we look to you to honor the integrity of our vote".

Clinton aides: Palin treatment sexist: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13129.html

The idea of a convention, with the relevancy of its origins, has passed. Doris Godwin Kearns was talking about how they were not fait accomplis. That it could take 100 or more ballots in the past to select a candidate. This being the case, why even have a convention, except for the free television time, i.e., free advertising? Think how much money would be saved if there weren't primaries either, given that the delegate votes they generate aren't used. A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women, noting Palin�s opposition to abortion rights and support of other parts of the social conservative agenda, told Politico, �She's more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues. Very disappointing." What her choice cements is the Republican party's emphasis on the ridiculous issue of family values, which is something the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with, by definition, rather than the big issues, like the economy!

I totally agree with you, Karen, on all points. :-)

Another article on Sarah Palin

(Karen) That it could take 100 or more ballots in the past to select a candidate. Like picking the Pope. Moon, you're confusing me, esp when you agree with Karen on all points yet support that ticket. So if people are calling coverage of Palin treatment, should we tell them to stop whining (for her), "man up" and make sure she works harder? ;-) Anyone notice that in younger pictures of Palin, she resembles Britney Spears quite a bit?

Oops, missed a word, plus a typo... So if people are calling coverage of Palin's treatment sexist, should we tell them to stop whining (for her), "man up" and make sure she works harder? ;-)

Interesting reasoning on both sides. Most Clinton backers say Palin's too far a stretch By JOCELYN NOVECK, AP National Writer 2 hours, 48 minutes ago Sandy Goodman was deeply disappointed when Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't get the Democratic nomination, then again when she was bypassed for the VP spot. So Goodman, a longtime Florida Democrat, flirted with thoughts of shunning Barack Obama, and perhaps even voting Republican. Then John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and suddenly things became clear to Goodman: The Republicans had no place for her. "Boy, you are sure not talking to ME!" Goodman, 61, says she thought when she heard Palin's views on issues like abortion rights. Now, Goodman is volunteering for Obama. But then there's Chrissie Peters. The 37-year-old librarian from Bristol, Tenn. has always voted Democratic and supported Clinton. She assumed she'd vote for Obama � until she saw Palin speak. Now she's voting Republican. "She was so down-to-earth, a regular person," says Peters. "She hasn't been in politics her whole life, so she isn't jaded or tainted. And I love that she's a mom. Yes, I disagree with some of her positions, but that's what this country is about." One of the most intriguing questions about the Alaska governor's sudden arrival on the national scene has been what impact it'll have on women voters � especially those who supported Clinton. Palin made an overture to those voters in her first speech after being chosen by McCain. Will the pitch work? Evidence so far shows that Palin is not drawing a lot of support from voters outside the Republican base. An ABC News poll released Friday found the selection of Palin makes people likelier to vote for McCain by just 6 percentage points � half the 12-point margin by which Sen. Joe Biden makes them more likely to support Obama. And as for Clinton supporters, eight in 10 said they'd vote for Obama in November, according to a Gallup Poll conducted last weekend after McCain announced his selection of Palin. Diane Mantouvalos, for one, thinks the numbers are behind the tide. "We've always been a few weeks ahead of the polls," says the founder of the JustSayNoDeal Web site, a clearinghouse for groups of disaffected Clinton supporters seeking to punish the Democratic Party and Obama for what they see as inexcusable treatment of Clinton. Mantouvalos hasn't decided whom she'll support in November. But she believes many former Clinton supporters will end up voting for McCain. And she thinks Palin will help make that happen. "I was there," Mantouvalos says of Palin's convention speech. "I was blown away. She seemed so confident in her own skin." And what about all the issues on which Palin differs so sharply from Clinton? "Principle trumps issues for this group," she says of her and others like her. To Gloria Steinem, the nation's most recognizable feminist, that logic is mystifying. "Selecting Sarah Palin ... is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters," Steinem wrote this week in the Los Angeles Times, arguing that McCain's running mate is seriously underqualified. "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton." In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Steinem added: "I have yet to meet one single human being who was for Hillary and is now for McCain, with or without Palin, but some must exist somewhere." Historically, women vote on the issues, not by the gender of the candidate, and since 1980 they've trended Democratic for that reason, says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "I wouldn't expect that the McCain-Palin ticket will pull in Clinton supporters," says Walsh. "They were supporting her on the issues. Her gender just added to the appeal." Whatever appeal gender has for female voters, Obama's campaign is not about to let McCain corner the market. Clinton herself, along with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, all are scheduled to campaign for Obama in the coming weeks, particularly where they can vouch for Obama to large female audiences The Washington group EMILY's List, which backs female candidates who support abortion rights, says its own polling shows that a majority of Clinton supporters � 55 percent � say Palin's presence on the ticket makes them even less likely to vote McCain. Only 9 percent say it makes that more likely. "There really couldn't be more of a distance between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton on the issues and the agenda that Clinton fought so passionately for," the group's executive director, Ellen Moran, said in an interview. "The more (Clinton supporters) are learning about Palin, the more they are coming to the Obama-Biden ticket." That's not the case for self-described "Clinton die-hard" Amy Goldman. The consultant from Edgewater, N.J. says she'd been leaning toward McCain for a while, but his pick of Palin sealed the deal. "His pick goes outside the box," said Goldman, 52, who like Mantouvalos is involved in the Internet-based efforts to challenge the Democratic party. "I'm not being bitter by voting this way. I really think they're a great ticket." Liz Hunter won't go that far. The 25-year-old Clinton fan is deeply conflicted. She's not ready to support Obama, but doesn't think she could seriously vote Republican. She read Palin's speech online, so she could pay attention to the details. "Sometimes on TV, you get caught up with all the applause," she says. "I really respect the fact that she has five children and a career, and keeps her family strong," said Hunter. But at the same time, "I just don't think I could go over to that side." The debates will decide it, she says. For Goodman, the Florida voter who's shifted to Obama, there will be no such indecision. She'll work to convince fellow Clintonites that they shouldn't be swayed by the woman on the Republican ticket. "I was insulted when she referred to Hillary and the 18 million cracks in the ceiling," Goodman says, referring to Clinton's line that her primary votes put that many cracks in the glass ceiling that has held women back. "I don't believe Hillary was making those 18 million cracks for Sarah Palin." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/from_clinton_to_palin;_ylt=An_X1CzwrQ9xNWRGsN4SgfLCw5R4

(Dorine) Moon, you're confusing me, esp when you agree with Karen on all points yet support that ticket. Why is that confusing? I was merely analyzing the history of events. What happened. I don't think it would have an impact on how one votes. And what about all the issues on which Palin differs so sharply from Clinton? "Principle trumps issues for this group," she says of her and others like her. Like I said, the hell hath no fury defense. Historically, women vote on the issues, not by the gender of the candidate, and since 1980 they've trended Democratic for that reason A pitiful lack of data to support such a claim! When it comes to judicial retention, for years, I would only vote Retain for women's names. LOL! At least I had a system. ;-) But I'd say not enough data relative to important positions. No way! Maybe they also needed to ask how many of those women voted the way their husbands did, which would also account for no gender preference. eh? huh?

I didn't really get that whole stopping the roll call thing unlike as I said, it wouldn't have tallied up to enough. Esp since some could've changed their votes to Hillary, correct? There was no point to having the delegates there if they couldn't all represent. You know I don't know what I was reading into the stuff that I didn't understand Moon's comment (I did get why she agreed with you on the convention stuff). My headache's back and it's not important.

I totally agree with you, Karen, on all points. :-) Sheesh, Dorine, just to make sure. ;-) I agree with Karen (post 620), that: 1)The idea of a convention, with the relevancy of its origins, has passed. 2)Think how much money would be saved if there weren't primaries either, given that the delegate votes they generate aren't used. 3)...issue of family values, which is something the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with, by definition, rather than the big issues, like the economy!

Someone in an email said to me that Palin doesn't have a problem being questioned by anything. Perhaps, perhaps not. She (and her lawyer) are also using stall tactics in the Troopergate investigation. You'd think she'd want to get it done and over with if there is nothing wrong. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/06/carney/index.html Reading the blue hypertext throughtout the article can be helpful as it's read. If for background on the references if nothing else. And can someone tell me, how does one become mayor of a town with 7000 people that has no debt and leave it with approx $20 million in debt? And that plane mentioned in the speech that was sold on eBay? Ah, nope. It didn't sell there. They ended up hiring a broker to sell it.... at a loss to the state of 500K. Guess I gotta give her credit for trying to get rid of it.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/516641.html

(Dorine) And that plane mentioned in the speech that was sold on eBay? Ah, nope. It didn't sell there. They ended up hiring a broker to sell it.... at a loss to the state of 500K. Guess I gotta give her credit for trying to get rid of it. I knew about the plane sale before her acceptance speech and noted that she only said that "I put it on eBay" which doesn't mean it actually was sold there. In fact, it was listed three times before they had to turn it over to broker. (Dorine) Esp since some could've changed their votes to Hillary, correct? Not on the first ballot. Not having a balloting process ensured several things. First and foremost, it created a public perception that there was overwhelming party unity for BO, when the actual numbers cast would not have shown that. Second, even after delegates were released from their pledged support, there's no way to know how people would vote. Wheeling and dealing and who knows what else could've turned things upside down. The DNC didn't want Hillary to win. Pure and simple. As in days of yore, a convention (and its backrooms) decided on things. Here, the backroom decided things before the convention, which is why I said having a convention is a waste of money.

Karen you have the facts. That is exactly what happened. And, as a Hillary delegate from VA who got to appoint the VA Hillary delegates who attended the convention, I can tell you that they were determine to vote for Hillary on the roll call, of course, they did not get that chance. I also attended in DC the meeting for counting the MI and FL votes. One HRC superdelegate from VA who was part of the commission told me that the Hillary Supers had to make the deal they made because of threats that the DNC would take all of them away from Hillary. If the DNC had acknowledge the votes to Hillary, she would have won the delegate count because of how well she did with the rest of the primaries. I have been very involved from the start and I just can't fall in line. Nobama! LA Times, September 4 2008 The "unity" convention in Denver is over. But some Hillary Rodham Clinton delegates are back home in California stewing over what they describe as pressure from Barack Obama allies to create a false image of overwhelming support for the Democratic presidential nominee. The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailunity2008sep04,0,5635151.story

noted that she only said that "I put it on eBay" Yes, I did see that after, though she was heavily implying she sold it there. McCain himself seems to be playing it up though (perhaps by mistake?) as he said while campaigning in the past couple of days that it was "sold on eBay, for a profit." I don't know how stopping a roll call in the middle shows party unity. Just the opposite to me. there's no way to know how people would vote. Didn't I basically say that before? That they'd stop it to prevent Hillary from ending up with more? I was thinking about the whole primary election process last night in the shower (such relaxing subjects I think about ;-)). I don't understand why the primaries have to be so dragged out. Just have a primary on one day and have a runoff of the candidates that get over a certain percentage. If only one does, then that's the nominee. Or just use the one who wins flat out. I understand why delegates were necessary in the days before, say the phone, or even the telegraph, but it should be based on people's votes and that's it at this point. And even if they did still have them, there should be a uniform method of distribution....and NO caucuses. Either have every state give all delegates to the winner, or all states divide the delegates proportionally based on the percentage of votes as some already do. And I never did understand that ridiculousness of punishing 2 states for moving their dates. So what? (that's a rhetorical question) That shouldn't even be an option. What's the point of having people vote if the delegates don't count in the current system, esp if the delegates are considered so important. And esp if only one of the main candidates participates. They shouldn't have a choice not to. And if only one of the main ones participate, the votes shouldn't count anyway as it's not fair nor a true representation of what the other candidates might have had in competition. It's all too ridiculous. Well, I don't contribute and I'm not getting any of that money if they didn't use it, so if they want to waste it on a convention, whatever.

(Moon) Nobama! Then don't vote, Moon (can't believe I said that). I'd rather see people not happy with Obama not vote for him and not give McCain any extra voting help to maintain the status quo in the country/our place in the world. Or godferbid, make matters worse, if that's possible.

I need to suport a woman on the ticket, Dorine. As you know, I don't care for Bush, never did. I have been a Dem all my life. An independant thinker who grew up in a conservative Republican household. Fear not, McCain is not Bush. By voting for McCain/Palin, I am voting in protest of the DNC, and I am voting for Hillary in 2012. Nobama!

I can't believe you're determined to vote for McCain just because Palin has a vagina, Moon. Why not just write in Hillary Clinton's name instead? Clinton herself wouldn't want you to vote for McCain/Palin. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. There are plenty of ways to both vote for a woman and not give your vote to Obama which do not included voting against your own interests.

Even though McCain told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation this morning that she'd go on his show, seems there's a different plan that apparently Glenn Greenwald of Salon pegged yesterday... When they decide in a couple of weeks that Palin is ready to do so, she'll go and sit down with Brit Hume or Larry King or Charlie Gibson or some other pleasant, accommodating person who plays a journalist on TV and have a nice, amiable, entertaining chat about topics that are easily anticipated. Having been preceded by all sorts of campaign drama about her first interview and the excitement that she's not up to the task, her TV appearance will be widely touted, score big ratings, and will be nice entertainment for the network that presents it. and his update today: It's not prescience when you simply describe the bleeding obvious. If I were a McCain adviser and wanted to have Palin sit with someone who is perceived as a "journalist" while knowing that no damage could possibly occur, I'd pick Charlie Gibson, too. There are many, many other equally good alternatives, but when it comes to wretched passivity and sycophantic establishment worship, the former "Good Morning America" host -- whose career was built on oozing amiability and inoffensiveness -- is as good as it gets.

Sarah, the only way to guarantee Hillary runs in 2012 is to vote for McCain/Palin, I can wait 4 years. I further explained my need to vote for them on my other post. I am a rebel with a cause. Let's leave it at that. I look forward to the debates. Let the Circus begin.

NYT - Op-Ed Columnist A Heartbeat Away By WILLIAM KRISTOL Published: September 7, 2008 Should voters be alarmed by a relatively young or inexperienced vice-presidential candidate? No. Since 1900, five vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency during their term in office: Teddy Roosevelt in 1901, Calvin Coolidge in 1923, Harry Truman in 1945, Lyndon Johnson in 1963, and Gerald Ford in 1974. Teddy Roosevelt took over at age 42, becoming our youngest president, and he�s generally thought to have proved up to the job. Truman was V.P. for less than three months and had been kept in the dark by Franklin Roosevelt about such matters as the atom bomb � and he�s generally thought to have risen to the occasion. Character, judgment and the ability to learn seem to matter more to success as president than the number of years one�s been in Washington. Did McCain think Palin his very best possible successor? Perhaps not. Did Barack Obama think Biden the absolute cream of the Democratic crop? Perhaps not. They undoubtedly thought highly enough of their running mates to have confidence in their ability to take over their administration in case of incapacity or death. I think most voters will accept that basic judgment. But � shocking to say! � both Obama and McCain also took political considerations into account in making their selections. One thing McCain undoubtedly had in mind was Obama�s failure to pick Hillary Clinton. As The Times�s Patrick Healy reported Friday, �If the election remains close, the next president could very well be picked by what Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist, calls �Wal-Mart Moms� � white working women with children living in the exurbs and in rural parts of battleground states. ...� McCain didn�t just pick a politician who could appeal to Wal-Mart Moms. He picked a Wal-Mart Mom. Indeed, he picked someone who, in 1999, as Wasilla mayor, presided over a wedding of two Wal-Mart associates at the local Wal-Mart. �It was so sweet,� said Palin, according to The Anchorage Daily News. �It was so Wasilla.� A Wasilla Wal-Mart Mom a heartbeat away? I suspect most voters will say, No problem. And some � perhaps a decisive number � will say, It�s about time. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/opinion/08kristol.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

The Dem convention really was his last hurrah it seems. :-(( They may plan a return, but I'd be shocked to see it, though more power to him if he does. Kennedy Plans January Return To Senate By Kathleen Hunter, CQ Staff Mon Sep 8, 11:44 AM ET Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who made a brief return to the national stage during last month's Democratic convention, will not return to the Senate this year as he battles a brain tumor, his office has announced. Some of Kennedy's friends and supporters privately had expressed hope that Kennedy, D-Mass., could resume his legislative duties this week , as Congress returns from a five-week summer recess that included the two parties' national conventions. Kennedy, 76, made a dramatic on-stage appearance at the Democratic convention in Denver, where he was honored with a video tribute. "As Senator Kennedy said two weeks ago in Denver, he intends to be on the floor of the United States Senate next January when we begin to write the next great chapter of American progress," said Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley. "Sen. Kennedy's doctors are pleased with his progress so far and have recommended that he continue to work from home through the fall." Kennedy "will be in touch with his staff, colleagues, and others via video conferencing from his home in Hyannis Port." Coley added. Kennedy has been recuperating from June brain surgery and undergoing chemotherapy and radiation to treat a malignant brain tumor that doctors diagnosed May 20, three days after he suffered a seizure at his family compound on Cape Cod. He has returned to the Senate just once since his diagnosis - on July 9 -- to cast a vote that ensured Democratic victory on a bill blocking a cut in Medicare payments to physicians (PL 110-275). An early supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Kennedy, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, would play an important role in any Obama effort to dramatically expand health insurance coverage -- a career-long legislative goal of the Massachusetts senator. During his absence, Kennedy has deputized senior members of his committee to act as chief on-site negotiators on a few pieces of major legislation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080908/pl_cq_politics/politics2945041;_ylt=AtPc7yIHdn0Re8OULvOAGAus0NUE

I'm making no statement in posting this and have no idea what ideological bent this writer has, if any, as I know of her, but couldn't tell you if I've read anything of hers. I just ran across it reading something else and thought it would be of interest since we've talked about sexism during the campaign(s). What's Fair Game With Sarah Palin? By Anne E. Kornblut Sunday, September 7, 2008; B01 Watching Gov. Sarah Palin explode onto the national scene over the last week got me thinking back to a cold evening earlier this year, just before the New Hampshire primary. I was half-listening to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speak at an auditorium when a strange noise interrupted the event: two young men shouting, in muffled voices, "Iron my shirt!" At first, Clinton seemed as taken aback as the rest of the audience, unsure of what was going on. Then she saw the yellow "Iron My Shirt!" sign one of the young men held, figured out what was being shouted and brushed the interruption aside. "Ah, the remnants of sexism, alive and well," she said, then continued with her remarks. When security officers removed the young men from the audience, I joined several other reporters in following them outside to find out who the hecklers were and what had motivated them to make such a spectacle. Little did we know that the bizarre incident was a precursor of what was to come -- of the debate over sexism, feminism and the role of women in public life that would emerge as one of the defining aspects of the 2008 campaign. My fellow reporters and I never really did resolve the mystery of the "iron my shirt" episode; the two young men refused to give us their names and offered strangely vague reasons for being there. But we were put on notice that night: Gender politics was going to be a part of this race in ways that no one could foresee. After following Clinton on the campaign trail for more than two years, I have been watching the Palin story with some wariness -- especially the conservative charges that the treatment she's received has been overwhelmingly sexist. With each new development, I keep wondering: What if? What if, back in the 1990s, Clinton had announced the pregnancy of an unmarried, teenaged daughter? Would the Republicans have declared it an off-limits family matter and declined to judge her, or would it have turned into a national scandal that hurt her chances as she decided to pursue her own career in elected office? What if, instead of the GOP's new vice presidential candidate, Clinton had been the one to run for national office without any international experience to speak of? (After all, Clinton's rivals diminished the relevance of her eight years as first lady, saying they counted for little on her r�sum�.) And what if Clinton had rejected questions about her record by calling such lines of questioning sexist? What if she had refused to name any national security decisions she had made, as a spokesman for Sen. John McCain did on Palin's behalf last week, on the grounds that the question was unfair? What if, simply, the roles had been reversed? Howard Wolfson, Clinton's former communications director, said he is confident that the Republicans "would have attempted to destroy her" if she were in Palin's shoes -- as, in fact, some Republicans tried to do to Clinton throughout the 1990s, and were preparing to do again if she had won the Democratic nomination this year. At the same time, Wolfson said, Republican attempts "to defend Palin from sexism lost a fair amount of credibility when Carly Fiorina refused to acknowledge that her party had ever been sexist toward Hillary Clinton." (Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief turned McCain economic adviser, told a "hear-me-roar" press conference with other Republican women Wednesday that Republicans were not responsible for any mistreatment of Clinton.) I have had my share of major disagreements with Wolfson over the last few years, but on this one, he is probably right. It may seem a pretty pointless exercise -- envisioning the "would haves" if Clinton and Palin had somehow swapped roles, parties and lives. But it is a useful tool as a reporter, a way of contemplating what is fair game now by comparing it with what was fair game then. Even the issue of "Would you ask a man the same question" (raised so indignantly last week by senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani) falls slightly short, simply because there are so few templates for female candidates running for higher office -- and the ones who have, including Clinton, Palin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have tried to use their roles as mothers and women as part of the overall package in ways that men do not. That is not to say that every awkward detail of Palin's personal life is an acceptable target -- or that Democrats, reporters and bloggers ought to pursue Palin in all of the aggressive ways that Clinton has been grilled for most of her political life. It is also not to suggest that Clinton always openly answered questions about her own record or did not manipulate her femininity to her advantage when it suited her political needs. And the sort of media-bashing that thrilled the GOP faithful last week may not play as well with the independents McCain hopes to win over. In an overnight ABC News poll taken before McCain's speech Thursday, 50 percent of respondents said that the media has treated Palin fairly, while 40 percent said it had not -- and among those who faulted the coverage, more saw political bias as the root cause than blamed sexism. Still, in her first week on the national stage, Palin and her surrogates have brandished the sexism charge more unabashedly than Clinton has over the course of two very public decades. And Palin has not yet even faced serious questioning in person, in an interview or in a one-on-one debate. If Clinton's message was that she was a survivor -- that she had been vetted and tested, her viewpoints scrutinized, with all of her personal problems known to the country -- Palin's has so far been that she has, by virtue of being nominated, already passed every test that Clinton took. Palin's mantra, it seems, is that women no longer need to surpass men in their achievements and qualifications in order to win; they simply need to object when the question of their preparedness is raised. And that makes me wonder: What would Clinton say to that? Clinton has been surprisingly quiet in the days since Palin was nominated. She issued a bland statement the day McCain announced his surprise pick: "We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate." Last Thursday, Clinton put out just her second statement about Palin, saying she wanted to "slightly amend" one of her best zingers in Denver: "No way, no how, no McCain-Palin." And while Clinton is scheduled to stump in central Florida Monday on Sen. Barack Obama's behalf, the trip is not, according to people in both Democrats' camps, designed as a direct response to the debut of the second female vice presidential nominee in U.S. history. It doesn't exactly add up to a resounding attack, especially during the heat of the campaign. Former Clinton advisers offer various explanations: She would only energize the Republican base if she criticized Palin; she doesn't want to diminish her own stature by attacking McCain's rookie understudy rather than McCain himself; she is not on the ticket, so why should she intervene? Still, the result is a strange silence from the woman who, until just two weeks ago, had arguably the most powerful female voice in American politics. Palin, on the other hand, has invoked Clinton several times, welcoming the senator's voters to her own effort to shatter the glass ceiling that Clinton "put 18 million cracks in." And yet America's two most famous female politicians were not always so simpatico. As recently as the primary season, Palin said that she was sorry she could not vote for Clinton (presumably because she was a registered Republican) but added that she regretted Clinton's "whining" about sexist treatment toward the end of her 2008 bid. "When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress in this country,' " Palin said. "I think that's reality, and I think it's a given, I think people can just accept that she is going to be under that sharper microscope," Palin went on. "So be it. I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable, that you're going to be the best candidate. . . ." One senior Clinton adviser I talked to this past week called it understandable that the Alaska governor felt that way -- until she got into the white-hot glare herself. Another said that it is probably easier for Palin to take on the role of vice presidential nominee, and to push back against the questions that truly are offensive, because the path has been paved for the last several years by Clinton. In some respects, the Clinton loyalists are sympathetic toward Palin and about the hardships she will face in largely uncharted territory as a woman running for national office. They lived through the excruciating moments of unfairness that Clinton endured during the campaign -- MSNBC's Chris Matthews's saying that Clinton won her Senate seat only because of her husband's infidelity is one particular favorite -- and some are still smarting from Obama's decision to tap Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. That may very well not have been a sexist choice, but from a certain angle, it could be seen to have carried a tinge of old-boy networking -- the kind that Palin said in her acceptance speech she had busted up in Alaska. Which is why so many Clinton loyalists believe -- and I believe they really believe it -- that Palin could help McCain draw some voters from the Clinton base. The GOP may have its work cut out for it here: According to the ABC poll, 47 percent of women view Palin favorably. (She does better among men, who are more apt to be Republicans; 54 percent of men viewed her positively.) Still, the fact that a spokesman for Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid used the word "shrill" to describe Palin's speech on Wednesday night only made Clinton's camp more convinced that the hockey mom from Wasilla really could win some women over. And that is why Palin's emergence has given the increasingly tight 2008 campaign a kind of symmetry that the "Iron My Shirt" boys, whoever they were, could never have imagined. kornbluta@washpost.com Anne E. Kornblut covers politics for The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502656.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

This is almost becoming like shooting fish in a barrel. But I guess the joke will be on me (and many of the rest of us) if they win. I actually wasn't going to post it, but I rethought that after thinking that it's not just her out there, but McCain standing right by her side (I saw it on the news!) endorsing inaccurate information, if by no other manner than standing there proud as can be and not correcting her. I'm sure their people will make sure that information mistake isn't repeated. The other thing that disturbs me about it, is I'd bet virtually no one in that audience knew enough about those institutions to know she was not correct. http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-who-are-they-asks-palin/ [As a side note, watching a Daily Show repeat from the Thursday Barack gave his speech. Doing a satirical Barack Obama story and starts out with a Lion King parody. It's hysterical!]

Biden Finally Admits Hillary Would Be Better VP. It so pisses me off that suddenly everyone is so kind to HRC--now that they need our votes. Where were these jerks six months ago? Yeah, she is qualified--more qualified than either Biden or Obama! http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=69E3F54AB045175500550C7BB3A0D214?diaryId=985

Fresh blood for the vampire A beady-eyed McCain gets a boost from the charismatic Sarah Palin, a powerful new feminist -- yes, feminist! -- force. Plus: Obama must embrace his dull side. By Camille Paglia http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/

And yet... many, many women see Sarah Palin very clearly for what she is... Women Against Sarah Palin

So I guess Palin's interview is being spread all over. Some was on ABC News tonight I read..?? and the rest here: Watch Charles Gibson's exclusive interviews with Gov. Sarah Palin tonight on "Nightline." Tune in Friday for more on "Good Morning America " at 7 a.m. ET. See more on "World News" and "20/20," which will broadcast a one-hour special edition at 10 p.m. ET/9 p.m. CT. I guess the first part is online already around the web.

This explains it all so very well, it is a must read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bower/my-history-of-puma-from-i_b_125878.html

(Sarah) And yet... many, many women see Sarah Palin very clearly for what she is... Of course they/we do. And your point? (Dorine) So I guess Palin's interview is being spread all over. Totally confusing. Guess it is being done for ratings purposes. I only saw the first excerpts of Gibson's interview on Nightline a couple of nights ago, but have recorded last night's 20/20. Guess I'll have to resign myself to not seeing all of it, as I can't be bothered to figure which parts are airing and when. Good PUMA piece, Moon. I've been reading the comments as well. These political sites generate huge commentary. 300+ comments!

I taped the Nightline, which I need to watch and watched most of the 20/20. I didn't see the others. Interesting article. I do agree about getting rid of Pelosi. She's useless for many reasons. I have no particular opinion on Brazile and Dean, so they can go to for all I care. Interesting reading about voter disenfranchisement in Texas. Sounds just like Florida in 2000 in the general. And who knew that FL and MI would actually end up mattering? If Hillary had come out stronger on Super Tuesday as she expected, frankly the whole issue about FL and MI delegates would've been moot. And she probably would've been the nominee, despite any backroom machinations by the DNC. Personally, I think they should've left the FL and MI delegates not count. Or at least MI, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot. That's stupid to guess that Obama would've had a certain amount. I don't remember who was or wasn't on the ballot in FL. As I said here before (or maybe in an email to someone instead), I think all states should have uniform voting and delegate distribution procedures and get rid of caucuses altogether. Maybe just have the nominating vote on one day (with a subsequent runoff if necessary), then get on with campaigning for the general.

I happened to start reading this a couple of days ago and only got to the second page so far. Very interesting insight into strategy. Shows copies of a few memos/emails. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign

Dorine, Obama sued to have his name taken of the ballot in MI, all the others had their names on the ballot. The DNC had the nerve to give Obama some of Hillary's MI votes. Obama's name was on the FL ballot which Hillary won by a nice margin, the DNC gave her only half her FL votes. I was at the meeting in DC, it was a a low day for Democrats. Deals done behind close doors, threats made... Re: Super Tuesday, there was so much fraud going on with Obama's people. I keep telling you that he's not the real nominee. Hillary even won the popular vote. It's all a fraud perpetuated by the DNC and I will not fall in line. As I've said before, I'm too close to it. All Obama has ever wanted was to be President, he's been working at it since the beginning, how many times has he changed his opinions on issues just to be popular? He has a hidden agenda and I pray that he does not win in Nov.

How could they have really picked this guy over Hillary? Another must read: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/26/fighting-back-against-obamas-thugs/

(Moon) Obama sued to have his name taken of the ballot in MI, all the others had their names on the ballot. John Edwards had his name taken off as well. Both removed their names because the DNC told everyone to do so. Frankly I don't quite understand why those states had primaries before Iowa's caucases or why the DNC would even make up such a rule, when it had no power over the states' election boards which set the dates. The DNC's rule IMO was an absurdity. But the issue is quite moot.

Veteran's Affairs Chief Crumbles Under Pressure From Congress It seems that Veterans Affairs Secretary Peake can't hold his own against Congressional Democrats. They put so "much pressure" on him that he reversed his own decision and will now let groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org invade the VA facilities with voter registrants. Who do you think is behind this? Obama of course. You know the guy who pays ACORN to commit voter fraud and pays front companies for their work on get-out-the- vote work. It isn't bad enough he used ACORN to cheat with the civilian vote, now he is going to use groups to cheat with the veteran vote. And of course, the asshat has this to say: Obama issued a statement saying, "I commend Secretary Peake's decision today. The key will be implementation. We must ensure that the VA's doors are open to non-partisan groups, as well as state and local government agencies, to enable veterans to register to vote in a timely fashion, complete absentee ballots, and receive rides to the polls." I have to use the VA for medical services since I am a 100% totally, permanently disabled female Navy veteran. In my opinion, this is a violation of my right to privacy. I don't want to be bombarded by voter registrants while I am sitting in a facility I feel is already hostile towards me. I have been waiting nearly ten years to get my hands fixed which are getting progressively worse, and the VA won't fix them. Nope I was told nada, no way but I have to put up with non-partisan groups trying to sign me up to vote because Peake is a coward! Non-partisan groups�.you mean ACORN, which claims to be non-partisan but generally will run screaming from the sight of a Republican. We know they have not been non-partisan this year as they have worked almost exclusively for Obama from February 2008 to May 2008. I even called my Congressman, Todd Tiahrt, his office hung up on me in Washington, DC, not interested. Senator Brownback's office in DC, said "we will tell the Senator." and I got the brush off from Senator Pat Robert's office in DC too. I did get one of Roberts constituent representatives in Wichita, KS to give a damn! She asked me to write a letter that will be sent to the Senator in DC. The short and long of this is Obama should not be allowed to bring his "non-partisan groups" (ACORN) into a facility that is meant for veterans especially since we have to receive out medical treatment there. And we want to receive it in PEACE! By NancyA Email: susanunpc@gmail.com On September 12, 2008 at 12:59 AM in Acorn, Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Veterans Administration, Voter Fraud

(Karen), John Edwards had his name taken off as well. Both removed their names because the DNC told everyone to do so. Yes it did tell them too. But in MI the ballot went out with all their names on it except Obama because he sued to have his removed. Edwards's votes were given to Obama at the DNC meeting. It is quite moot now, but that doesn't mean I don't remember what went on. How our democratic votes were taken away by the DNC.

(Moon) It is quite moot now How the MI delegates got apportioned is certainly moot, but my reference was to the lack of logic between a state setting a date for a primary and a party organization telling people they couldn't run in those primaries. There was an automatic disenfranchisement of those states' delegates, one that the delegates and candidates had no opportunity to control. When a state decides to hold its primary election is that state's right. It would seem to me that the DNC has to follow what the states do in setting their own calendar. This is an example of the tail wagging the dog. Not recognizing those states' delegates doesn't seem like an option to me and it isn't as though the DNC was going to pay to hold a primary in those states out of its own pocket. That's the moot point to which I referred.

I don't say often that I won't consider what a media person on either side may say, but sorry, I won't pay attention to Michelle Malkin. I don't think MI should have counted as it was or should've had a do-over. And being the state's choice when to have their primary (or apparently not), how could the DNC's wishes supersede that? And why did the state listen?

What's also moot IMO, is that if the race hadn't been so close and had ended up in Hillary's favor by a large margin, it's likely it wouldn't have mattered what happened with FL and MI anyway and most likely this discussion wouldn't be on the table.

(Moon) He has a hidden agenda Which would be? You've alluded to things before, but are there specifics that I've missed somewhere? I'll be willing to listen, but I don't take esoteric allusions very seriously without some backup.

I found this an interesting article on Sarah Palin. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

And I found this interesting because I posited the same questions this columnist did within the first 4 paragraphs in an email to a few people yesterday after reading about one of Palin's stump speeches earlier that day where people chanted, "Drill, baby, drill". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?em

�I�m still proud of Sarah,� she added, �but she scares the bejeebers out of me.� The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Two great lines! Really, what's the big deal? She replaced the good old boy network with the good old girl network. And...??? Another confidante of Ms. Palin�s is Ms. Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin�s campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin�s children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as �the babysitter,� a title that Ms. Frye disavows. Wonder what that works out to be per hour? ;-) Great op-ed piece, Dorine! With a perfect last line: There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. This culture-war strategy (i.e., one without any real substance) is killing us. :-(

(Dorine),I don't think MI should have counted as it was or should've had a do-over. Both MI and FL had come up with independent means to redo the vote, and guess who was against it? Obama of course, how democratic of him. Dorine, we will all find out whay his hidden agenda is if he gets to be President. He ain't no Mr. Deeds. There are so many reasons why this article is interesting. The social dynamics of history have a way of repeating themselves. Not to mention, the article examines the kinds of qualities one might expect from Biden's leadership. Unlike HRC, his stances on important issues appear to be rooted in fear versus conviction or doing the right thing: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/biden-and-anita-hill-revisited/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Wow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Dorine, we will all find out whay his hidden agenda is if he gets to be President. He ain't no Mr. Deeds. No, I bet he's not, but in other words, you don't know, you're just throwing stuff out there?

LOL, Dorine, moi? From all that I have experienced in this corrupt campaign run by the DNC, I have become a seer. :-D Believe it or not, BO has a hidden agenda. Call me agent 0069. ;-)

Woo! I'm looking at aerial footage of Hammond, IN, where the Little Calumet River has overflowed. A church was underwater!

*snort* http://iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=135972 That is awful about all the other damage outside of TX, too. Amazing. And sorry, Peggy! I forgot you where you live! Glad to hear you had some precautions in place and can get by ok. Can't believe the unbelievable devastation in Galveston. Was watching on the Today Show today. Looks like when Andrew went through South Florida. Or a tornado. I was also amazed last night or this morning to hear that rescue crews were brought supplies by the public since they had none themselves.

Since this is the Pile It on Palin topic... �Sarah knows how to field-dress a moose. I know how to castrate a calf. Neither of those things has anything at all to do with this election. But since we know so much about Sarah�s special skills, I wanted to make sure you knew about mine too,� she said. �When I saw her get up and talk about all these earmarks, I said �Wait a minute, what�s going on here? Did I wake up in a parallel universe?� *snort snort* BTW, I've actually been in Indianola. What galls me about the earmarks (and technically a removed earmark but nonreturned Federal dollars) is the money went into a general infrastructure fund and they built a Road to Nowhere, when our bridges and roads are falling apart. Talk about government waste. Shame shame! Is this because she now believes it should be handled by the HR people? ;-) Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won't speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner. McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation "remains tainted." He said he doesn't know whether Palin's husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation. The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues � not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin's sister. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_troopergate

But she professed to being so open to assisting them previously (B.V.P - Before nomination for VP). ;-) The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. Funny how one of the people on the commission voting to issue the subpoenas was a Republican (granted the other 2 were democrats and the 2 opposing were R's).

Wow, they really don't want it to continue. What's the problem if there's nothing wrong? Got to give credit to Stevens, at least he asked for a fast trial date to get his mess done and over with quickly before the election, esp as he couldn't seem stop it. But then his position isn't quite so important. Lawmakers sue to stop 'Troopergate' probe of Palin By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 37 minutes ago JUNEAU, Alaska - Five state Republican lawmakers want a judge to stop an investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of a public safety commissioner. A bipartisan oversight committee had unanimously approved an inquiry into whether Palin, now the Republican vice presidential nominee, dismissed the commissioner because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. In Anchorage Superior Court on Tuesday, three state representatives and two state senators sued to stop the investigation. Palin had said months ago that she welcomed the inquiry. The lawsuit called the investigation "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan."

Going to court has worked for them before. :-(

My bank looks like it's the next to go and looks likely to be bought out. Moved my $$ yesterday to another bank just in case they sink without help. With finance crisis, hands-off era over More oversight lies ahead, no matter who's in the Oval Office. By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the September 17, 2008 edition Reporter Peter Grier tells why Congress has been so quiet lately about any plans to tighten oversight of Wall Street. [Audio link at link below] Washington - The great financial shakeout of 2008 � one of the most dire US fiscal crises of modern times � is likely to change permanently the relationship between Wall Street and Washington. Already Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has overshadowed New York's titans of finance with his decisions as to which institutions will get government aid and which will not. If things don't get worse, history may credit Mr. Paulson with helping to pull the economy back from the brink, as financier J.P. Morgan did in the Bankers' Panic of 1907. Beyond that, a long period of Washington laissez faire toward financial markets may well be at an end. The details of regulation could be different, depending on which candidate wins the White House this fall. But more US oversight seems inevitable. "We need to restructure the system to reduce the chance of having another crisis," says Douglas Elmendorf, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Financial regulators may win access to more internal information from financial institutions, allowing them to better judge the risks they are running. They may also look for ways to control derivatives, financial instruments backed by mortgages or other types of assets, which have become complex "to the point of absurdity," in Mr. Elmendorf's words. There's a sense that Washington needs to modernize a system of financial oversight rooted in government entities founded after the Great Depression. "We have an archaic financial regulatory system ... it really needs to be rebuilt," Paulson told reporters at the White House on Sept. 15. The US needs a balance between regulation and market discipline, added Paulson, who last spring proposed a package of tougher regulations for investment banks, including giving more oversight powers to the Federal Reserve. The crisis management of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve appeared to have stabilized markets, at least for the short term. Though the Dow Jones Index fell over 500 points on Sept. 15, the sell-off was orderly and could have been worse, according to analysts. But major Asian and European bourses also suffered sell-offs and the fate of the insurance giant American International Group remains in question, following the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and the sale of Merrill Lynch to the Bank of America. By declining to use government funds to help Lehman, Washington ensured the financial crisis would enter a new and perhaps decisive phase. But it was the right step to take, said some analysts. While Bear Stearns collapsed quickly, Lehman's problems have developed over time. Any firm that stands to lose money due to interrconnections with Lehman may have only itself to blame. Or, such firms may have been counting on a government bailout. "To the extent that there were any major players in the market not prepared for Lehman Brothers' demise, that would be the clearest signal that moral hazard had begun to sink into the market. So it was the right decision to not step in with financial guarantees for Lehman," says Benn Steil, senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Looking forward, Washington may need to set up a temporary new agency capable of buying and selling the toxic mortgage-backed assets that are dragging down Wall Street firms, said former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker in a Sept. 15 speech. Such an agency would be similar to the Resolution Trust Corporation, the US-backed clearinghouse that helped move the nation through the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s. But others say Washington shares some blame for the current crisis. Under longtime head Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve stood by while the housing market overheated, charges University of Maryland economic historian David Sicilia. Nor did the Fed talk about regulating derivatives or hedge funds until it was too late, in Sicilia's view. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0917/p01s02-usec.html

(Karen) Going to court has worked for them before. :-( *sigh* Yes. This certainly is speaking to that. And as pointed out here, apparently D's don't learn from past mistakes. :-( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/16/233624/270/872/601202

They're too afraid to come off as the bad guys, bringing legal muscle. The Rs don't seem to care and it has been successful. Do you let the system work or work the system? The answer seems obvious.

Never fear this time. Obama knows how to work the system. Great article: A Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP By Tammy Bruce In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously. Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer. Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple. The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism. Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt. The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates. There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing? Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman. Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence. Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic. The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so. They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups. Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion. The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in. It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs. The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count. Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters. On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin. Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter. This article first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/a_feminists_argument_for_mccai.html at September 17, 2008

Tammy Bruce is no feminist - she's a Republican shill - she's the equivalent of a "log cabin Republican". She describes herself as a "life-long Democrat", but she's voted for Reagan and Bush I, and she has recently stated in her blog that she is registered as "Decline-to-State" (in other words, she's a closet Republican). She sold out to Fox and the Republican party, imo. Sorry - not buying, Moon. You can drink the koolaid if you choose, but I know the lesser of two evils when I see it, and in this case, it's BHO.

It kind of boogles the mind that a feminist could vote for Reagan dnd the Bushies. :-( Was owning a gun that important? From an LA Times blog: Joe Biden calls it 'patriotic' for the wealthy to pay more taxes Democrats have been loudly complaining about John McCain, Sarah Palin and other Republicans routinely misrepresenting Barack Obama's tax plan by asserting the Democrat would raise the levies that Americans hate to pay across the board. In a true shocker, even a Fox News anchor gave a McCain aide flack on the matter earlier this week. Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, today sought -- in his inimitable way -- to stress that the Democratic platform calls for increasing income taxes only for those making more than $250,000 a year. But in the process, he delivered a line sure to be mocked far and wide by the GOP. "You got it," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America" when his interviewer noted that Obama was targeting the affluent. "It's time (for the well-off) to be patriotic." (See the clip below.) Already, the Republican National Committee has sent off an e-mail flagging the quote. And we're betting it shows up quickly as a laugh line in McCain and Palin stump speeches. [UPDATE: Right on cue, Palin scoffed at Biden's comment as she and McCain stumped late this morning in Iowa. Telling her typically adoring crowd what the Delaware senator had said, she parried that raising taxes isn't about patriotism, it's "about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse."] [UPDATE II: McCain, taking the stage after Palin, said of raising taxes in tough times: "It's not a badge of honor. It's just plain dumb."] -- Don Frederick

First a commission to study things, then this. Yeah, that would really fix the problem. Clueless... McCain says would fire SEC chairman Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:34pm EDT CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican White House hopeful John McCain said on Thursday he would, as president, fire U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox for failing in his oversight of Wall Street. The Arizona senator also called for a new Mortgage and Financial Institutions (MFI) trust to work with regulators and the private sector to strengthen financial institutions that are weak before they become insolvent. "For troubled institutions this will provide an orderly process through which to identify bad loans and eventually sell them," McCain said at a rally in Iowa.

Sarah, the koolaid will not be drunk by me, LOL. The Obama Dems are drunk on it. Please pick another drink. Tang? ;-) The mysgery deepens. This is something else they were discussing on POTUS 08. Journalists were shocked that this wasn't being discussed by main stream media, though they admitted that the MSM is so far in Obama's pocket, it would be unlikely to receive much coverage. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-annenberg-files-the-mystery-deepens/

(Moon) The Obama Dems Always been a plain ole Dem myself. One that voted Repub in a presidential race....once. I remember I asked what POTUS 08 was, but don't remember if and what you may have answered. Is that a radio show? Obama was the head of a business that failed? Well no wonder he appears unqualified. Bush was the head of 3 failed businesses (right?) and look where he ended up. Obama needs to go get some more of that experience to be more qualified for President. ;-D

POTUS=President Of The United States

Thank you, but I know what it stands for. I just want to know what this POTUS O8 she listens to is.

Potus 08: http://www.xmradio.com/onxm/channelpage.xmc?ch=130

The music is a little dorky, but the video really is interesting. It's amazing this guy was chosen over HRC. Absolutely incredible. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/when_obama_bragged_about_the_c.html

This is too funny: Barack Obama, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate, is for banning all guns in America . He is considered by those who have dealt with him as a bit more than just a little self-righteous. At a recent rural elementary school assembly in East Texas , he asked the audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence. Then he said into the microphone, 'Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence.' Then, little Richard Earl, with a proud East Texas drawl, pierced the quiet and said: ''Well, dumb-ass, stop clapping!'

Sounds like a joke, Moon, not something that actually happened.

I know that, Karen. Did I say it actually happened? LOL! I thought this was the thrashing Palin topic. ;-))))) It made me laugh and I thought I would share.

Okie doke. I wasn't sure. Saw this morning that Todd has refused to obey his subpoena. I would hope that people understand what it shows about the candidate, i.e., that she (and her family and friends) think they are above the law.

Well at least the media doesn't think they are above the law like Obama. Lehman Brothers: Obama's Rezko-Auchi conflict of interest By Andrew Walden Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama was quick to blame the bankruptcy of Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers on Republicans' "failed philosophy". Obama's September 15 comments were repeated throughout the media�yet reporters have not noted Obama's glaring conflict of interest�the Lehman debt owed to a bank owned by the financier who loaned millions of dollars to Tony Rezko. Jockeying among the other debtors seeking repayment under Chapter 11 bankruptcy rules is BNP Paribas, a large French bank whose largest single private shareholder is Nadhmi Auchi's General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH). BNP Paribas is owed $250 million by Lehman. Nadhmi Auchi is an Iraqi whose Baathist ties go back to 1959. A formerly high-ranking official in Iraq's Oil Ministry, Auchi left Iraq at the end of the 1970s. His wealth then grew exponentially as a procurer of arms for Saddam Hussein's government during the Iran�Iraq war. He is now one of the richest men in Britain. Saddam Hussein in 1995 selected BNP, which later merged with Paribas, as the sole conduit bank handling Oil-for-Food transactions. This Clinton-era arrangement was changed in 2001 by the incoming Bush administration. Auchi was also a key financial backer for Chicago political fixer and dual US-Syrian citizen Tony Rezko. This writer explained the complex web of relationships in an August 24 article titled, "Iraqi Billionaire Threatens Reporters Investigating Rezko Affair": A secret $3.5 million loan from an Auchi company to key early-money Barack Obama fundraiser Antoin Rezko was exposed while Rezko was awaiting trial on fraud and money-laundering charges earlier this year. Rezko's bail was revoked and police showed up banging on the doors of his Wilmette Chicago mansion to drag him off to jail early in the morning of January 28th. Auchi's loan to Rezko had come on May 23, 2005 but had not been disclosed to the Court as required in his bail agreement. Three weeks later, on June 15, 2005, Rezko's wife assisted the Obamas in the purchase of their South Chicago mansion by purchasing a next-door undeveloped lot being sold with the house. According to the Times of London, "Mr. Rezko's lawyer said his client had 'longstanding indebtedness' to Mr. Auchi's General Mediterranean Holding (GMH). By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million. Under a Loan Forgiveness Agreement described in court, M. Auchi lent Mr. Rezko $3.5 million in April 2005 and $11 million in September 2005, as well as $3.5 million transferred in April 2007. That agreement provided for the outstanding loans to be 'forgiven' in return for a stake in the 62-acre Riverside Park development." Rezko's relationship with Barack Obama goes back to at least 1990, when Obama's law firm did work relating to thousands of now-decaying Rezko apartment units in South Chicago. Rezko was a key early-money fundraiser in Obama's state Senate campaigns and his failed run at the U.S. Congress. According to The Times of London, "Mr. Auchi first met Mr. Rezko after the 2003 Iraq war and they have a business relationship." At the time Auchi was facing the possibility of extradition to France. The Times of London explains: "Mr Auchi was convicted of corruption, given a suspended sentence and fined �1.4 million in France in 2003 for his part in the Elf affair, described as the biggest political and corporate scandal in post-war Europe. He, in a statement from his media lawyers, claims he is appealing against the sentence." In 2003, Nick Cohen of the UK Guardian wrote: Allow me to introduce you to Nadhmi Auchi. He was charged in the 1950s with being an accomplice of Saddam Hussein, when the future tyrant was acquiring his taste for blood. He was investigated in the 1980s for his part in alleged bribes to the fabulously corrupt leaders of post-war Italy. In the 1990s, the Belgium Ambassador to Luxembourg claimed that Auchi's bank held money Saddam and Colonel Gadaffi had stolen from their luckless peoples. In 2002, officers from the Serious Fraud Squad raided the offices of one of Auchi's drug companies as part of an investigation of what is alleged to be the biggest swindle ever of the (British National Health Service). With allegations, albeit unproven, like these hanging over him, wouldn't you think that British MPs would have the sense to stay away? One might think Obama would also stay away, but in truth it is only the US media who are ducking this story. While ideological bias and a predisposition towards inanity might explain some of the media ignorance, the August 24 article cites another cause: Working for Auchi� attorneys from London law firm Carter-Ruck have for several months been flooding American and British newspapers and websites with letters demanding removal of material they deem "defamatory" to their client. In its June 28 edition, British satirical magazine Private Eye explains: "Until Carter-Ruck and Partners and England's stifling libel laws got to work, the few American journalists not caught up in Obama-mania were turning to the archives of the British press to answer an intriguing question: who is Nadhmi Auchi?" What is so "stifling" about English libel law? In the U.K., as Carter-Ruck explains on its own website, "A libel claimant does not have to prove that the words are false or to prove that he has in fact suffered any loss. Damage is presumed." The Obama campaign recently issued a non-denial denial in response to claims that Obama met with Auchi?contained in Jerome Corsi's bestseller, The Obama Nation. They cited only two references. One is, "Mr. Auchi's lawyer" who told the February 27, 2008 London Evening Standard, "As far as he can remember he has had no direct contact with Mr. Obama." Another is, "A lawyer for Auchi, Alasdair Pepper" who says, according to the April 16, 2008 Washington Post, "Auchi Had 'No Recollection' Of Meeting Obama or Michelle." Alasdair Pepper is the attorney whose name appears on the Carter-Ruck demand letters. Here are some questions reporters should be asking Barack Obama: Senator Obama: Lehman Brothers owes over $250 million to a bank owned in part by Nadhmi Auchi's holding company. Auchi was a key financial backer of Tony Rezko. Sources indicate you met Auchi twice when he visited Chicago in 2004. If elected, how will your relationship with Rezko and Auchi affect your policy towards Lehman Brothers?

Article from Savagepolitics.com

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama was quick to blame the bankruptcy of Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers on Republicans' "failed philosophy". Obama's September 15 comments were repeated throughout the media�yet reporters have not noted Obama's glaring conflict of interest�the Lehman debt owed to a bank owned by the financier who loaned millions of dollars to Tony Rezko. This is nothing more than a "six degrees." In the world of finance, one doesn't even need six steps. Irrelevant. Points to nothing. And you know I'm no Obama-ite.

Barack Obama, the lead Presidential Democratic Party candidate, is for banning all guns in America. Sounds sensible to me.

I thought this was a bit interesting (and long) in light of some discussions about Social Security solvency plans and the financial market crisis I had recently. http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/sep2008/pi20080918_216336.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

What is relevant is: how will Obama's relationship with Rezko and Auchi affect his policy towards Lehman Brothers. There is nothing wrong with owning a hand gun or rifle, if one goes through with the permits. I don't like the idea of selling machine guns. Most criminals get those weapons on the black market.

There is nothing wrong with owning a hand gun or rifle, I'm sure the parents of or the actual kids (if they could) killed might disagree with you after they've shot themselves or their friends/relatives mistakenly with a (legal) gun found in a drawer or cabinet. While it is constitutionally legal, I do think that's something that should be amended. We don't have/need a militia anymore, the purpose of that amendment. Also, I think the permit process needs some serious tightening if it does end up staying on the books. Agreed about the criminals.

Oh and thanks for the POTUS 08 clarification. Didn't occur to me it could be satellite radio.

(Moon) What is relevant is: how will Obama's relationship with Rezko and Auchi affect his policy towards Lehman Brothers. Huh? There is no Lehman Brothers anymore. (Dorine) While it is constitutionally legal, I do think that's something that should be amended. We don't have/need a militia anymore, the purpose of that amendment. As I recall the Supreme Court just ruled earlier this summer that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to bear whatever bloody arms you have, despite the fact that we don't have militias anymore. It didn't matter to them.

In order to prohibit gun ownership, a repeal of the 2nd amendment would be required. Although I believe that the majority of Americans are in favor of some type of gun control, I doubt we'd be able to get a repeal of the 2nd amendment through in my lifetime. I cannot believe that the husband of a VP candidate is getting away with ignoring a subpoena. Then again, the Bush administration have always held the Justice department in complete contempt - I guess I shouldn't expect any better from "Bush-Lite" & Co.... And lastly, I remembered this quote, and it reminded me of someone - "If Facism ever comes to the US it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" �Sinclair Lewis 1935

(Sarah) a repeal of the 2nd amendment would be required. Although I believe that the majority of Americans are in favor of some type of gun control, I doubt we'd be able to get a repeal of the 2nd amendment through in my lifetime. Yes, it would require a repeal, in actuality a new amendment that overturns the 2nd. That requires first a two-thirds votes in the House and Senate (ain't gonna happen) and then three-fourths of the states must affirm (again, ditto). ~~~~~~~~~~ Very typical. Bail out businesses but provide no help for regular people (well, directly, at least). From the AP: Paulson resists calls for added help in bailout By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Sunday that the nation's credit markets remain frozen and Congress must move quickly to pass a $700 billion bailout package for financial firms. But key Democrats said the legislation needs changes to provide better protections for taxpayers and homeowners in danger of losing their homes. "The credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen," Paulson said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly." Paulson made the rounds of the television talk shows to stress the need for speed in getting the bailout package approved. The administration spent the weekend negotiating the details of the proposal with members of Congress with the expectation that it can be passed in the next week. Paulson said that "it pains me tremendously to have the American taxpayer put in this position but it is better than the alternative." Paulson and President Bush have argued that the alternative would be credit markets that remain frozen, meaning that businesses will fail because they can't get the loans they need to operate and the economy will grind to a halt because consumers, who account for two-thirds of economic activity, won't be able to get the credit they need to keep spending. On Saturday, Bush said the White House is ready to work with Congress to quickly enact legislation to allow the government to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad debt linked to the collapse of the housing market. The administration proposal would be the biggest government intervention since the Great Depression. It would dole out huge sums of money to financial firms to purchase their holdings of bad mortgage-backed securities so that these firms can resume normal lending operations. The bad mortgage debt has been at the heart of the current credit crisis which hit more than a year ago but erupted with special ferocity in the past two weeks forcing extraordinary government actions. Two weeks ago, the government seized control of the nation's two largest mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then last week, it took control of the country's largest insurance company, American International Group Inc. The measure that the administration sent up to Congress on Saturday is a mere three pages in length. While Paulson emphasized the need for speed, Democrats said Sunday that they could do it quickly while also adding necessary protections for taxpayers and help for people facing the threat of mortgage foreclosures. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., appearing on ABC's "This Week," said if all of this help was being directed to Wall Street there was also a need to provide help for people on Main Street. But Paulson, also appearing on ABC, said, "We need this to be clean and to be quick." Paulson resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be changed to include further relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout help. Paulson said he was concerned that debate over adding all of those proposals would slow the economy down, delaying the rescue effort that is so urgently needed to get financial markets moving again. "The biggest help we can give the American people right now is to stabilize the financial system," Paulson said. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said that he believed there would be changes to Paulson's plan and that agreement could still be reached quickly. Schumer said that he was pushing to get a provision where the government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief and for creation of a government oversight board to supervise the huge operation, which under Paulson's plan would be run out of the Treasury Department. He said Paulson seemed receptive to changes when he had discussed his ideas with him. "I have told him ... we need changes related to housing, we need to put the taxpayer first ahead of bondholders, shareholders," Schumer said on "Fox News Sunday." However, Republican lawmakers said that the Democratic efforts risks slowing down a measure that was urgently needed. "This would be the most serious financial crisis that the world has ever dealt with. It is not a time to be playing games," said House Republican Leader John Boehner. Paulson said in the interviews that he had been talking to other governments about the need for them to offer similar relief because the current financial crisis is global. He said that the nation's outdated regulatory system for financial markets must be overhauled but the first job is to get the most sweeping rescue package since the Great Depression passed by Congress in coming days. The proposal would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown