Are the good folks at the New York Times breaking ranks and actually criticizing a decision by president-elect Barack Obama?

Such seemed to be the case Tuesday when the Gray Lady published, on the front page of the business section no less, an article highly critical of proposed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Entitled "Where Was Geithner in Turmoil?", Andrew Ross Sorkin's piece actually pointed fingers at Obama's choice to head the Treasury department for his potential involvement in the nation's current financial crisis (emphasis added throughout):

For years NewsBusters and its affiliate the Business & Media Institute have agonized over the astounding economic ignorance of many press members who despite their lack of financial acumen have the gall to offer their unqualified opinions to the public.

No finer example of a media member who should understand her limitations and keep her mouth shut during economic discussions was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker Sunday morning who on ABC's "This Week" actually said that all the problems in the financial services industry would have magically disappeared if only the Bush administration would have bailed out individual homeowners.

Maybe more interesting was that she began her nonsensical accusation by saying, "I've never understood." As this was the most accurate statement she made concerning this matter, she should have stopped there.

Sadly, she didn't (video available here, relevant section at 11:33, file photo):

Gee, and I thought I might be pushing the envelope on September 28 when I expressed concern that the "bailout" with the made-up $700 billion price tag that turned into the pork-loaded "bailout" with the made-up $850 billion price tag "blackmail" (though "extortion" may be the more appropriate word).

It is clear that this is indeed the case, at least twice over. First, there were the threats made by the Treasury Secretary, the President, and the Fed Chairman warning of a banking Armageddon if Congress didn't pass the bill.

Now there's clear evidence, reported with stunning casualness by CNBC, that Paulson & Co. threatened the big banks in some way to force them to "accept" Uncle Sam's preferred equity investments:

As a result of the stock market collapse in the last four weeks, the economy has become the most important issue on the minds of voters.

Yet, as Barack Obama has clearly benefitted in the polls during this period, the media have refused to examine the records of the two presidential candidates as it pertains to policy proposals they have recommended or supported that might have averted this crisis.

Is this because John McCain has clearly been more out in front of this issue than Obama, and if the press actually did their job and told the American people this it might negatively impact the junior senator from Illinois's campaign?

Consider what McCain said during Tuesday's debate after being asked a question by Tom Brokaw concerning the condition of the economy (photo courtesy ABCNews.com):

The shock and awe of the financial market meltdown is just beginning according to CNBC star Jim Cramer.

Cramer on CNBC's Sept. 29 "Mad Money" cautioned viewers about the current market. His advice - do nothing because there's more pain to come if no rescue plan makes it out of Congress. As he put it: "sit on your hands."

"Only those stocks that are sure enough to pull the trigger on until we get to Dow 8,200 ... I said if the plan failed - only those you should be looking at - looking at," Cramer said. "Today's 777-point drop was just the beginning. Now is not the time to put your money at risk, it's the time to protect your nest egg."

Cramer recommended only stocks of companies that didn't need to borrow money in an environment with tough credit and sold products that would still be in demand during a bad economy - a very narrow spectrum of stocks. Otherwise, he told viewers to put their money in FDIC-insured banking accounts.

This is Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio):

Last Thursday, she was at a House committee meeting (HT QandO) and started asking this guy some questions:

The guy is Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The problem is, this is what she asked:

The Ohio Democrat, at a House of Representatives Budget Committee hearing, said she wanted to know what Wall Street firms were responsible for the securitization of subprime mortgages.

She then asked: "Seeing as how you were the former CEO of Goldman Sachs ..." But the only person testifying at the hearing interrupted.

"No, no, no, you're confusing me with the Treasury Secretary," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

♪♫ ♪ You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout I'm telling you why - Cramer Claus is coming to town ♪♫ ♪

Yes, that's right - CNBC "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer "Claus" appeared on NBC's December 19 "Today" to tell viewers Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was on his "naughty list."

"He is a guy that doesn't get regular coal - I'm giving him high-sulfur stinky coal," Cramer said. "He is in the end an academic who is over his head frankly. I hate to say that. He's a volunteer official who is trying to do his best. But he had his chance and he's lost it."