During last night's presidential debate (which he lost badly) Republican John McCain vowed that if elected he would order the U.S. Treasury Department to purchase "bad mortgages" to help people avoid foreclosure. It's an idea that deserves consideration.

According to Bloomberg News, the McCain campaign estimates that it would cost $300 billion, some of which would be diverted from the $700 billion rescue of Wall Street. The Arizona senator did not provide specifics during the debate. Democrat Barack Obama proposed a similar idea during a press conference last month, according to Bloomberg. These proposals raise many questions.

First of all, can the government afford to purchase both mortgages and mortgage-backed securities? How will the government determine who gets help? Many people bought homes they could not afford because of criminally lax lending standards at some banks. Others were hoodwinked by unscrupulous mortgage brokers into taking adjustable-rate mortgages when they qualified for cheaper fixed-rate 30-year loans. These individuals are the most deserving of the government's help. Officials should try and help other distressed mortgagers provided that they can afford their properties. Otherwise, they should be given assistance to find affordable housing.

Republican John McCain has failed to convince the majority of Americans that Barack Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal who lacks the intestinal fortitude to face our country's enemies. In a show of desperation, the Arizona Republican and his running-mate Sarah Palin are now trying to link Obama with former Weathermen leader William Ayers, even though the New York Times and other news organizations have pointed out that the two men knew each other casually. That's why tonight's debate in Nashville is critical.

McCain, who is favored by many investors, is facing some pretty daunting odds. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 49 percent of voters said they would vote for Obama compared with 43 percent for the Arizona senator. That's up from a two-point advantage two weeks ago and mirrors other polls, according to the Journal. To be fair, the survey does have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. Obama has wiped away McCain's lead with independent voters.

Investors should not underestimate the anger in the hearts of voters. The credit crisis has wiped out tens of billions of dollars in value to the retirement nest eggs of the American people. Most people don't understand why the government needed to extend a $700 billion lifeline to the financial services industry. They become even angrier when three former chief executives of American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG) blame one another like a bunch of two-year-olds for the firm's collapse. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping below 9,500 scares them even further.

It is against this backdrop we are holding this election. Obama has been able to convince voters, including this one, that he can deliver tax relief for the middle class. But Democrats should not rejoice quite yet. McCain excels at these town hall meetings. Moreover, some of Obama's support in polls comes from people who are too embarrassed to admit that they don't want to vote for an African-American candidate.

Americans crave leadership during these times of economic crisis. Since Wall Street has failed to provide, it's unfortunately up to our elected officials.

Much of the focus in tonight's vice presidential debate will be on whether Democrat Joe Biden or Republican Sarah Palin says anything stupid. Odds are fairly good that one or both of them will stick their foot in their mouths in front of millions of TV viewers.

Though I am a political junkie, I am hoping that tonight's festivities are gaffe-free. The economy is in such a horrible state that Democrats and Republicans have to raise above partisan politics. In particular, they need to do something to address the heart of the problem -- the millions of people facing foreclosure. Many of them are there because they purchased homes they could not afford. I have heard all of the talk of letting the market correct itself and of moral hazard. That's simply not good enough.

I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. government lacks the resources or the know-how to figure out which homeowners should be helped and which should be left on their own. Why is it so impossible for the U.S. Congress to include some relief in the $700 billion bailout to Wall Street for homeowners? Housing advocates and some bankruptcy judges are arguing that judges should have the power to change the terms of mortgage contracts for people who have sought protection from their creditors. That seems like a sensible idea to me.

Unfortunately, I am not expecting much substantive talk about the economy tonight. Palin, the governor of Alaska, is being kept away from the press after making a fool of herself in some recent interviews. The Tina Fey caricature of her as a loudmouth hick appears to be taking hold. Polls indicate that most Americans believe she is not qualified to be president. John McCain is the only one who seems to think otherwise.

Today, we are taking a break from politics as usual, and that's a good thing.

Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have called a truce in their increasingly nasty and bitter campaigns to honor the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks seven years ago (my, how time flies). They are both scheduled to address a forum on public service being held in New York City, which will be covered by the cable news networks.

It is appropriate that the campaigns call off their attack dogs on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Heck, this would have been a good idea anyway, even if 9-11 never happened. The campaign rhetoric has been at a boiling point. For instance, Obama had to defend himself against charges that he was using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to insult McCain's running-mate Sarah Palin. I don't think it was sexist and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann pointed out that McCain used the same phrase to attack Hillary Clinton.

The cold war between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and the unions is heating up again.

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the world's largest retailer had warned employees that a Democratic president would back the Employee Free Choice Act, a law that would make it easier for unions to organize workers, which the company opposes. The paper now is saying that the union groups have asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate the matter, which they claim violates federal law.

Of course, this is a brilliant public relations move by the unions. First of all, the FEC is as toothless as some Wal-Mart greeters. Even if the FEC finds that Wal-Mart broke the law, the worst that the company will get is a slap -- make that a tickle -- on the wrist. That may not even happen until well into an Obama administration, which brings up my next point.

Why is Wal-Mart set to pick a fight with the Democrats? Don't the folks in Bentonville read the political tea leaves? Odds are pretty good that the country will go Blue in a big way. Maybe the company is worried that the good times reflected in today's results won't last.

The Oracle of Omaha is shining a light on the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

According to media reports, Warren Buffett is participating with Obama in a meeting about the economy along with Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) Chairman Eric Schmidt, former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers and former Labor Secretary Bob Reich, according to CNBC. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) co-chairman, and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker also will be at the meeting of the wisemen tomorrow. Buffett will be participating via telephone hook-up.

There is plenty to talk about given the current state of the economy and the housing market which the International Monetary Fund says shows no signs of recovery. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, is clearly signaling not to expect much from the meeting.

``I expect some further fine-tuning of short-term policies based on what's happened over the last several months,'' Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg News.

What that means is not clear. It should surprise no one that Buffett is backing Obama. The investor has been critical of President Bush's economic policies including the repeal of the estate tax which he said would be a "terrible mistake." But that doesn't mean he agrees with all of Obama's policies either.

As CNBC notes, Buffett supported Hillary Clinton while she was running for president and disagrees with Obama's call to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and his decision to forgo public financing of his campaign. I guess the Omaha investor considers Obama to be a significant improvement over Republican John McCain.

Interesting how the greatest investor in history who Republicans tout as a champion of capitalism is as big of a Democrat as Barbra Streisand.

The United States, the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, will be getting a run for its money from China in the decades to come. According to a report by Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, China's economy will surpass the U.S. by 2035 and will be twice its size by the middle of the century.

The thought of the U.S. not being number one is mind blowing, but not surprising. China's growth rate during this decade has averaged more than 10% and is still going strong even amid a global economic slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese exports to the U.S. exceeded imports by about $75 billion between January and April. Chinese exports probably were not slowed much by the recent devastating earthquake that killed more than 69,000 probably did little to slow China's economy.

Not surprisingly, talk of protectionism seems to be on the rise in the U.S. One foolish member of Congress has proposed slapping new tariffs on Chinese goods to punish the country for currency manipulation. Such a law would probably be struck down by the World Trade Organization. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, pledges to fight for a "a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs." He also wants to "amend" the North American Free Trade Agreement. Republican John McCain takes the opposite approach, vowing during his recent overseas trips to continue President Bush's free trade agenda.

Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain's plan to award a $300 million prize "for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars " raises many questions.

For one thing, what does he mean by "leapfrog?" Does the McCain car have to be 10?% better? 20% better? or 30% better? Will a marginal improvement suffice? Moreover, who is going to decide whether the goal is met? environmentalists? the automakers? the government? These people can not agree on what we should do to reduce air pollution; I can't imagine the fights that will occur over what constitutes a technological "leap."

McCain wants the car to deliver a power source at 30% of the "current costs." Does that mean costs as of 2008 or whenever this wonder car is ready to be sold to consumers? How does he define "costs?" Is it the total cost of ownership or a reduction in the sticker price or something else entirely? Why limit it to batteries? What about hydrogen fuel cells whose only pollution is water vapor?

In a speech he delivered today, McCain pointed out that "right now we have a hodgepodge of incentives for the purchase of fuel-efficient cars." Indeed, purchasing a hybrid only makes economic sense for the most die-hard of tree huggers. But is the answer to skyrocketing gasoline price to be found in a contest? I am not so sure.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that Senator Barack Obama's bid for the presidency will be endorsed by three former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen: George W. Bush appointee William Donaldson, Clinton appointee Arthur Levitt, and Reagan appointee David Ruder.

First of all: how many of you plan to factor in the endorsement of former heads of the SEC into your pick for president? That's what I thought.

But it's still interesting. Reality aside, Levitt and Donaldson are generally viewed as having been strong pro-investor advocates, mainly because they were good at pretending to take strong action against Wall Street malfeasance. Of course Enron's accounting was approved under Levitt's tenure but hey, nobody's perfect, right?

I'm not even sure why Levitt, Ruder, and Donaldson feel like they should endorse presidential candidates. Nobody cares! Barbra Streisand endorsed Hillary Clinton, and that's what really matters.