No, it's not the economy

...leave Sarah Palin alone? ;-)

here. Upshot of the argument is that Lehman is not the lynchpin that BearStearns was, the market has had six months to sort out valuation and write down assets tied to Lehman so most other institutions are as protected as they can get and most of them will not be as damaged as it might appear, that letting Lehman go under and directing the same quantity of Fed assets (taxpayer money) towards saving the smaller institutions that need help down the road will spread the risk rather than concentrate it all in one place, an institution that may still go on to collapse even with Fed backing.

Think of it as 2% less disasterous, sort of like Obama. Still a big shitpile. However, nobody in Middle America understands one one-hundredth of all this so it likely won't affect their voting decisions by November 4. Hell, none of the supposed econ whizbangs have any clue at all about what is happening, much less what will happen; how is anyone average supposed to know?

When the soup lines start forming, maybe the Middle will pay attention. Meanwhile, Palin is American Idol meets Survivor meets E! and the Average Voter will just keep eating it up. Junk food junkies, put a little mustard on it, pop it in the microwave and serve smoking hot.

Brilliant, gq; deep too. Especially insightful to dismiss "the only difference" of support, one being from educated, sophisticated, open-minded liberals and the other from theocratic authoritarian delusional reactionary fools. Hardly worth considering, that; overly complex to be sure.

Thank you for commenting; your opinion is very important to me.

he could use this economic meltdown to destroy Republicanism AND conservatism. Simply point out that this is where deregulation leads.

But seeing as how he's not an actual Democrat and he never campaigns CONCRETELY on issues, he gets to pummel the gurrlllll once again.

"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge

much better than you (and way way better than I). Obama wants to cut taxes dramatically and expand and fight a war in Afghanistan while he back peddles on Iraq. You do know that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result?

It would have been easier to choose the 2% lesser of two evils had he not made a mad grab for Bush's power of The Imperial Presidency and mantle of the Teh War President v.2.0, flavor of dem. How much of Obama's $99M pre-primary war chest originated at Lehman, Merrill, and cohorts? Remember that it was actually a Democratic Congress that gave Bush his war powers and the Patriot Act without anyone ever even reading any of the large print, let alone the fine print. Yeah, yeah, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, yada yada. Assuming that Congress will be Democratic (can we still assume that?) at least McCain will have to fight for every little thing (one can only hope), whereas Obama will receive carte blanche from the very get go (lose all hope). That's the part I cannot countenance. He's more of rookie than Bush was (better speaker, probably smarter, and...?). But Palin, after a year of on the job will have everything that Obama has now, and more. Obama is the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and the Cowardly Lion all rolled into one. Palin is Dorothy.

As long as we're having fun here (I am, anyways), Rappaport is the Wizard with his smoke & mirrors, McCain is Auntie Em, and Donna Brazille is the Wicked Witch of the West. The Obots are the witch's (nastly, little) Winkie Guards, the media are the witch's (nastly little) Winged Monkey Warriors, and Hillary is Glenda the Good Witch. Howard Dean of course is Toto (yap yap), and Keith Olberman is Miss Elmira Gulch, the mean old lady (booooo). And I of course, am today's the worst person in the world.

but gq has lots to to say, too. And while I always enthusiastically read what you have to say, I happen to agree with him most of the time. But that's beside the point. You must type 210 words a minute (with a nasty spell checker) because, man, you truly can bring it on...like an 8 lb sledgehammer. But your authoritative mien sometimes shuts down discussion, rather than fostering it. The H in IMHO is probably the most important character in all the blogosphere. And your last comment was totally right on.

that anyone who disagrees with you is a cretin. And your expression of it is so strong, it masks any otherwise interesting or intelligent points you may have. Here's the structure of virtually all your posts:

1. You're stupid.
2. I'm brilliant.
3. If you don't recognize and abjectly worship premises 1 and 2, I won't deign to engage with you.

Sometimes there's other stuff in there, but it's not worth wading through the vitriol to get to it. Forget the fact that it's unpersuasive, it's neither logical nor fact-based.

I meant Axelrod, not Rappaport. Thnx.

but mean, too. Brilliant, angry. How about a conversation. Is everything a debate? How about mutual enlightenment. How about a desire to share a viewpoint and hear others' too, instead of a desire to be right All.The.Time. How about starting not with, "Yup," but with a stated or implied "This is what I think," rather than a stated or implied, "This is the Truth, and the Only Truth." My experience is this is a community of seekers and sharers. Maybe to you it's something else. Every time I or someone else comments here I expect that I or they will either be contradicted or confirmed or a new question will arise. A dialogue will ensue. You can disagree with someone without tearing them a new asshole. With that process I expect, I hope to learn. I'm am disappointed when a thread which interests me deeply ends before I am finished with it. But then again, more keep coming. But you can cause them to end prematurely. You can break the chain of civility required to sustain a mutually respectful dialogue. No one wants someone with your knowledge and insight to go away. But you know, just be a mensch, will ya? And you always require the last word. So, ok, go for it.

I stated explicity,

Obama is the exact same as you described Palin.

Here is how a certain someone described Palin in their post:

Meanwhile, Palin is American Idol meets Survivor meets E! and the Average Voter will just keep eating it up. Junk food junkies, put a little mustard on it, pop it in the microwave and serve smoking hot.

I didn't once mention policy, or personal characteristics because not being complex enough, I cannot deal with subtlety. I merely pointed out that Obama was the same when he was being paraded around but when the "creative" class (or educated folk) went head over heals for him it was seen as the most important thing in the history of US politics. Heck, a light shined through windows and these educated folk were getting epiphanies about good ol' Barack.

All I wanted to say, in my feeble mind, was that its absurd that Dems who fell for Obama are criticizing people falling for Palin. Even if you didn't fall for Obama, it comes across as arrogant (er, complex, er, adding substance to the debate, er [something else condescending]) doing it. I thought that was a pretty obvious point.

And for the record, I wouldn't waste my time on a personal vendetta. Too much energy. I thought debate was about getting different perspectives, not about vendettas.