Harry Reid is, I think, the guy on the right (with the pecs). I'm not sure who the sinister guy behind Harry (the black robe, the skull) is. But whoever he is, he's the one running the show.

* * *

Hank's golfing buddies really need their trillion NOW NOW NOW! And the Asian markets need their trillion NOW NOW NOW! Latest from AP:

Sen. Harry Reid says congressional aides worked late into the night and he hopes for an agreement in principle by late Sunday. President Bush said in his radio address he hoped for a deal very soon and a key House negotiator, Rep. Barney Frank, has said he believes a deal can be in place by Sunday.

I wonder how many of those aides were really financial lobbyists. Anyone know? [And to my shame, I've misplacced the OpenSecrets link on financial* money by party] .

Anyhow, if you parse their words, there's still no legislation: "principles" and a "deal" do not legislation make. However:

Talks are resuming Saturday and Reid says there are about 15 issues lawmakers need to resolve. Reid hopes that if an agreement is reached Sunday, it won't take long to write the legislation and there could be a vote in the coming week.

And ditto parsing these words. And AP doesn't even mention the House backbenchers who scuttled the first deal on Friday. Are the Ds really so degraded that they'll hand Bush a trillion -- or even a third of a trillion -- without any cover from the Rs? I guess we'll see.

Since we have no detail on whatever it is that Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Frank + McCain + Obama are cooking up this time, it's impossible to predict the exact flavor and texture of the shit we will be forced to swallow, but here's Krugman's reaction:

The fundamental problem in the financial system is too little capital; bizarrely, the Treasury chose not to address that problem directly, by (say) purchasing preferred shares in financial institutions. Instead, the [Paulson] plan is premised on the belief that toxic mortgage-related waste is underpriced, and that the Treasury can recapitalize banks on the cheap by fixing the markets’ error.

The Dodd-Frank changes make the plan less awful, mainly by creating an equity stake. Essentially, this makes it possible for the plan to do the right thing through the back door: use toxic-waste purchases to acquire equity, and hence inject capital after all. Also, the oversight means that Treasury can be prevented from making the plan a pure gift to financial evildoers. But it’s still not a good plan.

On the other hand, there’s no prospect of enacting an actually good plan any time soon. Bush is still sitting in the White House; and anyway, selling voters on large-scale stock purchases would be tough, especially given the cynical attacks sure to come from the right. And the financial crisis is all too real.

So is it better to have no plan than a deeply flawed plan? If it was the original Paulson plan, no plan is better. Dodd-Frank-Paulson may just cross the line — let’s see what details we have if and when agreement is reached.

If the plan looks not-awful enough, I’ll be pro. But I won’t be cheering — I’ll be holding my nose.

Alas, for many, the sticking point is not nasal, but esophageal.

Looks to me like all the handwaving on a deal is just tinsel for the Asian markets' Monday opening. I guess it all comes down to the strategic behavior of the Masters of the Universe who have orchestrated this stickup. "Buy our toxic waste or we shoot this market!"

NOTE * Although, after this (wait for the charts) we should probably stop saying "financial industry," and start saying "broker/dealer complex."

UPDATE As Calculated Risk points out, Obama + McCain said it would vote for the bailout in the debate.

UPDATE Consensus seems to be near, says the Times, but with no detail different from earlier stories.

UPDATE Reid, just now:

He said he hoped for an announcement by 6 p.m. EDT Sunday, just hours before the Asian markets open again. "Everybody is waiting for this thing to tip a little bit too far," he said, so "we may not have another day."

NOW NOW NOW!

"This thing"? What thing? "This thing of ours"? Nobody, but nobody, has ever explained. I'm betting that's because of, er, "strategic behavior"...