Punctures a hole in the argument that Obama's comment about "spreading the wealth" is outside the mainstream. Done with humor and logic

Takes an easy shot at McCain's absurd talking points

Snooty Brit picks and chooses his examples to claim Americans are unusually stupid.

Good reporting. The excerpts of Obama's stump speeches are better than the article itself, though.

I stopped reading at page 2. This is simply dreadful

Claims the Republican playbook is dead, but does not say why this is not just a temporary setback in a center-right nation

Insightful theory that many of the affluent voters who are for Obama are voting against the economic mess created during the Republican administration, but that this runs counter to their economic interests. Bases it on facts.

Lays out the Republican case against progressive policies. But does not acknowledge that it is Republican policies over the last 8 years that have led to this mess. That most deficits over the country's history have been during the last three Republican administrations. That post-war, the country has experienced more growth during Democratic rather than Republican administrations. So, ultimately, this article is an exercise in sloganeering than in persuasion.

This is a vacuous article -- the author snarks (on Obama and McCain: "Out of a nation of 300 million, this is the best we can do?") but fails to state persuasively what exactly it is about these men that he doesn't like. Or what it is about the current Tennessee governor that would make him a better candidate.

A very good article. One missing point: how much is the 0.4% is compared to typical market fluctuation. Is this very different from the Fed raising interest rates by 0.5%? Why not?

Why, oh why, aren't all news stories like this? The Economist has always set a high bar. On a crisis involving finance, economy and politics, this story doesn't disappoint. In a matter-of-fact tone, they lay out all the relevant details.

A polemic, but provides a lot of context. Points to history to explain why an unregulated free market will always be a bad idea.

More details and reasons would have been good.

Hack job, that convinces no one.

An interview that shows how intelligent questions to a well-briefed government official can throw light on a topic. Much better than mere sound-bites.

is someone being defensive?

Instead of just laying the facts, the journalist falls into the trap of being "even-handed" and ends up being mealy-mouthed. The article details the McCain campaign's "misstatements", from the fact that Palin was an early supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere to McCain's lies about Bush's record. Even says that the Obama campaign is calling the "L-word", but can not bring himself to call them lies. Just to prove he is even handed, he goes hunting for something that Obama mistates and ... More »

The story is good, but the story title is misleading. The story only shows that Freddie and Fannie collapsed when they tried to compete for marginal borrowers, not that Wall Street was the cause.

The sad thing is that FactCheck debunks McCain again and again. But he simply doubles down on his falsehoods.

The whole story rests on the premise that McCain is "a confident practioner of foreign policy" (who needed Lieberman whispering in his ear?) or that Obama maintains tight control on his advisors (Didn't Austan Goolsbee provide freelance advice to Canadians on NAFTA?). This story is just lazy speculation and full of opinionated phrases.