DLS,
Yes, the Fannie-Freddie takeover is worthy of extensive commentary. I don't know that I could do it justice. And your interpretation of it re: money that could have been used to buy votes is silly. FNMA/FHMC date from the early 1970s, but they really have their origins in the 1934 Federal Housing Act. What FNMA/FHMC did was provide liquid to lenders by packing mortgage-backed securities and selling them; banks knew that Fannie/Freddie would buy their loans and they would have cash to keep lending.

The problem came with reckless lending practices that mixed up good with bad loans. As a result the MBSs were of dubious (or unknown) value.

This is, indeed, a very grave financial crisis. Bailing them out is akin to the FSLA bailout in the late 1980s. I wonder what the candidates have to say about it.

So many sandcastles, so little time. [sigh]

Iowa Electronic Markets has been my favorite staple for tracking (with graphs). It can be assumed that it is tilted leftish by college students*, who are leftish due to their youth and naivete, but it's still one of the best sources, along with Pew (who is left-tilted — only lefties would present four explanations for journalists changing their evaluation of the public's judgment in electing Clinton vs. electing Bush and put as the fourth explanation of the high rating after Clinton as elected and low when Bush was elected, that [liberal] journalists and editors resented the public's preference.)

Wait and see. Obama leads McCain. Will the blue and red “tracks” converge (or worse, for the children on this site, cross), or diverge?

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…

http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08…

Calm down, children. [sigh]

I'm susprised about and ashamed of, though not surprised about, the failure of this site (which means, of those running it) to be more than superficial and introduce the subject of the federal takeover (seizure!) of Fannie and Freddy. Now, they always have been federal entitles but now they're fully federal (no public-private distinction). This is failure, moral hazard, and a threat of more disaster to come. This leftist site is obscessed currently with a succesful, decent, normal, anti-PC female VP (and being scummy about her choice as VP; shows how patriotic as well as decent you AREN'T) and obscessed with superficiality and (“exaggerated”) triviality rather than look past your bent noses to the rest of what's currently happening.

(The bailout of these organizations is wrong. MORAL HAZARD. Yet it also ties up billions and billons that could be misused by Obama on social spending programs to buy the votes of those of those whose votes and souls are, and are cheaply, for sale. Ha, ha, ha.)

However, if SEnator Obama was really running a campaign of change instead of trying to appease every Democratic power block, he would be runnig away with the election and his policy positions would probably be less contradictory.

I know which one causes the most handwringing but I also know which one gives a clearer picture…

Pollster,com – “The Polls: The 2008 Presidential Election” has good 'state-by-state' and national poll data comparing most all polling organizations. Mouse over states for basic info or click for graph comparing different polls.

Otherwise, Gore would have won in a landslide. He was a wooden policy wonk- Bush was affable and familiar. Unfortunately, Americans vote their comfort level and not the issues.

We'll see where things are later this week when McCain's bounce fades.