Here's the statement from Rep. Mike Thompson explaining why he voted for the bailout package today after rejecting it on Monday. Both he and Rep. Lynn Woolsey were among those who voted for the bill today. The bill passed on a House vote of 263 to 171. President Bush quickly signed it into law about an hour ago.

Here's what Thompson had to say:

"In the last few days it's become clear that we must take action to restore a measure of confidence in our economy. You don't have to look any further than today's unemployment report, which showed our economy shedding more than 159,000 jobs in the last month. And unemployment in California is higher than at any point in the last 12 years. This just added to the growing pile of evidence that we can't afford to wait for the perfect piece of legislation. We have to do something to get our credit markets working again."

"This week I heard from people all across the district who are starting to feel the credit crunch in a real way. I heard from Dick Caletti at Standard Structures in Windsor. He was about to finalize a $10 million order from a Texas company until they got word this week that the project was stalled because of the credit crisis. There are fifty jobs tied to that one contract. Many more of our small businesses will be forced to lay off workers or wait on hiring new workers if they don't have access to credit."

"I've said from the beginning that we must pass regulatory reform to address the underlying causes of this crisis, and I've received written commitments from Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank that passing regulatory reform legislation will be at the top of our agenda moving forward and will stay there until we get it done."

"At the end of the day I had to set aside my outrage at all of the flawed policies, greed and incompetence that got us to this point and do what was best for our district and our country moving forward. I had to choose to either do nothing or vote for an imperfect rescue package. I voted for the bill because I believe it was the only option that we had available to begin to work our way out of this crisis. I would not have made this vote without commitments from Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Frank that Congress will address the needed regulatory adjustments to help protect the taxpayers and establish a safer financial system."

- Paul Gullixson

Closing thoughts: This was an energetic debate - more interesting than the first Obama-McCain debate. Both Sarah Palin and Joe Biden spoke in terms that connect with everyday Americans. Both used stories to connect with viewers.

Palin did what she needed to do. She held her own and didn't embarrass herself too much, although I believe she did mess up on the name of the NATO commander in Afghanistan. She called him McClellan when I believe his name is McKiernan.

Biden did what he needed to do. He came across as well-informed as well as gracious. He didn't brow-beat or embarrass Palin.

I doubt this will change many minds. But overall, I would give this one to Biden in terms of content. In terms of being personal and personable, I call it a tie.

What did you think?

- Paul Gullixson

Opening: Both are gracious in welcoming each other. Gov. Sarah Palin starts off looking nervous. But she is doing a better job of looking into the camera and speaking directly to viewers. Ronald Reagan was a master at that. So was Bill Clinton. Neither John McCain or Barack Obama did that very much during their debate. Biden hasn't looked at the camera yet.

6:15 p.m. Did Joe Biden just try to wink at moderator Gwen Ifill, when she changed the subject to tax policy? A pretty feeble attempt at playing Palin's winking game.

Meanwhile, Palin is holding her own. But she needs to tone down the folksy talk. When asked about the bailout, she answered by talking about going to a soccer game and asking other parents how they are doing. "I betcha you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice," she said.

Well, that's true. But what's that got to do with the bailout plan?

6:35 p.m. - I'm watching CNN. That graph showing the reactions of uncommitted Ohio voters is a little distracting, but it's interesting. Palin's numbers went up high when she talked about providing tax relief and when she said "Government is going to have to be more efficient."

The line also went up when Biden talked about how 95 percent of America's middle class will get a tax break under Obama's tax plan.

When asked how Obama and Biden would adjust their platforms based on the nation's economic crisis, Biden responded that they would need to scale back on their promise to double overseas funding. Palin said she and McCain would change nothing. Really? How about that pledge to balance the budget in four years?

Score that round for Biden.

6:45 p.m. Biden is starting to get animated when he talks about national security. Doing a much better job of looking at the camera. Ohio voters are responding favorable. I love that graph.

6:55 p.m. The topic has switched to Middle East. Biden is doing a much better job now. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they are in his wheelhouse. Palin is in over her head. When asked if the Bush administration's policies concerning the Middle East, she smiled and said "no." She then goes on to say "there's just too much finger-pointing." It strikes me that she is smiling too brightly for a discussion about a five-year war that has cost 4,000 American lives.

7:05 p.m. Biden strongly denies supporting McCain's plan on the Iraq War. Going into the war, he said, "John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said." Ouch. Palin really stumbled over her response and avoided the question about McCain's support of the war. "John McCain knows how to win a war," she says. "He knows what evil is . . ." What does that mean?

7:10 p.m. The CNN graph shows both scored well with Ohio undecideds on the "heartbeat away" answers. Both basically said they would continue Obama's/McCain's policies should they become president. Biden used it as an opportunity to talk about restoring the middle class, creating affordable health care and assuring a college education. Palin said something about supporting McCain's policies for helping middle America and getting government "out of the way."

7:20 p.m. Biden got a little choked up right there. Ohio voters liked it. They both were asked what their real Achilles' Heel is. Palin denied it was her inexperience. She said she would put her mayoral and small business "experience to good use." She said her strength is "my connection with the heartland of America." She then went on to talk about being the mother of a special needs child, of being the mother of a soldier in Iraq, etc.

Biden was asked if his Achilles' Heel was his "lack of discipline." He laughed. He said he wasn't going to change and then started rambling about Bosnia and other policies when he suddenly switched to being personal, "I know what it's like to be a single parent," he said. He talked about losing his wife and child. "I know what it's like to have a child who might not make it . . ." That's when he got a little emotional. The Ohio undecideds liked that personal side. I want to see a replay of that segment.

7: 30 p.m. In their closing remarks, Palin did a good job of being gracious and folksy. "We are going to fight for your freedoms." She said.

Biden, believe it or not, actually came across as more middle America. He talked about how in his town of Scranton, Penn when he was growing up it was "all about integrity and respect." He shared the story of when his father told him, "Champ, when you get knocked down, you've got to get up." He then said America needed to get up. A good ending.

I'll file another blog item wrapping up some of my thoughts.

- Paul Gullixson

We met with former Assistant District Attorney Greg Jacobs Thursday, and he told us that a group of retired Sonoma County workers are so angry about the county's recent decision to cut health benefits that they plan to take legal action.

They plan to sue the county, claiming that they had an implied contract that was breached and a "vested right" to health insurance. They may first seek a court injunction to stop the cuts from taking effect.

The retirees voted on the matter Tuesday night. Currently, they have 85 percent of their health insurance covered. But because those cost have soared, the Board of Supervisors recently voted unanimously to cut their benefits to a flat $500 a month. The supervisors say they had no choice. They needed to deal with a projected $450 million in unfunded retirement liabilities over the next 30 years.

The cuts apply to current managers as well. But there's one key difference that has the retirees upset. Managers will be given a $600-a-month differential, ostensibly to make up for the cut in health benefits. Retirees were once told that they would get the same benefits as current managers, but they aren't getting the $600.

"The board has been paying us the same as managers for 20 years," said Jacobs. But now there's this difference, and it really has retirees ticked off.

The retirees include many former top executives including former Auditor-Controller Tom Ford who have dealt with these kinds of issues for a long time. They say they're discouraged about how they've been treated and haven't been allowed to take part in exploring alternative solutions.

"I've never seen this much ill will between the county and the employees before," said Jacobs, who retired in 2005 after working for the county since 1974.

- Paul Gullixson

Are we heading back to square one?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said this afternoon that he will veto the budget deal that the state Legislature approved about 2 a.m. today.
He called the budget compromise irresponsible and criticized it for not containing the reform measures he demanded. Among other things, he wants a rainy day fund. "I say enough is enough," Schwarzenegger said. "California has been put through this roller coaster ride too many times." To see a transcript of the governor's news conference, click here.

But is he about to take the state for another ride? The budget deal is already 78 days late, forcing many organizations, such as the YWCA women's shelter in Santa Rosa, to the brink of closing for a lack of funds. Is prolonging the fight worth it?

Besides, the Legislature appears to have the votes it needs to override a veto. If an override occurs, will the governor end up looking like a hero or a goat - or something in between?
Following the governor's announcement, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata noted, in a prepared statement, "Frankly, a veto simply puts the governor in the starring role in California's financial disaster."
I don't think he meant that as a compliment.

- Paul Gullixson

The reaction I had to this morning's 9/11 events was one of frustration. How long are we going to stare at this hole in our lives? It's been seven years, and there's still a 16-acre hole in Manhattan - and in our national psyche.

Later today, President Bush will dedicate a memorial park in front of the Pentagon where 184 people perished seven years ago. It's a simple but important memorial, built largely with private donations. Just some benches, trees and small reflecting pools located just feet from where American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.

But we're still three years away from seeing a decent memorial at Ground Zero. Maybe 9/11/11, they say. As for Freedom Tower, although the cornerstone was laid in 2004 and foundation work began two years later, we're still years away from seeing that completed, due to a morass of cost issues, legal disputes, planning dysfunction and analysis paralysis. This strikes me as the biggest tragedy of all. What happened to that pledge to quickly fill the gap in the New York City skyline?

In our front page story this morning, we asked a group of high school students what they have learned since 9/11. I think the better question is, "What are we teaching them about how to recover and cope with catastrophe?"
Seven years later, that hole remains a trophy on al-Qaida's mantel. Let's fill the **** thing in.

- Paul Gullixson

So what's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?
"Lipstick," says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who then launched into a speech at the Republican National Convention tonight that made it clear she's not afraid of a good fight - and she's not afraid of a national stage.

You've got to give her credit. Despite being subjected to several days of blistering analysis and second-guessing concerning her background and inexperience, Palin, 44, was feisty, funny and, more than anything, very comfortable in her own skin - and in her new role as running mate for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. In fact, she seemed to enjoy her moment under the magnifying glass.

In introducing each member of her family, Palin also showed she isn't going to shy away from talking about her family issues - the subject of much discussion of late - or her level of experience. When discussing some of the reforms she made after assuming the role of governor in 2006, she noted, " . . . I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her."

She also got off some digs at the members of the media who have criticized her selection. "Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."

She even turned the tables and went after Democratic nominee Barack Obama for his lack of administrative experience. "We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state Senate."
She was effective in introducing herself to the nation, although she was less effective in terms of laying out her vision - and McCain's - for the nation and for the next four years.

Nonetheless, one had the feeling this was not the speech of someone who the GOP is going to let shrink away should McCain lose in November.
What did you think?

- Paul Gullixson

John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has shaken up the presidential campaign in more ways than anyone expected. None more so than Monday's announcement that Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant. Some think the disclosure will hurt McCain with values voters; others say it will create a stronger connection as many families have experienced similar situations, or at least thought about them. Asked his opinion, Democratic nominee Barack Obama said: "How a family deals with issues and teen-age children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics."

What do you think? Should this be an issue? Is there any reason for voters to consider it while deciding between McCain and Obama for president? And do you think it will have any impact on the outcome?

-- Jim Sweeney