The only questions being how much, and from whom to whom. That's why this McCain comment is ludicrous on so many levels:

John McCain seized upon comments Barack Obama made on a 2001 radio show about the ``tragedy'' of the civil rights movement's failure to achieve ``redistributive change'' as fresh evidence the Democratic presidential candidate is ``more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it.''

McCain, campaigning today in Ohio, said the audio clip shows that Obama ``believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs.''

The savage irony here, of course, is that both candidates believe in the redistribution of wealth -- upward.*

Both candidates -- indeed, all the candidates (except Ron Paul) -- voted for the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson trillion dollar bailout, and Obama, as party leader, worked the phones to make it happen.

And if giving Hank Paulson control over a how much that equals at least 5% of the economy, taken from the taxpayers and given to the big banks -- whether in the form of buying up toxic assets, or in the form of capital injections --isn't "redistributive change," then what is?

Expecially when you consider that the other half of the crisis is what's happening to homeowners with mortgages, and no action was taken on that at all, despite the many baubles and trinkets with which Harry Reid decorated that Christmas tree of a bill to win its passage.

2008 is a long, long way from 2001. It would be wonderful if the Obama of 2001 returned. I doubt that will happen, even though past performance is no guarantee of future results.

NOTE * Yes, yes, more progressive taxes from Obama. That is tomorrow, and may indeed never come. The bailout is today.