Here is the "partisan" speech that allegedly so angered the Republicans that they decided to vote against the Paulson bailout after all. I can't decide which side is less ridiculous on this one. On the one hand, Barney Frank had a good comeback, when he said of the defecting Republicans something like, "So their feelings got hurt, and they took it out on the country?"

On the other hand, I can understand that if you had only very reluctantly signed on to this thing, and your constituents were contacting you against it 20-to-1 (latest numbers I've seen), that this speech by Pelosi would push you over the edge. Yes, it's true that the Republicans should have either voted for or against it based on whether they thought it would help or hurt the country. But if you push that logic all the way, it means Congressional debate doesn't really matter. I.e. there's really no sense in discussing whether Pelosi or anyone else is a good leader, if this speech doesn't prove that Pelosi is a bad leader.

P.S. Pelosi obviously doesn't know what a free market is, though she can't be blamed too much since Bush et al. claim they are big proponents of it.

P.P.S. Also note the when she is introduced, Pelosi is granted one minute. It looks like there is inflation on time as well, because she goes way way over.