All of the above. I for one am glad they didn’t pass this bill. You think this is icky? We’re projected to go into next year already with a $500B deficit. Add $700B to that? $1.2 TRILLION. So, not only will we not have solved the fundamental problem, we’ll also have high interest rates and inflation thanks to the deficit. Opinions are running VERY high to not pass this thing, so thank goodness enough Congressmen on both sides of the house listened to their consitutents, grew some balls and told the highest members of government to stick it in their ear. - Liberals hate that it’s welfare for the rich. These clowns got paid 10s of $millions to get us into this mess - they can afford to eat while they work this out. Why not just take that money and increase the availability of credit to the small business and homeowners directly? Far less expensive and much more direct in solving the real problem. - Conservatives hate rewarding people for bad behavior, and making the taxpayers foot the bill. See aforementioned $1.2 trillion deficit. - Economists hate messing with the free market. These securities are impossible to price because they are worthless, which is WHY there is no market for them and the banks are spazzing to begin with! The “oversight” and “return” clauses are pretty much meaningless when you realize this fact. - Political scientists hate the power grab - a $700B slush fund buys a lot of friends.

I really hope this $700B trainwreck doesn’t pass! Everyone hates this thing - liberals, conservatives, economists, political scientists… What a mess.

Puh-leeze. A few clowns on Wall Street run up to Hank Paulson and try to sleaze a deal past Congress, who is in a hurry to get home for their recess. And they think the American people are so stupid they won’t see the $700B for what it is - a quick grab for the taxpayers’ pockets before the election. Whom will buying $700B in poorly priced, badly designed mortgage securities help? To paraphrase the current issue of The Economist: > Liberals hate the idea of giving welfare to the rich. Wouldn’t $700B send a lot of people to college for a science degree? > Conservatives hate the idea of protecting people from their own bad decisions. If traders bought these things and they turned out to be worthless, surprise! > Economists hate the idea of messing with free markets - if these instruments are worthless, so be it. > Political scientists see it as a power grab - a $700B blank check buys a lot of friends! This crazy bill cannot pass.

Amen, Beva… this needs its own topic. Have you read the latest Fortune? Good article on Paulson and his perspective on this whole thing - let’s hope the article is accurate and he lives up to what he is saying.

The woman who claims to be pro-life was bought for $1,250 so that more people could be killed by drunk drivers after hours. Guess the First Dude needed a new sled?

Well said… and interesting clip. Personally, even if she cared about women’s issues, I think she would be so grateful to have her position as VP, she’d be afraid to rock the boat. So they got someone they can use to rev up the evangelical base… and then ignore if they actually get elected if she has any ideas that don’t fit their priorities.

Anita Bryant. What would Anita Bryant’s name be if she married Moby Dick? Anita Dick. Geddit? LOLOLOL. No, I’m not 12, I just act that way.

The Michelle Obama one was a scream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lynn, you just melted my keyboard. That video was a hoot! So were the HRC nutcrackers.

Susan B… word.

I play on a google group called What Not To Wear Over 40 - we all met through watching the BBC America version of the show. It’s pretty fun, we take pictures of our outfits for each other to critique. http://groups.google.com/group/what-not-to-wear-over-40/topics?start= If you’re interested, come join us!

Fashion is important because it’s how our candidates communicate who they are with us… hence the stylists, image consultants, etc. They don’t leave anything to chance. Laura Bush is saying “yes, I am safe and motherly, so in choosing me as a mate, you can think of George W as fatherly.” Cindy McCain is saying “yes, I am wealthy and if you vote Republican, maybe you can be too since we won’t tax you too high.” Sarah Palin is saying “I am just like all of you, just a little prettier. Luckily, not much smarter so I can’t pull anything over you.”

Suzanne, this is amazing. Did you write this? EVERYONE SEND THIS TO EVERY MCCAIN/PALIN SUPPORTER YOU KNOW!

“With that reasoning, she should be the head of Nasa because Mount McKinley is also in her state and it is the highest peak in the US and puts her closest to outer space.” Barbara, high five!

Both sides need to stop with the double standard. Bill O’Reilly filleted the Spears for Jamie Lynn, then lauds the Palins for Bristol. Will Rush Limbaugh, who snarked on watching HRC get older in the White House point out that Sarah Palin will probably go through menopause during her term? Personally, I think it’s condescending to say “gosh, she ran the PTA so let her prove herself!” Okay, I’ve been to PTA meetings and I agree, some of those ladies would put Putin in a dress and make him serve tea to their dollies… but she needs to have already proven herself, out the gate. Are we going to be stuck with her slightly misinformed gaffes on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, interspersed with snide, homespun comments to the effect of “well, I can clean and dress a moose and can Obama do that to arugula? Do they even sell moose at Whole Foods?? Girlfriends, are you with me?!?” Sarah Palin represents the dumbing down of the GOP - gross oversimplifications, writing off those who see nuance as elitists, clinging to a small-town American fantasy that doesn’t exist. What’s going to be next out of her mouth…”Darfur? What for?? We have problems at home!!!”