What happens when a President with a disapproval rating over 70%, and a Congress with a disapproval rating over 75%, get together and write legislation?  

You end up with an inexcusable, $700 billion dollar give-away to Wall Street, a badly drafted bill, riddled with massive loopholes, a bill polished up for public consumption to appear to do "x," when in fact, it does "y."  

And true to form, absolutely consistent with the public's overwhelmingly negative assessment of them, the much reviled President, and the leadership of the even more reviled Congress, proceed to sell this dog to the electorate through deception and fear.

Ahead, very likely, lies a political day of reckoning for all members of Congress who support this legislation.  If the early efforts at framing this bailout are any indication, that political day of reckoning could well make the political carnage of 1974, 1994 and 2006 look like child's play.

I write this diary to today to expose the misconceptions, and frankly, outright deceptions disseminated by the President, Congressional leaders, and the lapdog traditional media concerning this bailout bill. I want to do what curiously, inexplicably, very few in the traditional media have actually done: I want to walk the readers, and if I could, the American people, through the actual language of the bailout bill, the so-called Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bill and explain what the bailout bill actually says, and does.

The news today that Governor Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama for President was something of a surprise development.  In looking at some of the instant analysis that have greeted this endorsement, I have been somewhat surprised at just how much energy is being spent looking backward (if only Richardson had done this before Texas) and at the ephemeral political considerations of merely this single day (today's news cycle.)

As I see it, the Richardson endorsement is a game changer for Barack Obama going FORWARD. The Richardson endorsement is a gift that will keep on giving, today, and in each and every single remaining day of this campaign.  Why?  Three key reasons occur right off the bat:

Today's news tells us that Hillary Clinton has decided that the results from the improper Michigan primary should count. Wow, just wow.

Here are the two HUGE problems with her statement.

First, this puts Hillary in direct conflict with the existing ruling of the Democratic Party!  Is this the Democratic Party, or the Hillary Party?  

Look, I am okay with all three of our candidates, but what I am NOT okay with is John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton flipping the bird to MY Democratic Party. You have to respect the rules and the rulings of your party, or...well...there are no rules, and there really is no party. Howard Dean should call out and punish Hillary for this slam against the Democratic Party, and it should be today.

Second, this slam down of the Democratic Party is a blatant flip-flop from Hillary's previous very public statement about Michigan.

In October 2007, Hillary Clinton was asked in New Hampshire about the improper Michigan primary, and now I quote (emphasis added):

"It's clear, this election they're having IS NOT GOING TO COUNT FOR ANYTHING," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, 'The Exchange.'

What happened to this promise from Hillary? Was it convenient to say this in New Hampshire, and now, it is time to flip-flop?  

This news from Hillary is a real head scratcher for me. It deeply alienates those of us Democrats who have worked so hard within the party structure of the Democratic party, respecting its rulings (were we fools?) for years and years.

I am just astonished.  

Will Hillary say and do ANYTHING to win the nomination?

Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last 48 hours, you no doubt realize that we are in the middle of an epic battle in our nation's capital.  Heroes and villains are clashing. Sparks are flying.

On one side, we have Bush, Cheney, the Republican party, felons and corporate lobbyists. On the other side, we have patriots standing up for the rule of law, equal justice for all, and the Constitution.  

I am, of course, speaking of the bloody battle over whether to grant retroactive immunity to those corporations that chose to engage in felonious activities in violation of FISA.  (One company, QWEST, chose to obey federal law because...uhm...well...it's the law.)

There is growing evidence that hundreds, if not thousands, of federal felonies were committed by Bush, Cheney, and certain telephone companies, in violation of existing federal law (FISA).  Their solution? Bush, Cheney, Republicans and the corporate lobbyists are pushing for retroactive immunity (a get out of jail free card!) for all these crimes.  

And they have the audacity to try to push this through a Democratic controlled Congress!  Ha, ha, ha...right, not gonna happen.  THAT will never happen...er...uhm...will it?  

Well, it WAS happening today, and the battlefield is already bloodied. Some Democratic Senators are cowering and chosing to do the WRONG thing: they are fighting alongside Bush, Cheney and the felons!

The outcome of the battle is still uncertain.  The battle will continue to rage on, in the hours, and days ahead. It is time for everyone in the netroots to join this battle, and join it now.  We cannot allow this to happen. It is time for you to call your Senator to demand that retroactive immunity be stopped.  Click here, and call right now. Let the phones ring off the hook. Are you really going to let this happen?

Both Obama and Clinton support building more nuclear power plants in America. That is their record.

Can we please cut the baloney?  

Can we please stop inhaling their rhetorical smokescreens?  

The Nevada debate has just concluded.  As I saw it...the story coming out of the debate: four flashpoints.

1) More nuclear power plants and more nuclear waste? Which candidate is ACTUALLY committed to NOT creating more nuclear plants and more nuclear waste?

Look at the 2007 legislation cosponsored by both Obama and Clinton that would build more nukes, and Obama's vote for the 2005 energy bill...that WILL lead to 30-50 more plants.

What does Las Vegas want? The cosponsors of that 2007 bill? Which of the candidates will promise to repeal the pro-nuclear power provisions that Obama voted for...and are still on the books?  

2) Using Fear In Politics...Bush has done it...Is Hillary going to be more of the same?  She claims she is not playing politics with it. Do we want 4 more years of fear mongering?  Obama says no.

3) National Gun Registry...What do Obama and Clinton's positions mean? They want it?  Which means what politically?

4) Pakistan Crisis...who performed the best on this, on day one, back on December 27, 2007? The answer:  Edwards.

What will Edwards, Obama and Clinton bring to the potentially game changing debate in Nevada on January 15?  What will the Nevada media, and Nevada electorate, be discussing on January 16, 17 and 18?  And what will the voters in Nevada tell the country on January 19?  What message will they send?  No doubt, each one of the campaigns is carefully considering all of these questions, and planning accordingly.  

For purposes of this diary, I want to consider how John Edwards and the Edwards campaign can focus on winning the Nevada debate, determining the "conversation" that takes place between January 16-18, and ultimately, winning the Nevada caucuses on January 19.

Last night in Iowa, not surprisingly, Democrats substantially split their votes (nearly evenly) between three candidates: Obama (38%), Edwards (30%) and Clinton (29%).  

What is the truth about these results?