Interesting Times

So, really, what happened? Why did this bailout bill fail when it's clear so much is on the line? Simple: Today's Washington has transformed politics from the art of the possible to 5th period in Middle School.

Let's examine each of the players.

Barack Obama
You can love him or hate him, but the fact is, he's right most of the time. When John McCain called on him to drop everything and help lawmakers craft a deal, Obama cautioned that Presidential politics might not help the process. Turns out, he was right. Is he to blame for the bill not passing? Of course not. John McCain sounds like an irrational 7th grader, blaming the quiet kid for his F. Could Obama have been more helpful? Absolutely. He should have galvanized more Democratic support as the leader of his party. Did he seek political cover? Yes. But this is the way he plays politics. The fact is, his measured reponse to this crisis will be more helpful to him than McCain's flailing.

JOHN MCCAIN
Can Mac be blamed for killing this bill? No. Did he help the proceedings in any way? Doubtful. His camp says he garnered 61 GOP votes for the bill that weren't originally there. We'd like to get independent verification of that. On the other hand, McCain may have killed himself.
Starting with his repeated pronouncements that the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong', he showed a fatal misunderstanding of the situation. Then, his obviously diversionary 'Hail Mary' tactic to 'suspend' his campaign, actually put more focus on his shortcomings as a responsible economic steward. And the hits just kept on coming. He prematurely took credit for assuring passage of the bill yesterday. And when the bill failed, he inexplicably blamed Obama. Even though the Republicans couldn't muster the neccessary 45 votes to put the bill over the top! At some point, you have to have some shame.

House Democrats
We'll never know exactly what went on behind closed doors, but it seemed that the Dems did what they could to assure passage of the bill. They compromised on several issues that were important to them, such as bankruptcy relief for average Americans, to get this done. They also fought for safeguards that were important for the American people, like a return on investment provision that would make sure future profits would flow back into taxpayers pockets. They guaranteed 140 votes, which gave some of their members cover to vote 'no' on the bill. They delivered on those 140. Is it fun to work with Barney Frank if you're a Republican? Probably not. But Chris Dodd is a straight shooter and they tried to address as many GOP concerns as possible.

House Republicans
Obviously, most of the blame falls here. They reneged on their pledge to deliver 75 votes, which would have provided political cover for most of their members who were under constituent pressure to vote no. They ignored the enormity of the crisis in the face of stubborn ideology that was not germane to this bill. They also hid behind the lame excuse that Nancy Pelosi's speech forced them to vote no, putting the country on the brink of economic collapse. Back to middle school.

Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi had an historic opportunity to singlehandedly reverse the 'tone in Washington'. She failed miserably. While her speech can't be blamed for failure of passage, it was unneccessary. Period. And it was the exact wrong time to say 'Naa, naa, naa, naa.' Save it for after school. An epic lapse of leadership.

Secretary Paulson
A good money man perhaps, but politically tone deaf. You can't present a 2 1/2 page piece of legislation, the equivalent a writing a contract on a diner napkin, that gives you unfettered power
over $700 billion. And then you absolutely can't fight the peoples' representatives on the issue of executive compensation. That started things off on the wrong foot and they never fully recovered.

The Bill
It was a flawed bill, no doubt. Hastily conceived and written. Other alternatives should have been given more consideration. But it's hard to create an emergency piece of legislation that has been thoroughly vetted and edited.

The American People
We live in a representative republic, not in a true democracy. We rely on elected officials who represent us to make governance decisions that are in our best interests. We supposedly elect these officials because they show an ability to work with others, to understand complex issues and to make calm, sound judgements. We also vote for them because their governing philosophy aligns with ours. This system was devised by the Founding Fathers because the average citizen cannot have the comprehensive grasp of issues and mechanisms that come with governing a complex country. This financial crisis is a perfect example. Most people cannot possibly know the intracies of credit default swaps, let alone the far reaching consequences of a credit crunch. Especially in this day and age, when the majority of Americans don't even read newspapers. So when constituents simplify this amazingly intricate situation into a Wall St. vs Main St. argument and threaten their congresspeople, it becomes the inmates running the asylum. I'm sorry, people, just because you trusted this Administration to take us to war in Iraq, and voted for the architect of that war twice, doesn't mean you can take out your frustration in a situation where action is really required and you don't have a clue about what's really going on.

That's harsh, I know. But at some point, a few adults are going to have to take responsabilibty for something.

Then, and only then will know what happened. And then maybe we can correct it.

It's On!

After Republican GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin went after Barack Obama in her well-received acceptance speech last night, one Democrat told George Stephanopolous, "It's on!"

Indeed it is. At least we're not hearing any Republican blather about "changing the tone in Washington". If McCain and Palin get elected, watch out. It'll be a Beltway Brawl.

The only observation that I have of Palin's speech that hasn't been touched upon, is that her presentation made think how remarkably similar to Barack Obama she really is. Not ideologically, of course; but in their ascension as the new vanguard of their respective parties.

Both started in politics improbably and at roughly the same time (1996). Both achieved popularity early on. Both had fortuitous circumstances catapault them to the national stage. They are roughly the same age, they are both physically attractive and they both can give a hell of a speech. They have both had to counter the 'lack of experience' tag. And they are both going to be the faces of their parties after this election, no matter who wins. Obviously, Palin has to make sure other skeletons don't keep revealing themselves, but if they don't, she and Obama could be going at each other for the next two decades.

On the other hand, there are major stylistic differences, as well.

While Obama and running mate Joe Biden have gone out of their way to be kind to Palin, she bought into the standard Veep playbook: defend your guy and tear into the other guy. And she did, like a pitbull. Her delivery was pitch perfect and her humor was effective. But, she also woke up the Obama campaign. You can bet that this fight will get ugly in the next 2 months.

The good news for McCain is that Sarah Palin has given him more than he ever could have hoped to this point. Even with the distraction of her daughter's pregnancy.

But now comes the hard part. First of all, McCain has to speak tonight. That event is implicitly anti-climactic. And his lame speaking style will be more pronounced after the success of Palin's speech. Second, now that surrogates have hammered the other side, he's got to show the positive vision for change that his campaign stands for. Third, the scrutiny over his running mate's record will intensify. Especially since even a cursory look exposes large gaps between her pithy words and the facts. Troopergate is also an issue that will continue to be a distraction.

So far, this convention has been a success for the Republicans, the weakness of the usual parade of older white guys notwithstanding. It has rallied the faithful, inserted some much needed enthusiasm into their presidential campaign, and unveiled a potential star for the party heading into the future.

The only downside is that Sarah Palin's thin resume has reverted the election to a referendum on change. Is this really a fight that the party with eight years in the White House and seven years of Congressional control, can win?

We'll see. But, make no mistake: it's on.

Is this the winning ticket and why? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.