As I said...a scheme wherein a joint resolution of Congress, without the president's signature, prevents the allocation of federal money that would otherwise be allocated were it not for the passage of that joint resolution, would be unconstitutional under the Chadha decision, at least as I read it.

At any rate, just read the relevant section of the bailout bill, section 115, in its entirety (not that it is an engrossing read).  

Section 115 describes in great detail the form the joint resolution will take, how, if the House and the Senate are adjourned, they will be convened, how the debate will be structured on the joint resolution, etc.  

Then, towards the end of section 115, you will get to subsection 4 which specifically, not surprisingly, contemplates the President's possible signature, possible veto, and how the debate in the Senate shall proceed after the veto.  Here is the language from subsection 4 which is dispostive of the debate we are having on this point:

(4)CONSIDERATION AFTER PASSAGE.-

(A)IN GENERAL.-If Congress passes a joint resolution, the period beginning on the date the President is presented with the joint resolution and ending on the date the President takes action with respect to the joint resolution shall be disregarded in computing the 15 calendar day period described in subsection (a)(3).

(B) VETOES.-If the President vetoes the joint resolution-

(i) the period beginning on the date the President vetoes the joint resolution and ending on the date the Congress receives the veto message with respect to the joint resolution shall be disregarded in computing the 15-calendar day period described in subsection (a)(3), and

(ii) debate on a veto message in the Senate under this section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority and the minority leaders or the their designees.

Thus, the situation is exactly as I have described it in the diary. Once this bailout bill is passed, in reality, the only way to stop the allocation of the second 350 billion dollars, would be to pass a joint resolution in both houses, have the president veto the bill as expected, then override that presidential veto with the requisite 2/3 vote in both the Senate and the House. (Good luck with that!)

As for the peculiar phrasing of the conflict of interest section, I firmly believe that the reason why the drafters wrote it this way (not prohibited now, indefinite delay until regulations come out, not required to prohibit once you issue regulations) is that they know (and I know as well), that Secretary Paulson could not function as the czar of this program IF conflict of interests were prohibited.  He has just far too many of them.  

Accordingly, conflicts of interest will not be precluded under this program as long as Paulson is at the helm. You can pretend otherwise if it will help you to sleep at night, but it just isn't the truth.

With respect to your first point, you believe that for the remaining $350 billion, Congress can exercise a legislative veto...without the president's signature. I don't think so. The Supreme Court has held that legislative vetoes are not constitutional. See, INS v. Chadha. Can you distinguish Chadha?  I see it as directly on point.

With respect to your second point, I do not think you have read section 108, or for that matter, what I wrote. Read the section. Do you notice that it does NOT require Paulson to actually (after the bill is passed) avoid, manage or prohibit conflicts of interest?  

Instead, section 108 requires Paulson, whenever Paulson finds it "practicable," to issue regulations. Which means...they will be here...when? T-r-u-s-t Paulson...

Moreover, assuming Paulson finds the time to issue such regulations within the next three months (don't hold your breath), section 108 could have required him to not only "address" or "manage" the many and varied conflicts of interest, but to prohibit them.

Duh, why did the authors make prohibition optional? Because that is what the taxpayers wanted? Look, the choice of "or" rather than "and" here was intentional, because...

Clearly, Paulson, the former chair of Goldman Sachs, is a walking land mine of conflicts of interest in the financial sector. Paulson's theoretical conflict of interest regulations will never issue, but you can always dream I suppose.  

On the third point, I see your point...the term "surrender" here has a warrant-specific meaning. I wasn't exactly clear about the meaning of "surrender," and that is why I simply "noted" this point in the long analysis...rather than putting it on the list of flaws.

With apologies for the length of the analysis.

But hey, it seems like somebody should read the entire bill (which I have), provide the American people with the actual language of the bill, and thereby let them know what the bill actually does.

This took a bit of work.:)

As to your first point, I think your analysis is misleading.  You are suggesting a simplified binary owning/disowning template when, in fact, I think Obama has been more intelligent (and complex) than that.  As I see it, Obama seeks to understand the roots of people's anger/disenfranchisement/racism...then find ways to turn these toward the better, to resolve these positively.  Interestingly, Obama (half black/half white/raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii) has a personal background which suggests a certain amount of experience with these issues.

So...contrary to what you seem to imply, Obama stated in his Philadelphia speech that he strongly disagreed with the isolated inflammatory words taken from a handful (of thousands) of Reverend Wright sermons.  Obama also stated that while he understood the anger that certain segments of the African American community felt, he did NOT think that anger was the way to resolve the problems that afflict the African American community.  Instead, Obama indicated that he favored a far more positive approach...one which he has outlined in considerable complexity on the campaign trail for well over a year now.  

Thus, Obama did not "own" or "disown" anybody.  Obama acknowledged (bravely) the existence of something uncomfortable, sought to understand its roots and origins, then expressed his desire to do things to turn it around.  Better schools, a government that people can believe in again, an honest president, a president who shows concern for the issues of the middle class and the working poor...Obama's list from the campaign trail would go on and on...

Similarly, Obama seeks to understand those who have animosity/anger/fear directed toward the African American community. Obama bravely acknowledges the fact that this does exist (Obama has called his campaign "improbable"), seeks to understand its roots and origins, then expresses his desire to do things to turn it around.  Again, better schools, a government that people can believe in again, an honest president, a president who shows concern for the issues of the middle class and the working poor...Obama's list from the campaign trail would go on and on....

Bottom line: a President Obama wants to work with ALL AMERICANS to help them to get PAST their animosity and anger, to take them to a better place, to help them be part of a better country where ALL people can prosper together.  Will that solve all the problems?  No way.  But it will, in his words, take us toward a more perfect union.

With respect to explicitly confronting and describing the use/misuse of wedge issues to the electorate...or ignoring them and hoping they will not be used by your opposition...that is a bit of a tough call.  Back in 1992, candidate Bill Clinton...with perhaps some success...made the decision to explicitly confront and describe how Republicans scare poor white voters.

With respect to Mayhill Fowler (60+years old), who has donated money to Obama, Clinton and Fred Thompson (Yipes...kind of strange!)...she visited Pennsylvania for the first time in her life as she followed Obama around recently.  She had a very unique (and undoubtedly, in her opinion, insightful) response to her very first visit to Pennsylvania...mentioning what she perceived to be the good, the bad and the ugly.  She then projected her "sense" of Pennsylvania onto Obama, and, thereafter, dissected his every word to see if she could determine whether his sense of Pennsylvania matched her own (hubris?). All in all, it was a strange exercise (not exactly the stuff of Walter Cronkite, but hey, she is entitled to blog her impressions.)

Reading her column again, and its somewhat facile and overly simplistic observations, my sense is that her column should have been a forgettable one...except that toward the end of it...she took an offhand quote, out of its full context to suggest that Obama did not perceive Pennsylvania as she did...and the Clinton and McCain campaigns, as well as Fox, and the right wing noise machine, decided they could twist this single statement, they could leverage it maximally, to their benefit.

Hillary Clinton, the candidate herself, should NOT have participated in the twisting.  But she did, and that is a shame.  That she, the candidate, participated in the twisting has diminished her in the eyes of many Democrats.  

Thank you for discussing the relevant points of inquiry!  

As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the analysis MUST focus on the electoral college...meaning state to state...with particular focus on the Latino electorate in the battleground states...the states that will decide the election.  I listed them earlier.

This diary (recommended?) wholly fails to even touch that question with a ten foot pole.  Accordingly, it is substantially misleading...except I suppose...to partisans disinterested in the truth...who feel it bolsters their feelings of support for their chosen candidate.

Rah...rah?  

C'mon people.  

I have long believed that Florida was going to be a longshot with either Hillary or Obama as our nominee.  (Looking at it today, perhaps Hillary has a 40% chance...and Obama a 38% chance.  McCain an old candidate? Florida likes that!)  Kerry lost Florida, and neither Hillary nor Obama are stronger as a candidate in Florida.

Michigan, on the other hand, will be well within reach with Obama as the nominee, and to a lesser extent, with Hillary as our nominee.  Have you noticed how the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Minnesota DO like Obama?  

Once the nominee is selected...prior to the convention as a result of one candidate conceding...both the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated as part of that concession.  Therefore, some of the sting will be taken out of the machincations that the Michigan legislature put their voters through.  

"Uncommitted" as an option on a primary ballot?  Oh brother.  That was an election in America? I hope not.

We probably agree on a great deal, but a few points, perhaps, of some disagreement...

I tend to look at DailyKOS in very utilitarian, brass tacks terms, as my comment above I think essentially indicated.  

So...for example, a person might want to use DailKOS to have fun (it can be), influence national political events (it does, at the margins, through user diaries and user comments), fundraise for your candidate (it works), get informed on politics, economics, etc (not all diaries are presidential horserace related) and organize progressive political campaigns (hey, a lot of progressive foot soldiers are there who could help your cause).

So, to suggest that the "tone, sentiment, and opinions were not representative of anything" strikes me as mistaken.  It suggests an unnecessarily limited view of what DailyKOS actually is.

As I see it, when Edwards dropped out, the bulk of the netroots (I would say 80%) coalesced behind Obama (who had previously generated serious and widespread reservations, particularly with respect to his incessant talk of bipartisanship).  That made it much more difficult for Clinton advocates in the netroots, and in particular, at DailyKOS.  Once the transition ended, and the dust cleared, the sides were not particularly evenly matched in terms of numbers.

As for the tone of many supporters comments...both here and at DailyKOS...I have stopped counting the number of Clinton and Obama supporters who post essentially "party destroying" diaries and comments. The number is quite high.  

I feel like taking away the matches...because you two camps are burning down the Democratic house.

The political cartoon is funny, yes, because it allows the reader to subconsciously draw upon his/her desire to find hypocrisy in ALL politicians, including Barack Obama (and if the cartoonist so desires it...even Hillary Clinton.)    

But...as a matter of reality, the cartoon is misleading.  It implies an equivalency between three hand-picked, separate and distinct media driven controversies, that to a greater or lesser extent had a racial dimension.  

In reality, each one of these was different, and as such, deserved to be handled differently...by our presidential candidates.  

It will be appreciated that every single day (perhaps every single minute), there is some racial "incident" or conflict that is being reported upon around the country.  We are a big country.  

Accordingly, under the logic of this cartoon, it would seem that consistency would require Obama (and Clinton who is dedicated to the cause of civil rights herself) should be speaking out about a racial incident every single minute of their waking day.  In reality, that is neither possible nor even desirable.

When either Obama or Clinton speaks out about problems in the African American community, and speaks out intelligently and thoughtfully as Obama did this week, the progressive thing to do is to praise it, not mock it.

So yes, this cartoon is funny. But, it is neither accurate nor progressive. That it has made it to the recommended list does not reflect well upon MyDD...or those who recommended it.  

Imagine how good MyDD would be IF the recommended list here consisted of thoughtful, intelligent, well-reasoned and well-argued articles?  

I bet the readership and the influence of MyDD would go up exponentially.  

By contrast, recommending this particular diary does not help us...or MyDD.  :(

I am guessing that every single person who has commented in this thread knows that the presidency is won, or lost, in the electoral college.  Winning the presidency is NOT about national percentages or national totals. Yet, that is what this analysis consists of...

A compelling analysis, a cogent analysis would examine the Hispanic votes in the swing states, the states that we can all agree will likely decide the 2008 election...states like Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Oregon, Iowa, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, New Mexico, Ohio and Florida. What percentage of the Hispanic vote must a Democrat get in order to win these states?

An admirably complex analysis would then have to recognize that there are, and have been, statistically significant differences between the voting behaviors of the Hispanic communities in each one of these states.

As much as the diarist and some who have commented in this thread might want to pretend that winning in 2008 is going to come down to the Hispanic vote in Texas and Arizona, the odds of that being relevant, sadly, are quite low. I do not believe that Hillary or Obama has more than a 10% chance of carrying either state.  Sorry.    

Look, we Democrats must always push for and support a 50 state strategy because that MUST be our long term strategy.  

However, for purposes of the 2008 presidential election, give me an analysis of Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, Oregon, Iowa, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, New Mexico, Ohio and Florida.

In your expert (?) and informed (with polls and studies?) opinion, what percentage of the Hispanic vote must a Democrat get in each one of THESE STATES...in order to win THESE STATES?  

Another interesting question...does Hillary actually have any chance of winning in Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, Montana and Nevada...even if she got 100% of the Hispanic vote that voted in 2004?

Catherine Crier's piece is excellent, insightful, and highly recommended. I agree with substantially all of it.

As for the notion that Fox News' sports anchor, Brian Kilmeade, walked off the set because of two straight hours of Obama bashing, I wish that were true, but that is NOT what really happened (despite what the HuffPo story suggests).  Watch the tape yourself.

That particular "moment" was obviously staged (eg planned ahead of time), and Kilmeade actually "fake walked off the set" to humorously show how "offended" he would be if somebody told him that he was "a typical sports guy."  

Look at the context, the shared, jocular laughter between all three, and the Sanka joke.  All underscore the fact that this was actually a staged joke.  But, again, watch the tape yourself and reach your own conclusion.  

On the other hand, Chris Wallace's statements WERE courageous (at least for FOX)...and correct.  

Interestingly, and this may surprise you, Wallace's actions were praised (grudgingly) in a front page diary at DailyKOS the other day.  (As was McCain...in a front page diary pertaining to his (former?) stance on immigration reform.)

As for the so called "strike" of Clinton supporters againstd DailyKos, IMHO, it was neither all good nor all bad.

Look, if you don't like posting at a particular political blog, then definitely leave, and find another one you DO like.  Not everyone SHOULD post at DailyKos.  It takes very thick skin to post there sometimes, and there are plenty of other competing political blogs that need, and deserve, your support.

In fact, if I were a Clinton supporter, I would have had a very hard time posting and commenting at DailyKos.  Evidence (polls etc.) strongly suggested that Clinton supporters at DailyKos were never more than 13% of the total audience.  

What that meant was that you were outnumbered there by at least 8 to 1. It is simply no fun to fight that many people who either dislike, or yes, hate your chosen candidate.

And every tenth one of your opponents likely said something that just seemed "out of bounds" to you.   That IS the nature of political blogs: the more people who visit and post, the more people there who will appear to "breaks the rules" of civility...at least as far you are concerned.  Smaller, more manageable blogs are more hospitable on this front.

On the other hand...at this moment in time...DailyKos does reach the largest audience of Democrats on the web.  If you really support your candidate with all your energy, you wouldn't want to write off all of these people. On this front, it is worth recalling that Obama was NOT NOT NOT (did I say NOT?) supported by a majority of the DailyKOS audience...until Edwards dropped out. So allegiences can, and do change at DailyKOS.

Morevoer, like it or not, DailyKos IS read by more political reporters and columnists in the MSM (who then spoon feed stories to America's lower information voters) than any other political site.  (My sense is that HuffPo is also in the top tier.)  For any political reporter or columnist, it would almost be professional negligence to not at least check DailyKOS once in awhile.  

So, if your goal in blogging happens to be influencing the news, and thereby influencing an election, DailyKos should be on your list of places to post your thoughts.

In addition, the DailyKos audience obviously opens its wallets for candidates, so if your candidate needs financial support, and you think you have a good pitch, then you should seriously consider pitching at DailyKOS.

Don't forget, tens of thousands of people obviously lurk in the shadows at DailyKOS...but never post or even answer a poll. You may think you fully "know" the DailyKOS audience, but, in fact, nobody fully knows it. The only thing you do know is that the audience is large, in the hundreds of thousands.  It is simply not smart for any Democratic candidate to fully write off, or fully anger, that audience.  

That statement by long time Clinton supporter and adviser Carville was NOT subject to interpretation.  It was clearly and intentionally incendiary, and gratuitously (really necessary James?) destructive of Democratic party comity.  Think before you speak Carville.

As for Bill Clinton's comment, I went back to the tape and watched it.  Considering the VFW context, and his obvious desire to pitch Hillary to this likely pro-McCain crowd, my sense of it was that Bill was actually trying to conflate the two of them...as patriots...for this crowd.  I do not think he intended (which is a state of mind question) to call into question Obama's patriotism.  The tape suggests (at least to my eyes) that he was not thinking about or talking about Obama when he made that comment. Sometimes a comment about the race is NOT about Obama.

Nevertheless, sadly, for better or worse, Clinton's comments were negligent, and can be criticized as such.  

He must realize that in the present media environment, such comments can readily, and predictably, be interpreted as dog whistle politics designed to call into question Obama's patriotism. Once the media decided to report Clinton's comments as such, the Obama campaign was more or less forced to say something strong, something designed to insure that seeming dog whistle statements like this are not uttered again by Clinton.  Sadly, anything less than that, (perhaps a comforting "We understand?") could well have been interpreted as weak-kneed by the media on the issue (yuck) of comparative patriotism. The Kerry experience in 2004 suggests the necessity of a very strong response on this issue.

Of course, as for negligent (but not intentionally bad) statements...Obama's comments regarding his grandmother's fears might well fall into this category.  Careful with your words Obama.

Time to self-edit your extemporaneous speeches a bit more. Get some sleep Bill, Hillary and Obama.  Replenish your internal editors.

I (first person) am not sure what you (second person) are saying here:  to whom are you referring?

Are you saying that Obama refers to himself as "he?"

Or, that Obama refers to himself as "Obama?"  

Consistently...as in every single day?

And what does this have to do with Obama's demeanor during Richardson's endorsement speech?

Richardson, (the son of William Blaine Richardson and María Luisa López-Collada Márquez) is more complex, politically, than being simply a Hispanic candidate.  

As of today (things can change rapidly) my top three choices for running mate for Obama include:
1...Clark (if and when Hillary drops out)
2...Richardson
3...Biden

Again, to the extent that this stuff even gets discussed in the MSM, it should help Obama a bit.  The Richardson endorsement should start the discussions in the media.

The challenge for someone who is receiving lengthy praise and heartelt support as Obama was in that setting is how to accept it without grinning like a schoolboy, or smiling like a robot, and thereby giving off an air of arrogance and superiority. Not that easy to do.

In my opinion, Obama more than met this challenge. He showed overall presidential seriousness and demeanor, clapped at appropriate times and smiled at appropriate times.  

Are you suggesting that Richardson did not win the majority of Hispanic voters in his own state when he ran for governor?  That is news to me.  Do you have a cite, or are you just making that up?

Actually, Richardson is quite good on the campaign trail. Have you seen him in person at campaign events...as I have?  Have you watched at least a dozen videos of his appearances on the trail...as I have?  (Do you remember how incredible he was at the DNC convention last winter when he blew away Clinton and Obama?) (At the announcement today, Richardson was incredible...amazing what some rest can do for our presidential candidates.)

As for formal forums and debates, I will grant you that those are not necessarily his strongest venues.

Lastly, I hope we can agree that CNN is less than 1% of what one means when one describes the MSM.  So, for example, very few newspapers are going to dedicate column inches to Richardson's clothes (?) and his beard.  Instead, those articles will remind the voters of his resume, and that resume is impressive.

Furthermore, every single story from this point on regarding Obama and the Latino vote, and Obama and possible foreign policy talent that he will bring to the presidency, WILL mention Richardson. That is just the way it works.