I doubt most people here think the other guy would do anything different.

It was an interesting moment in the campaign, though - the candidates' reactions to the first bailout. McCain initially said he wouldn't support it, and reports from the closed-door meeting said Obama ended up screaming at him for it.

Yet in the end, McCain voted yes. What happened? Either the "tanks in the streets" warnings were so sobering McCain changed his mind, or his GOP bosses reminded him which side his bread was buttered on.

I have read that there are over 100,000 paid lobbyists in Washington and if true shows that it is worth paying 100k people to bend the laws in whatever way suits.

On finance I see that General Growth Properties (GGP) filed for Chapter 11, there are several other commercial real estate companies with similar over-leveraged positions that cannot afford the interest repayments. IMHO the GGP filing will reduce the "value" of commercial real estate (held as collateral??) and may lead to further pressures on commercial real estate companies.

r4ndom -

The only possible good thing that I can see coming out of this recent financial bailout debacle is that it has (finally) revealed who really owns the US government. The treasury secretary threatening Congress with tanks in the street speaks volume on who calls the shots. Whether this uncomfortable realization will eventually be transformed into real change is another question entirely. I suspect that most likely answer is that it won't.

Already, the political establishment is trying to exploit the situation. It is almost laughable seeing the various Republicans desperately trying to position themselves on the right side of the issue in hope of regaining Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012.

The situation will get more and more muddied, and the political establishment will resort to all sorts of stunts to distract the people from the unprecedented rip-off that has taken place. They desperately want to get this out of the news. A new armed conflict in the Middle East or another 9/11-scale terrorist incident would do wonders in that regard.

No, it would have been much the same under "the other guy". Both parties are totally corrupt. That - and not just the identity of whoever happens to be in the White House at the moment - is our real problem.

Do remember that Stiglitz is indeed an "equal opportunity critic". His analysis of the true cost of the Iraq war was a devastating condemnation of the Bush administration, and he had his run ins with the Clinton administration as well. Such non-partisan truth-tellers are quite rare in our country, and thus should be given as much attention as possible.

Well said r4ndom. I would go so far as to say hopelessly corrupted period. We do REALLY need change in Washington.

John McCain and Sara Palin would have been far, far worse.

McCain clearly did everything he could to change his previously strongly held positions to kow-tow to the rabid right ring of the Republican party. If he stayed true to the John McCain of the year 2000 campaign against shrub, he would have received much more serious consideration from moderates Republicans, Independents, and conservative Democrats.

President Obama is clearly very intelligent, well-spoken, is not afraid to admit mistakes and take responsibility, and is working on many problems at once and making progress undoing many of Shrub's bad policies and directives.

One of the many things he is tackling concurrently with the economy and numerous other issues is grabbing the bull by the horns and moving out on nuclear arms control with the Russians. It is hard for me to over-estimate how important this is. It is truly refreshing to have a leader who can explain complex issues in multiple paragraphs and appear extemporaneous, and who has the patience to listen to others and has the wisdom to show appropriate humility and leadership in foreign affairs.

Before some of you hate-Obama doomers accuse me of fan-boy-ism, rest assured that I do NOT think he is perfect, a messiah, is able to solve all the World's problems, or hasn't made mistakes.

If we wanted radical change then we as a nation would have voted for Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader. In order to have any hope of voting for someone besides a mainstream Republican or Democrat, then we need to replace plurality voting with either Range Voting or Concordance Votings...but that would take some effort by the lowest common denominators to first understand the mathematics behind voting systems, then to persistently advocate for change.

Until people take smart pills and grow some, then the corporations will be happy to offer us a choice between Coke and Pepsi and convince us that our choice will be decisive, then they will laugh all the way to the bank (again...and again...and again).

Palin did a wonderful job governing Alaska until she was tapped by McCain. I watched with horror as the bashing took over. Shame, shame, shame.
Palin was a phenominal governor for two years. She rose above Alaskan politics and terrified partisan politicans on both sides, and earned the respect of Alaskans. On the national scene, she did the same thing, both Republicans and Democrats were terrified of her as a "loose cannon". A "loose cannon" is what Washington needs.
Alas, she has now been captured by handlers and effectively lebotimized. She no longer effectively governs. Sigh.
r4ndom is right. Washington is hopelessly corrupted. Anyone who beleives otherwise is part of the problem.

Cold Camel