I give Biden a solid B, versus a C-minus/D-plus to Palin; details at my blog with liveblogging summary. The "soccer mom/Jane Six-Pack" wore on me. Frankly, I think she's a brunette Gennifer Flowers with tattooed lip liner. Besides his "no maverick" riposte, smartly held in holster until the end, he had a better presence. I don't think his sigh at the one-hour mark will get held against him.

That said, per the title, he did tell one whopper, and that was on gay rights.

Joe, it's simply not true. If you (and Obama) oppose gay marriage, that's discrimination. Period.

And, then, the secondary lie? Sorry, but marriage is a civil and not a church institution.

There's all sorts of legal discrimination behind that, Joe, despite your sweet talk about hospital visits and such.

Maybe a minority president will change his tune (especially if California gay marriage rights survive the state constitutional amendment challenge Nov. 4), but I'm not too sanguine, to be honest. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Obama does anything to change don't ask, don't tell.

But, as an independent liberal to left-liberal, that, and the fact that they're not that much better than McCain-Palin on alt fuels with slightly less dirty coal and ethanol, is another reason I'm voting Green.

And, that's Green. Cynthia McKinney. NOT Ralph Nader.

First, with the tax breaks, per Schmuck Talk Express™, it’s festooned with various crapola that could piss off:
• The House GOP
• Blue Dog Dems
• Progressive Caucus-type Dems
• All of the above.

Plus, the FDIC deal is only temporary, and I’ve not heard how — if at all — that will be paid for. Here’s more of my take on it.

Second, some House Dems have been crafting something else.

The DeFazio plan is better, indeed, than the Paulson plan, but on things like the FDIC backstopping, it’s not that much better.

For people both inside and outside the Street, puhleeze. If you're over 35 you should, and over 40, you definitely should, remember — Black Monday from 1987. Sure, today had the biggest point drop in history, but in terms of percentage? Not even close. Today's drop was, in percentage terms less than 30 percent that of the historic 1987 crumbling. Get some more background on needed perspective at my blog, with this post: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-wall-street-bailout-perspective.html But, the Street was actually prepared for that, unlike today, when we haven't even heard a peep from NYSE CEO Duncan Niederauer. (Oh, and in terms of percentage points, besides Black Monday of 1987, we've had at least one other 20-percent drop. Also get more perspective on how this SHOULD play out legislatively, if more liberal Dems can "flip" the leadership... who should be asking questions, too... like about possible Paulson conflicts of interest. It's all here: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-wall-street-bailout-perspective.html And at other posts, about Paulson's possible conflict of interest in the AIG bailout and other things.

First, Boehner was looking for a reason to CYA. And he found it -- blame Pelosi's speech. That said, especially OPENING her speech that way, was Pelosi being political? Hell, yes. Where has THAT Pelosi been on impeachment, torture, Iraq, etc.? You know the answer -- AWOL. For more along these lines, visit this blog post: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-fallout-boehner-titty-baby.html

Given that Goldman Sachs was AIG’s largest trading partner and on the hooks to it for $20 mil, and a member of AIG's derivatives club, shouldn’t Congressional Dems start asking a bunch of last minute questions about how many other actual or potential conflicts of interest Paulson has?

As for a “bailout with teeth,” I suggest starting some fraud investigations, potentially leading to trials, against CEOs.

I’ll bet I could make a “conspiracy to commit fraud” case against the CEO of any company that deliberately marketed liar’s loans.