<p>The media is making a big deal of McCain's proposal, from last night's debate, that the government buy up "bad mortgages" and renegotiate them for the new value of the homes so that people can pay their mortgages.  The media wants to call this a new idea.  To my ears, this sounds similar to Obama's suggestion, which Biden mentioned in the V.P. debate, to allow people to renegotiate their mortgage principal.
<p>So, is there are difference?  One possible difference I think I hear is that McCain's plan would have the government be the lender while Obama/Biden's plan would keep the mortgage in the private sector.  Another possible difference is that Obama/Biden's plan is only for bankruptcy?
<p>Also, under the bailout law just passed, doesn't the treasury secretary have the authority to buy any "financial instrument" he thinks will help, and wouldn't that include "bad mortgages"? 

I'm watching Letterman now and his interview with Obama is good.  A comedian is talking with Obama about issues (and biography) on the same day when the rest of the media is talking about lipstick and fake outrage.  Sure, Dave doesn't forget he's a comedian and still talks some about lipstick, but then it's on to a lengthy interview covering all sorts of stuff (though, it's late-night softball, not a hard-hitting interview)
The rest of the media seems to be having a meta-conversation about the media avoiding its responsibilities while avoiding its responsibilities.
And I have to say that Obama looks good here -- seems more comfortable than he did on Countdown last night.  Maybe having some "silly season" to talk about helps him find a groove?

In their latest ad (the original mavericks), the McCain campaign says "she stopped the bridge to nowhere". Nobody here will find it surprising that this is a lie, but I find it interesting that they tried to bring some credibility to the claim by quoting an Anchorage Daily News article from 12/27/07. Turns out, however, that article does not say she stopped the bridge to nowhere. Will the Obama campaign start calling McCain on this in a nationally-visible way?
Here's the relevant part of the article:

In her first year as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin raised taxes on the oil industry, pushed through ethics legislation amid a burgeoning corruption investigation of Alaska lawmakers, bucked her party’s old guard, and ordered her administration to seek fewer congressional earmarks after Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” became a national symbol of pork barrel spending. (from "Palin flies high as reformer" Anchorage Daily News, 12/27/07")

So Ms. Rice goes to the Grover Norquist meeting on March 26, where she is asked about her "political future."  She basically says she's wants to return home to CA.  No story there.  Basically gets ignored.
Now, republican strategist Dan Senor, on ABC's This Week, says she's "actively [...] campaigning for this".  And what evidence does he add to our non-story?  Nothing.  He only offers that she participated in a "ritual" by showing up to Norquist's meeting.  And yet, people are acting as if there is new evidence.
So, let me get this straight.  There's no "there" there ... until it shows up on ABC's Sunday show?  Is this how news works?  Why are we (or the media that "inform" us) so moldable?  
What am I missing?  Did he say more on the show than appears in the abcnews.com article about it?

I've seen lots of discussion about how best to deal with the Michigan situation, with a lot of focus on trying to be fair.
But what does fair mean? I think the fairness that matters most to getting Michiganders to vote Democratic in November is fair reflection of the will of the people. Without that, I think we could have serious problems. 
Of course, it's very hard to know the will of Michigan Democratic voters because the primary was so messed up. Some voters stayed home who would have voted under different circumstances. Some participated in the Republican contest. Some voted for Clinton because she was the only choice, while others did so because they really liked her candidacy. Some voted for Uncommitted because they wanted to vote for Obama, while others did so because they wanted to vote for Edwards. 
Given the current situation, I just don't see a way to fairly assess the true will of the people. Aside from public opinion polls with large margins of error, the closest data we have is from a seriously flawed primary. Obama's suggestion of a 50/50 split is fair in the sense of not playing favorites to one campaign or the other, but I'm not sure it represents the will of the people. I don't think a fair solution exists, so maybe this unfair one will have to do?

I don't agree with him on Richardson, but he has a good point about Leahy's call for Clinton to drop out.  On the Situation Room today, he said that Leahy isn't helping Obama with this call.  His argument was that it would be easy to interpret as a call for disenfranchisement.  You might not agree that it is such a call, but you can certainly understand a PA Clinton voter taking it that way.  I'm glad Obama has come out against such calls.
Carville also didn't seem upset about Dean's reasonable call for the supers to make sure the race doesn't end in a messy floor fight.  I'm glad to see James with some of his normal over-excitement removed.