"I think economics is important, however, perhaps there needs to be a new thread given the state of the global economy at the moment. I don't think the US elections is the sole driving factor behind the looming global recession somehow."

Amen!

No, unfortunately, although we will see up to a dozen possibilities on our ballots, and although we can write in anyone we please, one of these two tickets will win. Not much of a choice, eh?

That's why I've about decided to go for the one with a very likely chance of an experienced person at the helm rather than the one with an almost certain chance of an inexperienced one. I mean, while I fervently hope McCain doesn't die in office if elected, I wouldn't really want to vote for Obama in hopes that he WOULD die!

Trigger7, I think I agree with you. Sarah Palin is George Bush with lipstick.

Now Palin, who campaigned for office in Alaska promising transparency on government, is refusing to cooperate with an investigator looking into whether she abused her powers as governor. When first picked for the VP slot she had pledged her full cooperation.

Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator
By GENE JOHNSON

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won't speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner.

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation "remains tainted." He said he doesn't know whether Palin's husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation.

The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues — not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin's sister.

----------------------------------
----------------------------------

Why doesn't she cooperate so the matter can be put to rest? By not cooperating, it looks like she has something to hide.
She is running for VP, so there should be no questions lingering about her ethical behavior as governor.

I really don't think it is in McCain's interests to allow her not to testify. They are running as alleged "reformers",
but this makes Palin look "tainted" because she won't cooperate with an investigation into her own ethics.

Yes, a parliamentary system doesn't have quite the focus on either/or that the American system does. We always have the possibility of a minority government, which are often the type that pass the best laws, as they need some kind of consensus.

I have to admit I hate watching American politics, as it seems so polarized. And I try to tell myself, "Oh, don't get so upset, it's really none of your business". However, in the world we have, where, for instance, our fundamentally healthy economy may very well be pulled down the tubes by the collapse of the US economy, it's hard to pretend it's not our business too. We just don't have any say...

Honestly, this is one of the only refuges on the net for me just now.

I just looked into the 'meth lab' question about how during Sarah Palin's mayoral term, her area was tops for that evil stuff. It checks out. That means that during her watch up there in that small town, it was the worst for that aspect.
I wonder if the team that vetted Sarah Palin looked into this kind of stuff before they chose her, or did they neglect to think that this information is readily available? The report I saw on the problem was during her term and on the State website.

I get the distinct impression that she was chosen because she was so far from anyone whom you'd have guessed, and so far outside of the realm of Washington, that she countered McCain, yet, it all boils down to several unsavory stories were going on up there in the idyllic small town. I didn't want to dig dirt but wanted to look up the reference to this horrible scourge of a drug problem, existing in her area during her watch. She would have been in charge of local law enforcement. Maybe she has had more big city problems than we think!

But the way she portrayed her rootin tootin cowgirl mayoral role as proof of her leadership, I wasn't expecting to read this.

Agony, I really think it is a shame that politics is always the same old thing. I know in France, that people would vote for the opposite side to "punish" their party for not doing what they wanted, and shaking them up. It backfired on them every time.
I only wish that we could vote for the person whom we think represents our wishes.

I am still mulling over the big deal with Obama forcing a 'Stalinist' government on us. I hear it over and over out there in the right wing commentary like Rush Limbaugh et al, and yet, it does not ring true unless you say that it's the cult of personality. Sure Obama has one...when you consider how uninspiring McCain appeared to be up until now.

It's so polarized at the moment though, that if you say anything nice about candidate A, people rise up and snap at you, and tell you you're the duped puppet of so and so or such and such. There are so many people out there trying to act wise about all the implications of this that and the other thing, I wish we could take them at their face value. No wonder people would prefer to do the American Idol thing! It's probably more comforting than agonizing over whether Obama says this and means this then he must mean this instead. Or substitute McCain in that sentence.

I'm weary of it all but at least I get to make a choice pretty soon.

Alan Greenspan on the economy and McCain's tax cuts...

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States is mired in a "once-in-a century" financial crisis which is now more than likely to spark a recession, former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan said Sunday.

The talismanic ex-central banker said that the crisis was the worst he had seen in his career, still had a long way to go and would continue to effect home prices in the United States.

"First of all, let's recognize that this is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century type of event," Greenspan said on ABC's "This Week."

Asked whether the crisis, which has seen the US government step in to bail out mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, was the worst of his career, Greenspan replied "Oh, by far."

"There's no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I've seen, and it still is not resolved and it still has a way to go," Greenspan said.

"And indeed, it will continue to be a corrosive force until the price of homes in the United States stabilizes.

"That will induce a series of events around the globe which will stabilize the system."

Greenspan was also asked whether the United States had a greater-than 50 percent chance of escaping a recession.

"No, I think it's less than 50 percent.

"I can't believe we could have a once-in-a-century type of financial crisis without a significant impact on the real economy globally, and I think that indeed is what is in the process of occurring."
-------------------------------------------------
In an interview with Bloomberg Television Friday, Greenspan said the nation could not afford 3.3 trillion dollars of tax cuts proposed by McCain without matching cuts in spending.

Greenspan, a long-time friend of McCain and a Republican, said about the Arizona senator's plans to extend massive tax cuts imposed by President George W. Bush: "I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money."

McCain has said he would pay for his cuts by ending pet funding projects for US lawmakers' districts known as "earmarks."

---

-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Greenspan, who has been around a very long time, says the U.S. economy is in a "once-in-a-century financial crisis", but, only this morning, John McCain tells us the "fundamentals of the economy are strong". Well, McCain better wake up and smell the coffee because that's what Herbert Hoover said as the Great Depression loomed. McCain is out of touch.

Okay, Greenspan, a Republican, also says the nation can't afford McCain's 3.3 trillion of proposed tax cuts without matching cuts in spending.

McCain claims he can match his tax cuts by eliminating "earmarks"

So, how much can realistically be saved by eliminating "earmarks"?

Quote:

---

The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills, a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005.

How much of this $18.3 billion could be eliminated is a "difficult question that we have not yet figured out," said Taxpayers for Commonsense vice-president Steve Ellis. The figure includes such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting hundreds of construction projects around the country. Another big chunk goes to military construction, including housing for servicemen and their families, which McCain has also promised not to touch.

Bruce Riedl, a budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it might be possible to eliminate roughly half the expenditure on earmarks every year, i.e. around $9 billion, using the Taxpayers for Commonsense figures. He identified $5 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds, most of which goes to local governments, as a prime target for cuts. Even if earmarks were eliminated altogether, many other expenditures would have to be shifted to other parts of the budget.

Like other analysts, Riedl was mystified by McCain's argument that previous year's earmarks automatically become a "permanent part of the budget." "I don't understand how they come up with that," he told me.

Excluding those programs McCain has promised to preserve, the draconian slashing of earmark expenditures might save around $10 billion a year.

---

10 billion saved in "earmarks" does not match the 3.3 trillion in revenue the government would lose through John McCain's tax cuts. McCain either can't do math or he can't deal with the reality of the situation.

That's why John McCain's economic proposal does not make sense, and why it would further damage our already badly faltering economy.

Joe Biden very unfairly and inaccurately quoted John McCain out of context this morning regarding "the fundamentals of our economy being strong." McCain repeatedly praised American workers as "the fundamentals" and called for updated regulations on Wall St.

McCain acknowledged the economic crisis, offered words of support and hope, and pledged to end the casino atmosphere of the market.

Watch him here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5795545

Always be wary of one-line quotes in political campaigns. Obama did the same thing about McCain's crack about a yearly income of $5,000,000 being the boundary between rich and poor.

Palin is guilty of the same kind of trick, more so, I believe, than McCain.

There may be merit in cancelling various earmarked projects, that's something I know nothing about. However, it's probably not wise to count on this to free up lots of cash. If any of them have gotten as far as contracts being signed, the penalties for backing out of the deal can be substantial. Then add in legal costs, and the fact that you still will have to do *something* to take care of the original problem the project was supposed to deal with. Canadians are still getting bitten from a cancelled helicopter deal back in 1992.

I listened to McCain this morning too, but I think his referring to the American workers as being the "fundamentals of the economy" was an attempt to rationalize what he said yesterday, about the underlying fundamentals of the economy being strong. When people speak about the "underlying fundamentals of the economy" they are not talking about the workers--I know that, you know that, and McCain knows that. He was trying to cover his tracks and put some positive spin on a remark that suggested he was out of touch with reality. Biden really wasn't being unfair to McCain. The developments on Wall Street yesterday seemed to catch McCain off guard, as though it was somewhat of a surprise to him. He did not appear that distressed about an extremely distressing situation. He kept repeating the same few catch phrases over and over, sounding very much like an old man who cannot process information very quickly. That I found very distressing.

McCain's initial comment yesterday,about the fundamentals of the economy being strong, was clearly a feeble, somewhat automatic, reply to try to put a rosier picture on a continuing catastrophic turn of events. Why would he want to do that? Is denial appropriate? He then later began talking about a "crisis" and Palin began speaking out against government bail outs. Both of them missed the import of what was going on yesterday, or what is likely to follow, as well as what is actually happening, and the sort of things the government is actually doing.

The underlying fundamentals of this economy are not strong right now--that's the whole problem--and no one really knows what might happen next or how long this severe downturn might last. Expressing faith in the American worker, as McCain did this morning, is beside the point and absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

The American worker is suffering now, that's really the point about our workers. The unemployment rate is rising and fewer new jobs are being created. The recent fall of the brokerage houses alone leaves about 85,000 more unemployed and affects every restaurant and small business in the area of those firms, including the people with pushcarts who sell coffee, rolls, and hot dogs. Hewlett Packard is about to lay off another 25,000. So that's about 100,000 newly unemployed people in the blink of an eye. Unemployed workers obviously aren't paying income tax, so that source of revenue is also lost to the government, and the amount lost increases as the jobless rate climbs. And unemployed people cannot do much shopping to stimulate the economy.

Talk is cheap. Where is John McCain's concern for the American worker--particularly the unemployed American worker. Look at his record:

Quote:

---

In 1991, when the nation’s economy was in a severe recession, McCain voted against an appropriation of $6.4 billion to extend unemployment benefits for 20 weeks.

• In 1993 McCain opposed the extension of an emergency unemployment compensation program that aimed to extend benefits for displaced workers for three months.

• In 2001 McCain voted against legislation that would have provided enhanced unemployment benefits for workers who were laid off from their jobs as a result of reductions in air service due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

• In 2003 McCain voted against legislation that would have increased appropriations for unemployment insurance by $16.3 billion to enable benefits to be paid to people who had been unemployed for a long time and also to extend benefits to part-time and low-wage workers who lost their jobs.

• In 2003 McCain opposed an amendment that would have provided additional weeks of unemployment benefits for workers who were still out of work after six months.

• In 2004 McCain voted against a measure to extend unemployment benefits to workers who had to leave their job because of spousal abuse or other domestic violence.

Now that McCain is running for president he has voiced support for extending unemployment benefits. But he still declines to vote for them.

Today McCain sheds crocodile tears over those who have lost jobs as a result of Hurricane Gustav. Yet in 2005, when unemployment insurance was not on his list of his presidential concerns, McCain voted against extending unemployment benefits to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

---

We may have many more unemployed people, as the economy continues to contract, and it is fair to say, based on his long record, they cannot count on having any real support--and not just lip service--from John McCain as president.

As for Palin, rather gleefully proclaiming "no more government bail outs", suggesting, apparently, that people should suffer for their mistakes, including, apparently, quite innocent workers, consumers, and shareholders, but she neglected to mention why the feds had to engage in the recent bail outs, and why, realistically they might have to engage in more--simply to prevent a completely disasterous domino effect with tsunami-like "ripples" throughout the entire economy. In addition, the feds are continuing to pump money into these large brokerage firms, in the form of emergency loans and bridge loans, and, for the first time, the feds are accepting junk bonds and low quality bonds as backing for those loans--and this does put the money of taxpayers at risk. The feds have no choice--they cannot let the system collapse.

No one is suggesting the feds should continue bail outs when they don't absolutely have to, for one thing, the government doesn't have the money to do that, so it's rather a moot point. But Palin should not give voters the impression that the government is not continuing to put money into these large companies, teetering on the brink of collapse, because they are, and they have to continue doing some sort of rescue work.

The largest insurer in the country, AIG, is currently looking bankruptcy disaster in the eye--if AIG folds, it will seriously impact every other area of the economy in a dire way--and the government is trying to decide what to do as I write this. A bail out may be necessary. There is no private sector solution for AIG. Someone should tell Palin--and McCain--what is going on. I don't think either of them understand it. What will Palin say today if the feds bail out AIG? That she didn't know what she was talking about yesterday?

The real issue is where will the government continue to get the money necessary to shore up this economy? McCain has no answer to that. He clings to his notion of tax cuts, despite how unrealistic that is.

If one wants to talk about misleading campaign ads, or outright lies, the Republicans are doing much more of that than the Democrats. McCain accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergarten children was a complete lie--Obama wanted young children taught something about sexual predators, so they could do domething to avoid them. That's not sex ed, and McCain knows that. Even Karl Rove has said the Republicans are doing too much lying. Saying the other side may lie too, does not excuse what you are doing. Whatever happened to "straight talking" John McCain? He's not straight talking, and he's not addressing the real issues of the economy, he's just trying to scare people about Obama. That doesn't make him more appealing, it just leaves more people uncertain who to vote for, or whether to vote at all.

I personally think people should ignore all campaign ads and soundbites from stump speeches. They should read what these candidates actually propose, and they should watch the upcoming debates.

We keep asking for a new thread on the economy, but let this one keep going because this ticket (McCain/Palin) is trying desperately to find answers to our latest surprises.

Last I heard, McCain is proposing a commision to explore the reasons why the financial sector got themselves into this mess.

I will save the taxpayers money by offering this sub-topic....

BIG, STUPID CORPORATIONS...


...and if you want it moved elsewhere as its own thread, will do that too.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Every big corporation follows the lead of another corporation.

When the many home builders went in with bull dozers and leveled vacant land, and put up condos, homes and strip malls all over this land, nobody stopped to ask..."Who is going to live in them"?

Who can afford half million dollar dwellings when their jobs are all dangling on a string, and the very corporations doing the lending are also doing away with their employee's jobs.

With the contraction of families and the inability of one breadwinner to do it all, it stands to reason that most average Americans are stretched to the limit, and are looking for a soft, humble bed and living with their parents.

But the big, stupid corporations can't see beyond their spread sheets and flow charts, so they just allowed the contruction craze to keep going, and they in turn lent out money with abandon.

So, Mr. McCain, save us all the trouble, I just gave you the reason why the bubble came about, and why it was inevitable to blow up.

Now, the only question remaining is which corporations are still in relatively good shape, and which ones bought into this crap and are on the brink.

C'mon now, I always said there has to be more Enrons around.

Come out, come out wherever you are!

They deserve a lashing because they fatten up their top brass while eliminating working people.

Big, stupid corporations. Corporations that have been around for 158 years folding up while people are asked to believe.

Give me a break.

This country survived Enron, Black Monday, and the banking crisis of the 1980's and Early 1990's when they were closing their doors left and right on a daily basis. Pointing fingers gets you one thing, tired fingers. For every argument and lengthy article put up here, there is one to counter and give a completely polar view. I have avoided posting here today because of that. I am not closing my eyes and playing a Pollyanna role. I just tire of reading things I have already read countless times and hearing all the problems, yet no real solutions. I am not saying we here at FT are capable of coming up with solutions per se, but doom and gloom on a continual basis is not effective either. Just my 2 cents.

The latest press release out of the McCain camp is that Sarah Palin won't be cooperating with the Troopergate investigation because the investigation has become "tainted" by politics. I thought this deserved some comment from someone who has watched the Troopergate abuse of power probe very carefully from the start.

The investigation into whether Sarah Palin (along with her husband and multiple members of her staff) abused the power of her office to pursue a personal vendetta against Mike Wooten, an Alaska state trooper who had been involved in a messy divorce from the Governor's sister came about because of the firing of Walt Monegan, a well-respected Comissioner of Public Safety, who served as the head of the Alaska State Troopers. This firing wasn't done personally by the Governor herself, who was off promoting herself at a Governor's Convention in Philadelphia, but by an underling.

After an uproar about the firing for which no explanation was given, Palin, who campaigned for Governor here on a reform platform of an "open, transparent" administration, claimed that the firing occurred because she wanted to move the Department of Public Safety in a "new direction". The "new direction" she came up with largely consisted of trying to increase Trooper recruitment and increasing concentration on alcohol restriction in the Alaska Bush, which had both been parts of plans that Monegan had advocated, and were seen by very little as being anything new at all. She subsequently appointed another Commissioner of Public Safety, whose nomination she had to withdraw after it was discovered he had substantiated allegations of sexual harrassment filed against him.

Palin denied that Monegan's firing had anything to do with his refusal to fire Wooten for actions that occurred before Monegan's term as commissioner and actions that had already been investigated and punished. She also denied that anyone in her administration had played any role in attempts to pressure anyone to fire Wooten.

Palin lied, at least about the last part. There were discovered roughly two dozen recorded phone calls to various members of the Department of Public safety from various members of the Palin administration all with a focus on Wooten's continued employment. In one, Commissioner Frank Bailey is quoted as saying "Tod and Sarah are scratching their heads- why on earth hasn't this, why is this guy still representing the department?"
Palin claims that this (and the other two dozen) phone calls were made independently and without her knowledge or approval. Frank Bailey was subsequently placed on "paid administrative leave", but not fired.

The Judiciary Department of the Alaska State Senate (which includes 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats) in July voted unanimously that there was enough here to warrant investigation into abuse of Power and an independent investigator, Steve Branchflower, was hired to see whether that was the case.

After initially agreeing with full cooperation with the investigation, which began long before Sarah Palin was considered seriously as a Vice-Presidential candidate, the McCain/Palin camp are now refusing to cooperate at all with the investigation, claiming it is politically tainted.

This is hard to believe, as the Judiciary Committe voting for the investigation were overwhelmingly Republican. Nothing about the principals involved in the investigation has changed at all. It was only after the selection of Palin as McCain's VP pick that all the stonewalling began, with many members of the Palin administration being unwilling to be open and transparent, and talk to the investigators at all. This led to the committee's decision to issue subpoenas, a decision that that was 3-2, with two Democrats and one Republican voting aye and two Republicans voting no. Out of deference to Palin, a subpoena was not issued to her, but her husband Tod, who played a marked role in all of this, was.

To me, one of the greatest obligations that any public official has is to avoid using the power of governmental office to pursue a personal vendetta.
A wise elected official would not only avoid such a matter, but would avoid any sort of appearance of such a matter.
That Sarah Palin did not avoid the matter of Wooten, who has not received any other complaints except from the Palin family, speaks volumes about her inability to separate her personal aims from her obligations as a government official.

So we have this "reform candidate", who came to office promising to be "open and transparent", now refusing to speak to anyone other than selected members of the Press (and then only infrequently), refusing to cooperate with an investigation that was approved unanimously by both Republicans and Democrats of the Alaska Senate Juciciary Committee.

There's something seriously wrong with this picture. There are many things seriously wrong with Sarah Palin. They include lack of background in economics, law, foreign policy, along with no demonstrated interest in making Alaskan infrastructure, education, and healthcare better. Her lack of ability to discuss the facets of the Bush Doctrine speaks of a lack of interest in foreign policy as well.

She continues to tout her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, despite there being a well-distributed photo of her smiling while holding up a T-Shirt touting the bridge.

Sarah Palin is a liar, who like John Edwards, is attractive and smiles at you while lying. The Emperor has no clothes. And hopefully, there are enough
people who can see this before we elect
her into a position one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

And, as above, I almost always vote Republican. Not this time.

jordandog, I don't think there are any simple or easy solutions you will hear, from either of the two main candidates, and certainly not from anyone here at FT, on any major domestic or foreign policy issues.

The current domestic economic problems are closer to the Great Depression than they are akin to any of the economic events you listed, in terms of the intensity and consequences of these problems. We need leaders, and a president, who can find solutions that, hopefully, will prevent recession from growing more serious and will help to turn our economy around.

If our current situation is not entirely gloom and doom, it is certainly grim, and the end is not clearly in sight. I think the government has already recently pumped something like $70 billion into bailing out and rescuing the financial sector in the past few days, and they are nowhere near finished. In fact, tonight they just bailed out AIG insurance, with an $85 billion loan to help avert a global disaster if that company went bankrupt.

On the foreign policy front, we are mired in a very costly war in Iraq which has sapped the government's financial resouces and cost over 4,000 American lives. Our military is stretched thin. Clearly, most Americans are tired of the war and would like to see us out of there. There is no longer any such thing as "victory" or even "winning" in Iraq, and even Bush has recently avoided those words, instead more modestly talking about "progress". I personally think the war was a terrible, unjustified blunder, and I voiced those feelings, in FT Forums, before we ever launched the invasion.

But matters in Iraq must be brought to some resolution by the next president. Matters in Afghanistan and problems with Pakistan and Iran must be addressed. We have seen the failure of unilateral military approaches in the case of Iraq, and we have had an administration that appears to have sorely neglected the fine art of diplomacy, or international cooperation, in resolving problems . What approach or direction do we want the next president to take? Which of the candidates is more likely to take that approach?

George Bush has left a terrible mess for the next president to clean up, both in terms of the economy and our foreign policy. This is where all the fingers should be pointing, because his executive leadership has been terrible, and it is certainly where both candidates for president are pointing their fingers. Since the Senate and Congress were both controlled by the Republicans during 2000-2007 of Bush's term, the Republican party must also bear a good deal of the blame for where we are now.

Our country is deeply in debt--the highest debt in our history, and the debt continues to climb as the economic problems mount up. Bail-outs and rescue loans from the feds will continue, and they have to continue, at least in the short run. We must continue our military spending in Iraq, at least for the time being. Hurricanes and natural disasters are requiring current outlays of huge sums. The government is spending, spending, spending on all sides, while unemployment is growing, consumer spending is decreasing, the values of people's homes are declining, the cost of food is rising, the cost of healthcare is rising, the value of people's savings and 401k's and IRA's is shrinking, etc. and no clear end or relief is in sight--for either the average taxpayer or the government.

There is no way I can put a rosy picture on any of this. Nor do I view either presidential candidate as some sort of savior who will miraculously turn things around. However, I do see one candidate, and one party, as much more likely to benefit the country in the next four years--on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. For me it is Barack Obama and the Democratic party, and I base that feeling on the philosopical positions and the historical track record of Democratic presidents under circumstances similar to those which exist now, as well as on Obama's unique gifts and substantial abilities.

People talk about not trusting Obama, because he is somewhat of an unknown quantity, but I don't trust John McCain based on what I do know about him. I don't think he is like Bush, but his voting record suggests he will continue to support similar Republican policies, policies I feel have led us to where we are today--which is not a good place.

McCain is inconsistent and somewhat impulsive in his judgments. He has been a long-standing proponent of deregulation, but this morning suddenly began advocating regulation to deal with our current economic problems. I cannot trust such abrupt shifts in thinking. For months he has been saying, "the underlying fundamentals of the economy are strong"--despite all evidence to the contrary--suggesting he is out of touch with the reality of what is going on.

McCain's proposals to deal with our economic problems make no mathematic sense--they will cost more than the government can possibly gain in revenue, and they are approaches which have not benefited average Americans under past Republican presidents. In terms of foreign policy, I see him as inclined toward pursuing more military solutions, without sufficient regard for other options or international collaborations. I am frightened when I read that high ranking military men will not support him for president because they do not trust his temperament or his judgment.

And McCain's hasty choice of a manifestly unqualified running mate, a relatively inexperienced woman who appears to "rule" as governor of Alaska in an autocratic and slapshot manner, who shows little intellectual depth or understanding of issues, and who embodies the worst of George Bush's brazen qualities, tells me McCain might not make the best appointments once he is in office.

McCain is not a man I can trust to be our next president. I see him as a part of the problem that got us where we are today. I do not want Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency.

I did not support Obama in the primaries, I voted for Clinton. Obama just didn't excite me. He still doesn't excite me, as a personality. But his qualities of leadership ability, obvious intelligence and thoughtfulness, his grasp of nuances and complexities, his ability to be consistent without being stubborn, his depth of understanding of the issues, and his basic proposals and vision of where he would like to take this country, all excite me very much. He does have the qualities necessary to unite people and to help bridge deep partisan divides. That is what gets things done.

Although Obama's relative lack of experience had initially given me pause, after having listened to him, for at least a year, and read extensively about him, I do feel he does have more than enough experience, as well as the character, to be an absolutely outstanding president.

Obama is not that much more lacking in experience than John F. Kennedy was when he became president--young men just do not have very long resumes. In every situation he has been in in his adult life, Obama has distinguished himself admirably. As a graduate of Harvard Law School, and an editor of the Harvard Law Review, he could have written his own ticket in the corporate or legal world and opted to earn an enormous salary and live a very comfortable life in the private sector in the echelons of the powerfully wealthy and privileged. He did not do that, and I truly believe that his lifelong commitment to public service, and to the welfare of the average American, is about as sincere as I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Obama was right to oppose our invasion of Iraq. We did not have sufficient evidence that Saddam had WMD. Eighteen months ago he warned of an impeding economic crisis in the housing market because of problems with the sub-prime mortgage lending practices--and he predicted it would affect the overall economy. His judgement on crucial national matters has been very good.

And Obama is just enough of a Washington newcomer to be able to view that world with clear-eyed objectivity. That is the advantage of his not having been in Washington for decades. He does represent a new direction for our country, and not the same old politics as usual. I think he is an enormously gifted and talented man, with great personal integrity, who will give great thought to issues and listen with an open mind. Those are qualities I see as essential to a good president.

Without any hesitation, I will cast my vote for Obama in November.

People who feel they have no choices this year are very wrong. The entire political season, starting with the primary elections, has been very exciting. The two candidates for president represent clearly different political parties and different political philosophies, different generations, differing perspectives on how to address our problems, different personaities, and different styles of leadership. One of them will be our next president.

Forget the hype, ignore misleading campaign ads and all of the distracting, irrelevant side issues. Listen to the debates. Actually read the proposals of each candidate. Consider their backgrounds and the issues and interests they have supported in the past. No one candidate may be perfect, but one of them should emerge as a better choice for you. These two are not at all alike.

Latest news: Sarah Palin-appointed Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg (who interestingly is one of the people who made at least one of the two dozen phone calls on behalf of Sarah Palin to get her ex-brother-in-law fired) now says that none of the state employees subpoenaed by the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee will honor those subpoenas.

As above, the decision to investigate Palin's abuse of power was made unanimously by a mostly Republican committee. Now, the Attorney General will say they'll only testify if the whole Republican-controlled Senate or Legislature votes to compel their testimony.

Alaska Republicans are feeling pressure from the national Republican party to tow the line, stonewall, and avoid any investigation into impropriety on the Governor's part.

So much for open and transparent government. The lies go on.

With the U.S. economy possibly facing the greatest crisis since the Wall Street crash, whoever wins is in for a tough time!
I pretty well lost interest in the candidates after Hillary Clinton withdrew, but here's a light hearted sketch of the Presidential campaign

I like your description of Barack Obama, Chelseabelle.

If you were standing in front of me, I'd be giving you a standing ovation.

Your writing is superb.

However, we are merely unknowns hiding under ficticious names we created for ourselves.

In my case, it's actually the name of a small corporation I own stock in.

There may be a conflict of interest, so I might decide to change it.

However, my ficticious name says what I feel...open, free speech for all to see.

For a long time, I've been following the money trail.

When you equate this new financial mess of our nation's debt and the reeling corporations...as being akin the the Great depression...I have to differ.

The main reason is that during the Great Depression, not many individuals had money, and although there were people around then in high places that the general population wasn't privy to, I see where there are far more very wealthy entities around today that may be meeting in secret, planning world events, and creating havoc startegically, methodically and stealthily...so that ordinary working class people like ourselves get dooped into believing things are really bad.

The fact that for decades the C.E.O.'s and big stock holders have enjoyed much prosperity and are extremely wealthy...and that is cause for concern for the rest of the 99% of the world's population.

In McCain's own little world, he decides his fist wife wasn't going to get him very far, so he joins up with an heiress worth a few hundred mil., not very wealthy but definitely in a strong business seeing how many other businesses are fragile now.

How can even a McCain understand the woes of the rest of the working world?

By contrast, Obama/Biden are from humble beginnings, and we can relate to people like that, even though we will at times differ with them, which is healthy and they themselves welcome.

And the icing on the cake is Palin.

I mean, the girl is best on a runway than trying to pump us up...we who are often weary and dragging ourselves into our abodes after a long day of doing the dirty work.

No, not my cup of tea.

I know none of us will solve these numerous problems you've outlined in great detail (thanks!), but I do have ideas.

The old and stoggy corporations must be allowed to wither away, and the new and smaller corporations that offer many great products and services should be encouraged to grow.

This government has a direct hand with.

Reward the good citizen corporations. List them for all to see in publications. Explain how they are solid citizens of the world.

Do the same for the abusing corporations. Condemn them and fine them heavily.

And, find new ideas that get us off oil and onto better energy which will keep earth habitable for generations to come.

There has to be products still on drawing boards that will be beneficial to mankind.

The products of tomorrow should be within our reach now, as we see a turn-over among corporations, wiping out the old polluters, and bringing on the new sterling ones.

This transformation I propose will also render new jobs, and hopefully good jobs, to the masses now marching out of the financial houses now tumbling down.

That's my idea, for all it's worth.

I don't usually read posts that are so long and involved, but opentv, chelseabelle and some others, are really giving us a wealth of opinions here, and backing them up with facts.
Better than reading most of the News sites!
Last night I saw on TV, that the CEO of Merril Lynch was given a "Severance Package" of over 9 Million Dollars !
I think that most of the USA's Economic Woes are being caused by Corporate Greed.
How much more of this indecent exposure can your country handle, before your economy is totally down the tubes?
I hope that your next President can work some magic for you, because he has a long , hard road ahead of him.
My thoughts right now are with all of the people affected by blowing of the Hurricanes, and the sucking of the corporations.

Trigger, we need all the support we can get from the rest of the world.

Our new president will have to trascend all divides, unite the world as never before, and mend the inequities of the past.

Not an easy task.

God speed.

The U.S. is now in something like $9 trillion worth of debt. And it's growing.

I said in an earlier post that the government really has only two options to raise cash--to issue bonds and raise taxes.

Certainly, given the current economic convulsions, and the massive instability in the financial sector--and the massive infusion of cash by the government into this situation--it is clear the government needs more cash pronto.

Today, the Treasury hurriedly issued new bonds and bills for auction.

Do not believe McCain when he says he will not raise taxes.

Remember Papa Bush, when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes"--then he raised taxes.

The feds are going to have to continue to pour money into this economy for some time to come, and recovery appears a long way off.

Taxes must be raised--at some point in the not too distant future. At least Obama has pledged to spare the average taxpayer any additional tax burden, and to increase taxes only for big businesses, large corporations and the wealthy.

McCain devoutly believes in not taxing the wealthy and big business/corporations, he has always voted to protect them, so, if he was forced to raise taxes, does anyone believe McCain would spare the average taxpayer and shift a greater proportion of the tax burden to those who could more easily afford it?

Does anyone, who reads today's financial news, believe that McCain's plan to retain Bush's tax cuts is at all realistic or sensible?

What's happening in the financial sector right now is the direct result of the Republicans, including McCain, having allowed corporate greed to flourish unfettered. Now McCain, seems to be trying to pass the blame onto those very financial giants he worked to protect, and he claims he's the one to "reform" the situation. McCain for president? That's like having the fox guard the hen house.

"the fox guard the hen house".

Chelseabelle...just read what I am going to tell you, understand it, and then see what you think.

Everything you say I agree with, but I go a little further on your thoughts.

Did you ever hear of the name John Dorrance?

Do a search, and you'll see what I'm getting at.

He is the grandson of the founder of the Campbell Soup Company. That founder, together with a chemist, came up with condensed soup.

Sometime during the 1990's, I was watching my favorite show on P.B.S. (Nightly Business Report), and I heard that the grandson I mentioned decided to sell all his stock in Campbell's Soup, renounce his American citizenship, and depart for Ireland.

Today, he is reported as being the richest man in Ireland.

By renouncing his citizenship, he escaped paying taxes on his stock.

On that trading day, Campbells' Soup stock dropped about three points, to about $83.00 a share.

Today, it's much lower, about $35.00.

The story tells you how many rich folks would forget this patriotic stuff, and go elsewhere to escape paying income taxes.

The big national debt, close to 10 trillion dollars, has gone up almost double under G.W. Bush.

Now that they are dishing out money we don't have to corporations who avoided paying their fair share all along (and also eliminated many nice jobs to save, save, save), now they dump it all on the taxpayer.

This can't hold up much longer (agree with you totally). Something has to give.

Pst! (Shhh)...Hey folks, check out that cupie doll standing behind McCain.

Could that be...err...is that...I think it's Cindy McCain.

Must be she has a rubber neck, or something.

In New York they call ogling on the roads, rubber necking.

At least her neck constantly nods in approval of everything McCain says.

That's encouraging...I think I might vote for him.

This just in from Nebraska: a Republican addressing qualms about Palin's experience. Sounds like a sensible guy.


http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10435997


Edited to add link to the University Alumni bulletin and an article where Sarah Palin states that she wanted to work for ESPN but didn't want to move to Connecticut.
Gee, she's willing to move to DC now?
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jamm/news_and_events.htm

Don't get me wrong, I feel as though someone who has other qualifications could do the job, but I am not happy seeing education being denigrated in the press. I am saying that if her experience outweighed her education then maybe I'd consider this a serious option.
McCain is still a serious candidate despite the fact that he wasn't top in the class. He has held enough offices and worked for this consideration, despite what opinion I hold of him.
Obama's education is often reviled by the right in the press as being too much. I think his education is an advantage.
Just don't get me wrong, I don't think higher education is the end all be all thing here, I just think that someone in politics needs to have something compelling in terms of experience if their formal education does not look adequate to give them a bigger world view.
I don't think Palin's does.
This is not a reflection on the University of Idaho as much as it is, so what has the person done with their education? Have they used this knowledge to go one and learn more about the world? I'm not seeing that.