For those who haven't heard Gawker (a company that runs several popular web sites) is cutting 60% of Valleywag's staff in anticipation of a recession (as well as making cuts across the board).  Here's the quote...

You can guess the reason for these brutal measures: the recession. Sure, the company is currently profitable and advertising sales are up by about 30% on their level of a year ago. Our biggest clients are consumer electronics and entertainment companies that are relatively well insulated. And, yes, this is not the first time I've predicted doom: in July 2006, when we "battened down the hatches" and closed down Sploid and Screenhead; and in April this year, when we spun off Idolator, Gridskipper and Wonkette.

This inspired two unique thoughts in my head both of which are represented below...

On Gawker's Suck-iness

I haven't worked that many places but one of my first jobs was as an on-site network technician.  In that job I'd usually spend a week or so setting up a network and then go back to visit every once in a while when problems arose.  That familiarity combined with not being a constant presence made me popular for conversation among many of the companies' staff.

Everyone seems to tell their secrets to the guy who isn't going to be around long enough to share them. 

Because of that I have a pretty good grasp of office dynamics and that makes me confident in saying Gawker probably isn't a terribly pleasant place to work.  In my experience, the difference between a good work place and a bad one is how the people in that workplace feel about each other.  You don't have to love each other or even like each other but you do need to work together and look out for each other. 

A good workplace is where everyone is part of the same team and realizes that they have the same goals.  Even if members of that team don't like each other they'll be content (if not happy) as long as their work is towards a common accomplishment.

What Mr. Denton shows with this move is that there is no team at Gawker.  Don't get me wrong, even solid teams have to fire someone every once in a while but teams don't abandon their members "in anticipation of bad times" they do it because they have to.  That, to me, is where Gawker fails. 

Gawker's business may or may not actually go down in the future.  It doesn't really matter.  What matters is that they were willing to make cuts without knowing one way or the other.  That shows just how little the company actually thinks of their employees.  A message not lost on the ones who weren't fired I suspect. 

On Tom's Suck-iness

The one (terribly insignificant) good thing to come out of this is it got me reflecting even further on what I said yesterday and made me even more dedicated to being the critical jerk that I am on this blog (at least a lot of the time).  Let me explain...

The important thing here is to realize that Nick Denton believes his business will go down so he's making cuts.  But by his own admission all the facts he currently has indicate his business is fine.  To me, this is not very clear thinking and is the perfect example of an opinion that could benefit from some serious criticism. 

I can't make this point enough: Clarity of thought is the most important value a person can have and anything that brings it about (even criticism) is a good thing.  More importantly, there are very serious consequences to not having it (like people losing their jobs).  If you remember nothing else I say remember this (which I stole from countless wiser men and just rephrased to make it sound like it was mine)...

We don't live in the world, we live in our heads.

What I mean is that we all color the world based on our emotions.  The reality you actually see and the one you have convinced yourself exists is almost never the same thing.  Because you are constantly being influenced by all your prejudices.  So it's a constant struggle for anyone to see what is actually there and not a mirage brought on by emotion. 

There's no value that's more important than seeing the truth.

A couple of posts back I got this comment from someone who reads the blog (at least off and on)...

Tom, I've been following you on and off for some time, and I gotta tell you, you come across as so self-righteous that you actually sound worse that Scoble. You're always shaking down others' trees, with your half snide comments, and you seem like the angry boy in the back of the classroom that the cool kids ignored in school. Why not try to do something positive with your blog? You're always the critic --but never the helper

It was a good comment and I appreciated it.  I responded with an obnoxiously long reply which I won't bore you with.  But I began said reply with this...

I can see where you are coming from to an extent but I honestly don’t think you’re being fair. Except for on the "always the critic" part which your spot on about and is something I've been concerned with myself and been trying to take steps to improve.

After having a few days to reflect on the subject I have to say I was wrong.

(for the record, I'm going to start trying to post more original thoughts which aren't responses to anyone else which is what I was referring to when I said I was "trying to take steps to improve."  That's not what I was wrong about)

To me there are two types of criticism, thoughtful and thoughtless.  Thoughtless criticism, like calling someone names, is a bad thing.  It contains no thought meaning that it's intent is to harm and not correct.  Like calling someone an idiot.  There's not value to that.  It's thoughtless.

But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say flat out, thoughtful criticism is never a negative thing.  NEVER. 

To make this point I'm going to turn to politics which is where people tend to disagree most strongly.  Think back to the last negative political criticism you heard.  Now, think back to the last time you heard someone who you don't agree with politically say something ridiculous and ask yourself "would it be negative to correct that person?"

That's my point!  We allow our emotions to color what we see as negative.  If we agree with the person doing the criticizing than they're "speaking the truth" but if we disagree with them they're "being negative."  But the context of what the person is actually saying is the same in both cases.

So I say again, thoughtful criticism is not a negative thing.  It leads to clarity of thought and if that isn't helpful I don't know what is.  If people who don't agree with you don't tell you as much you miss the benefit of their insight.  The comment that inspired this post was criticism of me and it provided me with several insights that are of untold value to me.

How could that be a negative thing?

On Another Note... In the comment quoted above there was also an accusation of self-righteousness that I addressed in my original response. After thinking on it a little longer I think what the author actually meant wasn’t self-righteousness but sanctimony (a.k.a. a level of piety that is both excessive and hypocritical).

So just to address that real quickly the truth is he may be right. The problem with diagnosing sanctimony, especially in one’s self, is that it’s an affliction born of excess. Not just in the level of piety but in the hypocrisy as well (since we’re all a little hypocritical when it comes to morality so “bad hypocrisy” would have to be at a level that exceeds “normal hypocrisy”).  So excess is notoriously hard to identify because it isn't a set quantity.

The only defense I could give would be to say this: Never on this blog have I claimed to be better than anyone else. I look at situations and I try to find the life lessons inherent in those situations, as much for myself as for anyone who might be reading the entry. The very entry this comment was in response to was one called “What lists teach us about ourselves” e.g. I was including myself in the group being instructed by my own observations.

Given that I personally think an accusation of sanctimony is unfair (while again admitting it is largely a judgment call). That said, I would like to make one observation…

I have observed that there are two types of people in life. Those who can never live up to their own expectations and those who are perfectly content with themselves on a moral level (aka they may think they need to lose a few pounds or work out more but they are content with the person that they are). I’m of the former group and this blog is an expression of that constant attempt to make myself better. But if you are of the latter group and tend to assume those around you are as well then I could see how some of the posts here would seem sanctimonious.

If that perceived sanctimony was/is upsetting to some I apologize (both for before and in advance because I’m obviously going to keep doing it)

I was watching the TV show "Mad Men" the other day.  The show is based in 1961 and in the episode there was a receptionist who couldn't find her boss.  She asked around and was told he sometimes goes to the movies during stressful days and that he'd probably be back in an hour or so. 

Keep that in mind when reading the following article entitled "Want to attract and retain Gen Y? Better rethink everything" from AZCentral.com...

Dubbed Generation Y, there's a festering love-hate relationship between employers and this group, which I happen to belong.

One the one hand, young workers are praised for their technological savvy, specialized training and passion. On the other, they're often crucified for their long lists of hiring demands, unconventional workplace conduct and lack of company loyalty

Author Russell Perry, himself 25, gives this suggestion to workplaces...

I would argue that more than money or gadgets, we want a challenge. And we want our professional and personal lives to co-exist without eight-hour blocks of segregation.

In order to appeal to us, employers need to rethink their rules a bit. Forget rigid 40-hour workweeks. Forget traditional company hierarchy.

Before going further a little full disclosure: I'm in the age group in question. 

That said, I specifically picked the two quotes above because I think they show the contradiction in what is being said.  In the first quote the author (rightfully) points out that many Generation Y employees are complete mercenaries ("long lists of hiring demands"), demonstrate poor workplace judgement ("unconventional workplace conduct") and have no loyalty to the company employing them.  Then, in the second quote he suggests employers give those people complete autonomy ("Forget 40-hour work weeks and traditional company hierarchy")

My counter argument would be this: That's completely insane.

You don't give complete autonomy to people who only care about themselves because they will, almost by definition, abuse it.  I started this post with a personal anecdote about a TV show based in the 60s and I asked that you keep it in mind while reading this post.  The reason for that was to demonstrate that even in the 60s Employees were given all the perks outlined in the above quoted article.

Its always been a good idea to give quality employees as much freedom as you can and good companies have always had a policy to do just that.   The only thing that has changed with "Generation Y" is that they demand such treatment even before they've proven themselves to be quality employees.  That's the problem. 

It's unfair to employers when potential employees walk in the door demanding to be treated with the trust and respect of those who have already proven themselves.  So far Generation Y has gotten away with that behavior because a good economy means more jobs than workers.  But given the current economic times you have to wonder how much longer that will be the case.

The UK's Guardian has a piece on Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project, in which he denounces Cloud Computing...

But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time.

"It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he told The Guardian.

"Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true."

The 55-year-old New Yorker said that computer users should be keen to keep their information in their own hands, rather than hand it over to a third party.

He's not wrong.  All the issues he outlines do exist.  But I think his view on things might be a little simplistic. 

Here's the thing, Cloud Computing is smart for people who don't have a huge need for computing resources.  It's a means of cost sharing dedicated hardware, knowledgeable staff, and all the other perks of a big IT infrastructure between several other businesses.  Which in turn makes it far cheaper than the other options available.  Its an equalizer for companies that can't afford a full time IT staff or a room full of servers. 

In that respect, I disagree with Mr. Stallman.  Or more accurately, I think he's right but I think the lock-in threat is outweighed by the benefits provided to small business.

As far as large business is concerned, it makes no earthly sense at all.  If you are doing enough business to be able to afford your own infrastructure and professional staff than you'd be a fool to use cloud computing as your primary system.  Because its a one to one correlation. 

If you can afford your own professional staff and infrastructure than Amazon can't undercut you unless they are cutting corners (not saying they are or would, just speaking hypothetically).  You have the same resources available to you as they have to them plus they need to make a continuous profit on top of that.  The only advantage they might have is a discount based on scale but there's no way an initial savings could make up for their profit margin over time.

With that said, there are obviously shades of gray here.  You might need slightly more storage space, or slightly more computing resources, or whatever.  Each situation is different and a dedicated IT person can make judgements accordingly. 

The bottom line is that Cloud Computing, like anything else, is just another tool for IT infrastructure.  No more, no less.  It isn't going to completely change the industry but it shouldn't be avoided completely either.  It's just another way of doing things. 

As a brief follow-up to my last economic post I wanted to point out a few economic indicators.

Again, I'm not saying these numbers are good or that the housing crisis isn't a serious issue.  But in comparison to what they could be these numbers aren't bad either. 

• The Dow closed at 11,143 on Sep. 26 (right before the crisis began).  It now stands at 10,859.  That's a 284 point drop which is bad but hardly a catastrophe (and with a bailout in limbo I don't think Wall Street could get more nervous than it is right now)
• Unemployment is 6.1% (keep in mind that includes a permanent unemployment rate of about 4% which includes Students, Housewives, and others who aren't seeking work)
• GDP Increased 3.3% in the 2nd quarter of '08
• The Consumer Price Index declined .1% in August (a good thing, increase means growing Inflation).  That's the first decline in 2 years.
• Retail Sales fell by .3% in August 2008

Again, the issue isn't "are the numbers good?", they aren't.  But are they terrible?  Are they catastrophic?  Are they the beginning of another great depression? 

No, they aren't. 

This isn't a good situation.  No one's saying it is.  We're almost certainly headed for a recession, I don't think anyone's denying that.  There will be job losses, there will be credit crunches and none of it's going to be pleasant.

But the sky is not falling and I think everyone needs to keep that in mind.

OK, this is getting a little out of hand.  Like bad financial news has a habit of doing, this crisis is being blown into way more than it actually is.  So just to put in my (informed) 2 cents...There is not going to be another Great Depression

Lets look at the major factors that caused the Great Depression in the first place...

1.  Stock Market Crash of 1929: Newsflash folks, the stock market hasn't crashed.  The news isn't going to get much worse than it is right now and the stock market, at worst, dipped (and the truth is it has recovered from all the previous dips making the end result almost nil thus far). 

Bottom Line: Not happening so far.

2.  Bank Failures: Guess What, this isn't happening either.  At least, not in the same way.  When banks failed in the 30s that meant your money disappeared with them.  That can't happen now.  We have things like FDIC insurance to prevent it.  Beyond that fact, it's important to remember that the largest banks (BofA, Wells Fargo, etc...) aren't close to going out of business.  In fact, they're doing well enough to buy out the banks that are failing.

Bottom Line: Not happening so far

3.  The Gold Standard: This is a vast over simplification, I'll admit it, but that said it's still true that the U.S. Government can essentially print more money in a crisis.  They couldn't do that in the 30s.  In the 30s we were tied to the Gold Standard which meant the government was tied to a fixed amount of currency to work with.  The Gold Standard has since been abandon by every single modern Government for just that reason.

Bottom Line: Not happening anymore, EVER!

4.  Inflation caused by an Economic Boom: Keep in mind the 20s was a time of an economic boom which meant prices were at an all time high.  When everything crashed the prices didn't automatically snap to fit which meant an economic disaster.  We haven't been in an economic boom for over a decade at this point and were in fact already seeing the beginnings of a recession when this economic crisis came to the forefront. 

Bottom Line: Not happening.

5.  Massive Wage Decline: They didn't even have a minimum wage in the 30s (it was introduced in 1938 as a response to the depression).  That meant that wages could decline to almost nothing.  So businesses in a crunch drove wages down to essentially nothing which completely eliminated 90% of spending and sent the economy into a tailspin.  That can't happen now.

Bottom Line: Not happening

6.  Europe in Chaos: People forget that Europe was ravaged by World War I which left it economically unstable.  That in turn deprived the U.S. of it's primary trading partner while at the same time causing European countries to default on loans given to them by U.S. banks.  Not only is Europe not in economic chaos right now but the U.S. has tons more trading partners (China, Japan, etc...)

Bottom Line: Not happening.

7. The Drought of the 1930s: In the 30s there was a combination of dust storms and drought (commonly referred to as the "Dust Bowl") which put tons of farms out of business.  At a time when the U.S. Economy was largely driven by farming this had disasterous results on the economy.  It closed down farms, drove more people into poverty and made food a scare resource to boot.  But now we have technology to prevent such an event from having a dramatic effect on our farms and even if it did we massively over produce food and subsidize farms so it wouldn't drive anyone out of business.  On top of all that it also needs to be mentioned that farming is not what drives the American economy anymore either.

Bottom Line: Not happening.

So you can see this is a completely different situation and it's far from the severity of the Great Depression.  I don't doubt we're headed for a recession but that's economic reality.  Recessions happen.  But recessions are only made worse by people over reacting to them.  When you have supposed "experts" claiming this minor dip invalidates American Economic Policy for the last 25 years you know everyone has lost their heads. 

From The Register's article entitled "Adobe cites bad blood for closed Flash"

Adobe Systems' Flash has long dominated PCs and the web, but the company has been under slowly mounting pressure to open source the player's source code.

This came to a head recently when Dion Almaer, co-founder of Ajaxian.com and Google's open web advocate, delivered a talk on the state of AJAX at Google Developer Day in London. I asked Almaer why Google makes little use of Adobe Systems' Flash, YouTube aside, and he gave a forthright answer.

Flash is not "open enough," he said, explaining that the Flash player is not open source and its development is not driven by the community. Google likes the technology, he added, and its closed-source status is a matter of ongoing discussion.

I am as pro-Open Source as a person can be but this type of thing bothers me. 

When Mr. Almer says Flash "isn't open enough" I wish someone had countered with "as opposed to what?"  Certainly not AJAX (Google's tool of choice).  It's not like you can make changes to what's going on in Javascript or change the way an XMLHttpRequest is executed. 

CSS 2 was feature complete in 1998 and browsers still don't implement it right.  CSS 3 has been in development for just about ever and doesn't appear close to being done much less implemented.  I guarantee, GUARANTEE Adobe would implement features requested by Google faster than the standards group behind CSS could get it approved and implemented into all the major browsers.

So how exactly is AJAX preferable to FLASH on the "Open Scale"?

I mean, the whole benefit of open source is the ability to add things when you need them.  If Flash, closed source as it is, can implement features faster than wouldn't it be the better solution?

The problem with this, and a lot of the openness talk, is that the solution has become separated from the problem being solved.  If you focus on the actual problem (getting new features implemented in a timely manner) Adobe's Flash wins hands down.  But people have become so obsessed with the word "Open" that they've forgotten why they wanted openness in the first place.

Yesterday Scoble released a list that I found interesting...

This is my hand-picked list of the people who provide the most interesting tech blogging/tweeting/FriendFeeding. All of these point to FriendFeed. If you know someone who deserves to be on this list, please post their FriendFeed URL. Mine is: http://friendfeed.com/scobleizer

Before going on, please allow me to deflect the most obvious criticism this post may receive...

"Your just mad because you aren't on the list!"

Uh....No.  I'm a very small fish in a very large pond.  I don't expect anyone to know me and, to be honest, the few times I've run into someone who did know me from this blog is scared the ^@$@ out of me. 

So If you mention my name to Scoble and his reaction isn't to squint his eyes and ask "You mean Tom Foremski?" than I'd be a little disappointed.  What's the point of being an A-Lister if you can't ignore people like me?

That being said, on to my point...

I read about 85% of the people on Scoble's list and I can tell you for a fact that the list represents a painfully one sided view of the world.  There are maybe 5 people on there that don't agree 100% with Scoble's world view and even those 5 probably score 75% to 85% agreement.  Anyone lower than that just isn't there.

Take someone like Drama 2.0 (who I know Scoble's aware of because he's commented on his blog several times in the past).  The guy's smart and he's a decent writer.  A little rough in his delivery but no more so than someone like Dave Winer or Chris Pirillo (both on the list).  But beyond that roughness I don't see any reason for him not to be there.  The list has several people who post the same kind of editorial content like John Furrier and Fred Wilson (and all three are favorites of mine so I would know).

The only difference is the opinion stated in that content.

Now some will ask "isn't it ok to not share a link to someone you disagree with?"  Well, to be blunt, No it isn't.  At least, not if you claim to be open minded.  Being open minded means embracing ideas you don't agree with and embracing those ideas means sharing them with others so that others can make up their own minds.  It means recognizing the validity of those who oppose your world view and caring enough about those you share information with to give them every valid point. 

What makes this important isn't that I believe Scoble is close minded it's that I honestly believe he doesn't know it.

People assume that open mindedness just comes.  That its easy and will happen naturally.  But nothing could be further from the truth.   Open mindedness means sitting through content that is often times so infuriating that it makes you grit your teeth and then forcing yourself to reflect on it until you can see what the other person is saying.  It's not easy, it's not fun, but it is a necessary step to avoiding closed mindedness.  That's why this is important.

Finally, for those who would say this isn't a "tech topic" I beg to differ.  The so-called "Web 2.0" revolution is about information and  becoming smarter and wiser based on that information.  I'd argue (and I'd be right) that you can have all the information in the world and it doesn't do you a bit of good unless you're open minded enough to look at all of it fairly.

Bottom Line: If you only listen to people just like you than you might as well not be listening at all.

Addendum: OK, to a certain extent doofus points for me because Scoble does specifically say that he's pointing to FriendFeed users and (as was pointed out in an e-mail to me) Drama 2.0 doesn't have a FriendFeed account.  That said, I was just using him as an example and if I were willing to dig through my Google Reader account I know there are others (with FriendFeed accounts) that make the same point.

I don't read Don Reisinger as a general rule.  I used to but his pieces just became more and more thoughtless.  I got to the point where I simply found them agitating.  A good example of that is this quote from his post entitled "Why iPhone developers should defect to Android"

But the main problem with developing for Android is that the hardware isn't uniform. Some Android-based phones will sport touch-screens, while others will not. That makes developing applications far more difficult, considering the possibility of dealing with a wide array of hardware. But then again, who cares? Rejected iPhone app developers can still create touch-screen Android apps and for those that don't have a touch-screen Android phone, well, they're out of luck.

But perhaps the most compelling reason why developers should defect to Android is because it will finally wake up Steve Jobs and company. Right now, I don't know why Apple should even care about all these developers crying about their beloved apps. The way I see it, they need Apple; Apple doesn't need them.

But if they defect to Android and the Android market becomes a real powerhouse, the whole game will change. Suddenly, Apple will need to take notice and realize the error of its ways.

Look, I haven't really commented on the new Android phone and there's a good reason for that.  It's irrelevant. 

Sure tech pundits will talk about it ad nauseam but the reality is this: The smallest cell phone network in the U.S. is releasing a phone built by a generic phone manufacturer that costs only $20 less than an iPhone and which is, according to every review so far, inferior to the iPhone. 

Looking realistically, I honestly don't understand how anyone can think this will be relevant in the broad market.

Sure you'll hear a lot of people say "but it's open and the iPhone's not" but to that I say "who cares?"  People don't buy a phone because it's an open platform.  In fact, people don't buy a phone based on available applications period.  They buy a phone for how good a phone it is (and more and more how good the built in applications are). 

Which is the biggest point: Cell. Phone platforms live and die on actual phone sales not available applications.

So even suggesting Developers should target Android over the iPhone right now is irresponsible.  It assumes that the number of developers moving over is somehow relevant and its simply not. 

Beyond that you're suggesting developers target a market of maybe, MAYBE a million Android phones vs 14 million iPhones plus who knows how many iPod Touchs (those are estimates through the year 2008).  It's foolishness.

So I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to feel compelled to make a few more of these process based political posts.  Again, I won't comment on the candidates, their views or my political opinions.  My interest is only in the strategic decisions and the lessons we all can learn from them. 

That said, this makes such a powerful point that I just couldn't pass it up. 

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain jolted the 2008 race Wednesday by saying he’d suspend his campaign and come to the Capitol to help pass a bill to rescue the nation’s financial sector.

He also called for a postponement of the debate with his Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama, set for Friday night.

First, lets look at what McCain hopes to accomplish.  For the non-cynical among you this might be hard to hear but McCain isn't actually trying to help the bailout bill.

Realistically speaking no one person is going to make that big a difference in a discussion and especially not one who is knee deep in a partisan political election.  His being at the bargaining table on this bill only makes the thing harder to pass. 

What he's trying to do is to set himself up to take credit for the bill.  The theory is that he makes a grand gesture (stopping his campaign) and rushes to Washington to presumably "help the process."  The bill then passes (because some form of it has to) and he gets credit for pushing the bailout through which would be great PR and would push him to victory in November.

The problem with that theory is that its contingent on every Democrat in congress being stupid enough to not realize what he's doing. 

Lets look at this situation realistically now.  The other people in congress aren't idiots (at least, not in regards to politics).  They all know what McCain is doing and the Democrats know they can't allow him to succeed.  They'd be handing him the election.  So by suspending his campaign McCain has basically torpedoed the bailout bill.  

It is literally a game of chicken because the Democratic majority in Congress does not want to give McCain a win and will stall for as long as it takes to prevent that from happening.

So what now happens is that they stall and this backfires on McCain.  Because with no bill passing he either has to (a) eat his words and return to campaigning or (b) not campaign for the last half of the election.  Since "(b)" isn't really an option McCain has basically set himself up for a guaranteed fall. 

The point of this post, which I feel is so important, is how badly you can screw up when you choose to underestimate your opponents.  McCain seems to think a bunch of career politicians won't realize he's playing politics and that's just stupid.  So stupid, that it very well might cost him the election and you can't screw up any worse than that. 

Addendum: To the people sending me this link, Please stop. 

It doesn't change anything.  The question I was addressing above was McCain's decision to suspend his campaign.  That decision was purely strategic.

The link indicates McCain was asked to "give political cover" to Republicans by endorsing the Bailout Bill.  That's something McCain could easily do on the campaign trail.  Endorsing the bill does not require McCain to suspend his campaign and is therefore not relevant to the strategic decision being made.

2nd Addendum: It's days like this that make it hard for me to ignore politics completely because the strategy and "one-upmanship" is so fascinating.  This morning McCain made this statement

"I'm an old Navy pilot and I know when a crisis calls for all hands on deck. I cannot carry on a campaign as though this dangerous situation had not occurred, or as though a solution were at hand, which it clearly is not."

No more than a few hours later Sen. Dodd, Democrat and head of the Senate Banking Committee, released a statement saying they'd reached an agreement on the "Fundamental Principles" of the bailout. 

That's hours before McCain got a chance to even have his meeting with the President (and is almost surely an attempt to make McCain look like an unnecessary reactionary).  Worse yet for McCain (and really suprising to me) was the quote from Bob Bennett (a Republican on the Banking Committee) who said "We focused on solving the problem rather than posturing politically."  That's a clear dig at McCain and I don't see any political strategy in it.  I think he was just annoyed at McCain for claiming their committee couldn't handle the situation (which is yet another reason why this was stupid on McCain's part)

Final Addendum: Sorry, I couldn't resist this one last update.  Apparently the bailout agreement is unraveling.  I'm sorry but this is just politics at its best.  Look at this from a political strategy angle.  The Democrats dealed so they could announce an agreement before McCain's big meeting (making his "campaign suspension" look like histrionics) and now they're pulling back after the meeting (making it look like McCain's intervention did more harm than good).  In addition to that McCain's still stalled so now he has to either skip the debate tomorrow (which everyone and their brother will now be watching) or eat his own words and resume his campaign with no bailout bill in place.  This is a disaster and McCain brought it all on himself.