The good news in all the bad news lately for U.S. citizens, is that
the financial crisis hasn’t seriously hurt the economy yet. Which is
amazing. And the other good news for voters is that the two
presidential candidates haven’t launched an offensive blaming it all on
the other’s party.

That’s because there’s enough responsibility all around. There were
a few good and concise articles explaining this in the sea of more
unintelligible texts in the media, like this Wall Street Journal online rundown. And this New York Time’s piece.

To make the bailout palatable to the public, it is being
described as far better than inaction, which administration officials
and members of Congress say could imperil the retirement savings and
other investments of Americans who are anything but rich.

But it is a good bet that the negotiations between the
administration and Capitol Hill will include ideas about ways to help
middle-class homeowners avoid foreclosure and perhaps some limits on
pay for executives. And it should be noted that neither party is solely
responsible for whatever neglect led the country to the brink of
disaster.

Since both share some of the responsibility, both presidential candidates are being careful in reacting to the crisis and forming their economic strategy around current (drastically) changing conditions.

The deepening financial crisis and the shifting
government response to it have challenged both presidential candidates
for more than a week, as they struggled to react to a situation that
seemed to change each day. In the interviews, they gave some of their
most detailed views of the crisis to date.

Once they issued such measured words on the financial crisis, both
campaigns proceeded to release strong ads casting each other as
dangerous for America’s economy.

At last count, the two are spending $15 million a week in competing television ads in about seven key battleground states.