Expect the stock market to surge again today as the President and his economic team announces today a plan, coordinated with similar actions in Europe, to buy equity stakes in some of the nation's largest banks. The plan also includes an expansion of government insurance, all in an effort to break the logjam in the credit markets. It appears to be a bold, but not unprecedented, nationalization plan. While it may be temporary, and I hope and expect it will loosen the credit markets, I am a little concerned about the consequences.

One positive political consequence, if the markets continue to recover, is that it may blunt the momentum built up over the last week by Barack Obama and the Democrats. But, as of right now, that momentum shows no signs of slowing, as indicated by the RealClearPolitics Electoral Map, which now puts Colorado and Florida in the Obama column, just a day after Virginia moved Obama's way. This polling data has led to some op-ed speculation about just where we are headed.

David Brooks says we are headed for a new era of Big Government.

Jesse Jackson, in this interview with columnist Amir Taheri, says we can expect a new foreign policy, less influenced by the Israelis.

Former Clinton adviser Mark Penn says we can expect all sorts of social and economic changes due to the financial mess and the resultant political fallout.

Fred Barnes paints a worst case scenario.

Christopher Hitchens says recent events have led him to conclude that John McCain doesn't have the character or temperament to be President and that Sarah Palin is simply a disgrace.

I disagree with Mr. Hitchens (although I still credit him with being one of the few political Liberals to be right about the character deficiencies of Bill Clinton), but it doesn't matter. I have only one hope left, which is that McCain can make up enough ground in these last couple of weeks to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate. If the stock market can continue to rally, that may be enough. If not, then the Barnes scenario will come to pass and Peter Canellos may have it right in this piece...

The "New Deal coalition" that dominated American politics from Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932 until Ronald Reagan's in 1980 was the high-point of Democratic rule. Roosevelt governed with large Democratic majorities in Congress; John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter also worked with Congresses heavily weighted to the Democratic side.

But the New Deal coalition wasn't purely liberal. Southern Democrats provided the decisive margins in the House and the Senate, and most were unabashed conservatives. In fact, only during the height of the Depression and the tiny window between 1964 and 1966 were Democratic majorities large enough for liberalism to reign unfettered.

Now, with just three weeks until the 2008 election, Democrats are beginning to see the outlines of a majority more potent than those of the New Deal era, because it wouldn't require the support of Southern conservatives. They're Republicans now, and the Democrats running for their seats are more liberal.

A powerful, liberal government in Washington that doesn't need any conservative support. I guess the era of bipartisan politics will have to wait, again.