home

Obama Responds To McCain Debate Gambit

John McCain has made a political gambit today, asking for a delay for the Friday night Presidential debate, saying he needs to be in Washington to do, no one knows what exactly. Obama is responding in a news conference as we speak.

He mentions his idea of a joint statement of principles with Senator McCain outlining where they stand on the Wall Street bailout, arguing that he and McCain seem to have some agreement on the issue. He lists the agreements, while something must be done, what is done must include the following principles - (1) Accountability; (2) Fairness to taxpayers, meaning they should get their money back; (3) mortgage relief for ordinary citizens, not just a bailout for Wall Street; and (4) no windfall for Wall Street executives and companies.

Asked about the Friday debate, Obama reminds that he initiated the joint statement. He states that McCain agreed but also called for a meeting in Washington, and possibly suspending the debates. Obama said he wanted to have the statement first. Then McCain went on TV, with no warning to Obama, calling for a delay of the debates. [More...]

Obama says that it is his view that the debate are more crucial than ever now because the American People have the right and the need to hear from the persons who would be the next President of the United States. He thinks that the debate needs to be about the current crisis and what it means and what the next President will do. Obama says the most helpful thing he and McCain can do is state their agreements on how to deal with the problem and then take the politics out of it. He see the delay of the debates as injecting politics into the bailout legislation process.

In short, Obama seems intent on going forward with the debate and wants the debate to focus on the credit/mortgage Wall Street crisis as well as discuss the foreign policy issues. Of course, Obama will be available to do what is necessary in Washington - but not to the detriment of the process by injecting Presidential politics. Finally, Obama makes the point that the Presidency requires dealing with more than one issue at a time.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Instead Of Canceling The Debate . . . | SUSA Snap Poll: Hold Debate And Make It About The Economy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How about a suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    that the debate be held in DC instead of at Ole Miss? It would shorten the time needed to be taken away from working on the crisis. There must be an available space in DC, and there must be at least a few people in the area that would fill up the seats on short notice. I would like to see the debate happen, but I also think that Obama and McCain should be in Washington while the "crisis" is being worked on.

    I am for that too (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    but Ole Miss wanted to host the debate to showcase how far they have come since James Meredith was the forst black student there. I think they would be very disappointed if it was moved or cancelled.

    Parent
    Sounds to me like... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:35:51 PM EST
    McCain tried to pull a stunt and has been called on it.

    I think Friday's debate is more important than ever now and switching it to the economy would be great. Any topic should be open to discussion at anytime if you want to be president. My guess is McCain could never agree to a change in topic now. He won't have Lieberman or Graham whispering in his ear and he doesn't have enough time to prepare.

    see my post upthread (none / 0) (#105)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    about Letterman's reaction to the cancellation.

    Parent
    Over at RedState (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    There are some posters suggesting that McCain should send Palin in his stead.

    That would be awesome.

    Lordy, you still going over there? (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
    And I used to respect your writing....

    Parent
    I don't post there anymore (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    No point right now.

    Perhaps when the election is over but right now it would be a waste of time.

    It is useful to see how the hard core right sees things though.


    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    CNN had some rough state polls for McCain today. Down by double digits in PA iirc.  The others werent pretty either.

    I think most americans will conclude this is a gimmick.

    Letterman on McCain cancellation (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    Ouch:

    EXCLUSIVE: LETTERMAN MOCKS MCCAIN CANCELLATION
    Wed Sep 24 2008 17:41:58 ET

    David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

    Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

    Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

    "He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sara Palin. Where is she?"

    "What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

    Developing...

     

    McCain's action playing well to the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:04:22 PM EST
    I read many of the conservative blogs and his request to delay the debate to go back to Washington played well to the base (which was probably not polled by SUSA).

    I don't doubt that McCain is ready for Obama in the debate, but it was an act to put Obama off footing.  Like Bush in 2000 and 2004, the press will lower the expectations for McCain in debate.

    Obama gave the answer I expected him to.  

    GOP spin (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    Well, spin is spin. I don't see how McCain gets a win with this game of his except from the GOP base - who will agree with just about any action he takes. The key is his base is not as large as Obama's base and their are independents to be considered. But common sense tells you:

    1. Voters want to hear what the candidates will do and the debates are a great place for that.
    2. If the candidates go to Washington together it will seem political, which it would be.

    They need to stay on the campaign trail. This economic situation is not a security threat. A plan is already on the table. The Senators and the Administration will hammer out the details. Obama and McCain should have a say but they will only get in the way if they go to DC and pretend to be regular Senators at this point.

    Parent
    Whaaa (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    Why wouldn't republicans be polled by SUSA?

    Doesn't matter if it plays well to the base or not, he already won them.

    Parent

    He needs to continue to keep his (none / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    base happy as he plays to the middle  ;)

    Parent
    SUSA (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    not polling republicans?  That is some serious ODS combined with unbelievable wishfull thinking

    I mean, cmon.  Next thing we'll hear is that the cell phone factor is really hurting McCain in the polls because all those young voters without landlines are huge McCain fans...

    Parent

    So far the commission says the debate is on (none / 0) (#120)
    by Realleft on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    Postponed until next Thursday (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    was suggested.  And what was originally scheduled for next Thursday?  The VP debate -- which would then have to be postponed.  DO they need more time for Palin to prep?

    I don't think so... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kelsweet on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    I am pretty sure that they suggested that the VP debates be held Friday? Swap them out. Or am i wrong? I thought that's what they said on Fox.

    Parent
    So basically (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    if you won't admit that you'd be a complete hypocrite if the roles were reversed, you're totally in the tank.  But uh, if you're a complete hypocrite then you're already in the tank.

    Personally, if Obama were the one trailing in the polls and trying stunts like this, I would certainly say "good luck, Barack," but I certainly wouldn't be going around praising it as a noble effort to put country first.  I try to be pretty clear-eyed about political tactics from both sides.

    Don't you know? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    You are CLEARLY an Obamabot who is so in the tank for him you thought he would be the best president EVA since you heard that incredible speech in 2004 and you faint every time he comes on TV while shouting "yes we can!" in the middle of meetings at work.

    And it's all because you seriously hate Clinton and don't realize that the sun shines out of McCain's a$$.

    Parent

    Hehe (none / 0) (#136)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    And that's why I write for this site!

    I actually find it's much more fun coming to the party as someone who was a tough critic of Obama during the primary, because it lets you be a lot more realistic about the games that get played by both sides.  I mean, the people who are like "I love it when Obama says 'uh', it's a sign of thoughtful intelligence" still drive me nuts!

    Parent

    Thanks for the link. W/o it (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:45:57 PM EST
    I'd never have known the Venetian gondoliers are for Obama.  

    Parent
    Well, you know what they say (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    every boat counts!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#164)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:00:26 PM EST
    I am one of the "uh" people.  Mainly cuz I say "uh" a lot.  It just doesn't bother me.  But then again, I have been drinking the kool-aid for a while now.

    Parent
    Chess, not checkers with Reid (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jccleaver on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    Excellent analysis

    He wanted McCain on the hook so that Reid could blame McCain for the political fallout.  When McCain called Reid's bluff -- and that's what appears to have happened here -- Reid did what Reid always does: retreat.

    I think Reid fears more than just the idea that McCain will "risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation's economy."  What Reid fears is that McCain will return to lead the Republican effort to reach a compromise, and the Senate and House GOP will let him do it.  If McCain takes ownership of the bailout effort and manages to get his suggestions on limiting executive compensation and so on as part of the finished product, he will be able to trot McCain-Dodd on the campaign trail as yet another reform he's accomplished by working across the aisle.  And in a time of crisis, no less.

    And what will Obama be able to say?  He gave a couple of speeches and raised cash for himself while McCain went to work for the nation.

    If that's what McCain and the Republicans have in mind, this could be the coup of the entire campaign.  While Obama went out and sucked up to fundraisers, McCain built the bipartisan compromise that saved the American financial system.  If he succeeds, McCain will have trumped Obama on what should have been the Democrats' best issue.



    complete w/video (none / 0) (#142)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:07:45 PM EST
    I had forgotten I saw that yesterday.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#154)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:58:34 PM EST
    McCain's idea on executive compensation - that no executive of a company receiving the bailout should be able to make more than the highest-paid government official - is a catchy bit of populist demagoguery, but it is absolutely DOA as far as actual legislation goes.  Take that one to the bank, if any banks are still open.

    Parent
    Except McCain met (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:45:56 PM EST
    had a meeting this morning with Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter who is now supporting Obama because she says he is an elitist.  Never mind that anyone named Lady de Rothschild can talk intelligently about elitism, she said she was unhappy that Obama dissed the "rednecks" (her words.)

    It looks like you have really bought into this McCain "country first" stuff.  

    Sorry, but you've got your facts wrong here. (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    A Lady Lynn devotee? (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:26:37 PM EST
    Here are my sources:

    TPM on McCain meeting with Lady de Rothschild.

    Lady Lynn de Rothshild on Obama being an elitist.

    Lady Lynn talking about the bitter "rednecks."

    So, how exactly am I wrong about the facts?

    Parent

    You said (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:31:27 PM EST
    Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter who is now supporting Obama


    Parent
    Oh, okay (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:40:56 PM EST
    supporting McCain...Pointing out the typo would have helped ......It is nuts that she is supporting McCain....

    Nonetheless, my (clearly) intended point still stands--this time with supporting citations....McCain can spend time with Lady Lynn but has no time to debate?  

    Parent

    And by the way, no -- (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:03:37 PM EST
    I'm not a devotee of anyone.  Especially here.

    Parent
    Good for you (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:28:38 PM EST
    His statement (1.13 / 8) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 03:53:39 PM EST
    sounds like post partisan namby pamby ism.

    I suppose his options were either that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    or an effort to politicize a national crisis, representing an abject failure to put country first.

    Darned if he does and darned if he doesn't, in some quarters, huh?

    Parent

    Yeah, I'm usually not one to (none / 0) (#10)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    cut Obama slack on his unity schtick, but not the time nor place for fighting, as much as I would've liked him to say something like:

    Senator McCain isn't responding to the economic crisis but to the crisis in his polling numbers that has plagued him ever since he said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" and ever since he was exposed for the fanatical deregulator that he is and ever since his campaign was shown to be bursting with the lobbyists who helped cause this problem.

    Senator McCain, moreover, isn't really suspending his campaign, he's just moving it to DC for a few days.


    Parent

    Oh, I'm not opposed to some fighting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:11:30 PM EST
    on this one.  At least a small amount, at any rate.

    I was just pointing out that there are commentors who would have greeted any statement from Obama, at any given point along the unity-belligerence spectrum, with derision.

    Parent

    but it's total bollocks of course (none / 0) (#110)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    Obama doesn't really think anything more fundamental than a few percent on the upper income tax bracket has to be fixed.

    Edwards was bundled out of the primary because he was an angry New Deal sounding politician. Obama was laughing up his sleeve at that sotrt of style--but now he's forced to adopt the language of a Bevan, Ikes or Deladier.

    Parent

    Ickes... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    ...the Elder.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    if you are trying to sell the idea that conservatism is the ideology that brought us to this diaster then why do you want to work out an agreement with them?

    After years of dealing with them and being stabbed by the GOP I just don't understand why anyone would trust them?

    I can understand not wanting to politicize the issue but this just doesn't work.

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#52)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    1. It's not an "agreement", it's a general outline of principles around which any deal should be structured.

    2. The options were pretty much talk the bipartisan talk, or run with it as a partisan issue.  My point above is that folks who just don't like Obama, ever, would have criticized him regardless of which path he had chosen.


    Parent
    Forget (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    an outline. Show some leadership. Downthread posters are saying that he just cut the legs out from under the party.

    Parent
    The hyperventilation never ceases. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:31:59 PM EST
    You (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    have to realize that it isn't the first time Obama has done this kind of thing right? Of course, with the apologists he can do nothing wrong right?

    Parent
    I'm not pretending I'm happy about it. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    I'm also not pretending that it represents The End Of All Things Democratic or something like that, either.  It's sausage-making combined with a presidential campaign, and we're not going to get particularly pretty results.

    Parent
    I dsagree (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    He sounded presidential. He said that presidents have to do more than one thing at a time. Negotiations shouldn't get bogged down in political grandstanding. He is in constant contact with Paulson and congressional leaders.  He's made it clear what he thinks are essential elements of the deal. If congressional leaders thought his or their presence would be helpful, he would of couse go, but he thinks they could still have a debate. A debate is more important than ever.

    He was clear, without name-calling, that McCain had tried to blind-side him, McCain didn't want to commit to any particular position, and that McCain was trying to delay for delay's sake.

    I'm not a big Obama fan (I supported HRC) but I thought his response was very good.

    Parent

    Can someone explain to me (none / 0) (#3)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    why Obama tried to work out a deal with McCain in private?

    How could this possibly be good politics?

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    A "deal"?  He contacted McCain to try to release, today, a joint statement of principles for the bailout which would have made a strong contribution to getting the bailout done.  It would have been released sometime today, or perhaps tomorrow.

    That's hardly some kind of secret plot to take over the United States or something.

    Parent

    Maaaaybe. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    IMO this rush to get a bailout done nownownow is overblown.  Seems like clearly articulating a Democratic plan, in opposition to the Bush-Paulson-(McCain) one, would have been politically smart without seriously hindering an eventual bailout of some sort.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    My fear is that McCain will not support this plan, and it will end up the Bush-Paulson-Dodd-Obama plan. I think that is Obama's fear too, hence his afforts to get the joiunt statement.

    The debate debate is a side show, in my view.

    Parent

    Makes sense. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:15:05 PM EST
    As usual over the last month or so, I'm behind a half step in the strategerizing.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:16:31 PM EST
    The Dems will not vote for the three page plan. Half the Republicans don't want to do so.  The White House and McCain are going to be the ones to blink.

    Parent
    I don't mean the 3 page plan (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    I consider that one DOA.  I mean whichever one they come up with this week, with the help of Dodd, Obama, etc.  It iwll be a joint product of the Bush admin and the Dem leadership.  If McCain is smart (politically anyway), he won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

    Parent
    I wasn't suggesting a plot (none / 0) (#17)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    I know it was a list of principles.

    But it was unlikely that such a list could've been worked out, and if by chance you did, you only surrender a political advantage.

    The idea should've been to force him to come around to your way of thinking (publicly) or to force him to refuse to (publicly.)

    Parent

    I'm a tad surprised at your reaction. (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    I've been waiting for Obama to speak out on whether a bail out is necessary, and, if so, what ocnditions are crucial to obtain his support.  Now he's whining he asked for a private mtg. with McCain and McCain double-crossed him.  Back to fifth grade playground tactics.

    Parent
    Obama has clearly stated. . . (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    that he believes action is necessary.  And he has clearly laid out the principles that he believes any action should adhere to.  Frankly, it's been kind of hard to miss those statements.

    He's hardly "whining" that he didn't get a private meeting with McCain -- he only stated, with a smile, that he was surprised at the speed with which McCain got in front of the TV cameras.  He may have been punked, but he's hardly complaining about it.

    Parent

    Obama's position on the bail out (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    is strangely missing from the front page of the NYT.  Guess I'll have to start watching TV.  Although some FOX early morning show yesterday was concentrating on O'Reilly pushing his new book.  

    Parent
    NY Times (none / 0) (#157)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST
    Do you ever wonder if the NYT (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    style manual requires placing the candidates names in alphabetical order?  To me, it looks like Obama sees the huge bail out as a given or is unwilling to challenge whether it is a given.  I'd like to hear why.  

    P.S.  I was "out of the loop" Sept. 23.  Mea culpa.

    Parent

    Doesn't want McCain to end-run him (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    and not support the bailout bill. This bill is not going down well among the populace, I fear. Obama wants McCain in the same boat with him.

    Parent
    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    David, I thought you were either a lawyer, or at least somebody who understood how disagreements were mediated. Stipulating agreement definitely is not the same as working out a deal in private.

    Parent
    I didn't mean a deal (none / 0) (#20)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    I mean an agreement.

    My question is a political one: what would Obama gain by agreeing on a list of principles with McCain?

    Parent

    It was an attempt to lock McCain in (none / 0) (#38)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    to his core principles of protecting taxpayers and giving them equity in the bailed out entities.

    McCain is afraid to vote for and afraid to vote against. Pelosi has said he has to agree. McCain doesn't want to be seen as an obstacle, but he's afraid to vote for it. So he's playing for time. Not just on the timing of the debate, but on the timing of having to actually articulate a position.

    Parent

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:22:40 PM EST
    I think McCian's only hope in this election is to be against this plan, and hope the public hates the plan.


    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#100)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    And, for the gambit to work, McCain has to be able to portray himself as four-square against the plan.

    The McCain camp rightly fears releasing any stipulated agreement, for it kneecaps their ability to remain mum now, and oppose later.

    Parent

    You're missing the point. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by indy in sc on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    One of these two people actually tried to keep politics out of this by calling his counterpart about a "joint statement."  The other went the political route and went to the media to "request" that the other join him.

    Obama could easily have gone to the media this morning and "requested" McCain issue a joint statement with him instead of calling him directly as he did.

    You can debate whether issuing a joint statement or jointly delaying the debate is good idea or not--but the steps each one took in trying to accomplish his goal is very telling.

    Parent

    Why on earth (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by david mizner on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:09:15 PM EST
    would you want to keep politics out of issue on which you have such a huge political advantage?

    Parent
    Because it's tacky. (none / 0) (#31)
    by indy in sc on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    Seriously though--the idea is to do both without appearing tacky.  Put out the joint statement now and continue to hit the same themes showing McCain's role and the role of his party in this mess.

    The joint statement is about the solution.  Pointing out republican mistakes is about understanding the problem.  They're not mutually exclusive.

    Parent

    He was playing politics, subtly (none / 0) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    He was trying to lock him into to taxpayers' protections.  Now he can say -- and he has -- that McCain agreed to put out a joint statement, and then decided to try to put it off along with the debate.

    Arlen "Weasel" Spector is now saying that it is brave for McCain to come, other Senators in the race (Obama, Biden) should come back too. McCain is the only one willing to come back. Claims McCain was "challenged" to come back by Pelosi. (Was he? I think he was challenged to support whatever bill was worked out.) Spector says McCain is a race horse that won't quit til he wins. Spector doesn't think McCain is plunging in the polls. It'll go up and down. Blah blah blah....

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#145)
    by jar137 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    as others have stated, Obama's motives could be purely political in that he is trying to neutralize the bailout by having McCain agree in principle.  I don't understand why both of them haven't been in DC in the middle of these negotiations.  I am disappointed in the behavior of both of them.

    Parent
    Doesn't make much sense to me. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:01:41 PM EST
    Other than if it was to inoculate himself against charges of playing politics (and then proceeding to play politics like mad, hopefully), it strikes me as dopey.

    Parent
    Talking heads. . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    are now saying that Obama revealed, in his press conference, that he opposes the cram-down provisions in the Democratic plan.  Is that correct?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    I am against the bail out but for him to go on TV and push some deal without those provisions is beyond insane.

    Once again, these people are all the same. They only differ on social policy.

    Our country has been sold out to thieves.

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#80)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    Once again, these people are all the same. They only differ on social policy.
    In other words, these people are all the same, but different.

    Parent
    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    I'd like to get to the bottom of that.  I hope he didn't really say that.

    Parent
    I heard Obama say it (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    He did. He wants any bankruptcy provisions to be taken care of later. He specifically said he doesn't want bankruptcy reforms part of the legislation.

    In other words, there will NEVER be reform.

    Parent

    Good thing I wasn't paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    and I missed that. TeeVee survived another day . . .

    Parent
    Might be time for another W.O.R.M. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ks on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    I heard the same thing.  They need to "clarify" right now.

    Parent
    He did say that (3.00 / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    He said the mortgage thing should be a separate bill to be dealt with after the bail-out plan is settled.

    He said that probably because he understands that wrangling over the bankruptcy provisions would seriously delay getting the bail-out passed and he understands, as some here still don't seem to, that it is a matter of genuine urgency, not some Evil Bush Adminsitration scam.

    I'm with Obama on this one, and I've rarely been with Obama on much of anything these last six months or so.

    What's so telling to me here is that McCain is trying to make political hay out of this, and Obama appears to be trying very hard not to.  Good for him for once.


    Parent

    Then (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    you are living in fantasy land. They will never pass if they don't put them in the bill now.

    I can't believe people are so blinded.

    Parent

    Never mind (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:33:16 PM EST
    This whole bs bail out will work without them.

    Not that it will probably work anyway.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    So pissed off.

    They bail out won't work without the bankruptcy provisions.

    Parent

    The bail out lol (none / 0) (#76)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    Clearly I need to take a break from writing.

    Parent
    FYI, Barney Frank (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    was just on MSNBC describing what the final shape of the bill is going to be like when all is said and done and the cram-down provision was not among the things he mentioned.

    Parent
    He did mention a provision to lower amount owed (none / 0) (#117)
    by Realleft on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    Yes, he said something about mortgage relief (none / 0) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:57:46 PM EST
    which Bush echoed in his statement this evening, but nothing about bankruptcy per se.

    Parent
    We'll see soon enough who's (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    living in fantasy land and who isn't, who's blinded and who isn't.

    It's vanishing unlikely they can pass a bail-out bill with the bankrtupcy position attached to it.  The Dems are fools if they try to play chicken with this.

    Parent

    Should strike while the iron's hot (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ks on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    The mortgage thing has been talked about for months now.  What are the chances of getting a separte bill through AFTER the 700B and counting bailout happens?  Slim and none.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    I have not seen anything to suggest that this is proving to be a dealbreaker issue in the negotiations as they currently stand.  In fact it's not clear to me that there are any dealbreaker issues.

    I really think it's important that the cramdown provision make it into the bill.  Hopefully it will.

    Parent

    "Hopefully it will" (none / 0) (#143)
    by sj on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:09:38 PM EST
    Lotta hope going around these days.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#153)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:56:26 PM EST
    since I don't have a personal lobbyist, hope is all I've got!

    Parent
    Amending the bankruptcy law is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    pretty complicated. It can be screwed up easily and has been before. I would also prefer that the bankruptcy provision go in the initial bill, but as much as I hate to say it, the bailout needs to get done pretty quickly.

    Because of the idiotic nature of these financial instruments, they are creating huge volatiity, people are still afraid to lend, and the dollar is still plunging. They can meltdown a balance sheet pretty quickly, precisely because no one knows how to value the suckers.

    Recovering from this mess is going to take years. But this initial bailout needs to be done soon -- but with more strings attached than the three page Paulson plan. The critical thing is for taxpayers to have an upside in the bailed out institutions in exchange for this huge infusion of cash. Doing that also equalizes the leverage so that there is more pressure on the institutions selling the junk not to overreach and get the Treasury to wildly overpay.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    the cramdown provision has been the subject of debate in Congress for a long time.  I'm confident that the pertinent statutory language has already been drafted.

    Parent
    Well said (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    According to Barney Frank just now, they are going to include provisions to allow the taking of equity, but they're not going to require it.

    Also according to Frank just now, and also according to everybody directly involved in this, Paulson's 3-page proposal was intentionally, and upon the advice of Congressional leaders beforehand, a bare bones proposal of what he wanted to do and he fully expected and anticipated that Congress would add various oversight and restrictions and other provisions, and has been very agreeable about working them out with the Dems.

    People who are trying to see this as some titanic battle of good against evil are just making it up to suit themselves.


    Parent

    Maybe McCain thinks it is an (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    Evil Bush Administration scam.  He oughtta know.

    Parent
    Heh. I doubt McCain would recognize (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    a scam like that if it smacked him in the face.

    No, he's simply willing, as Obama isn't, to gamble with the country's financial system in order to score some partisan political points.  Shame on him.

    Parent

    What he said was that he wasn't sure it was (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    necessary that the cramdown provisions be in the initial bill. He said provisions like that could be added later. I don't agree -- I'd like to see it all go in together -- but from a practical point of view it probably can wait.  

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    if it doesn't go in this one it's not going to happen. Here's a chance for someone to show they are for the average person. It seems everyone has punted.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ks on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:29:04 PM EST
    It's not like there're going to be all that many versions of this bill.  If it's not in the initial, then you can probably forget about it.

    Parent
    Which demonstrates (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    He is more beholden to corporate interests or he is beyond stupid.

    It is totally necessary..morally, economically and without them it undercuts this whole project.

    It took me forever to be in a position where I would support this guy. He is demonstrating all the reasons I couldn't stand him in the first place.

    Parent

    "Undercuts the whole project" (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    is a little steep.  The project is to restore liquidity in the credit markets, period.  While we're at it there are some very helpful things we could and should do for homeowners (and the taxpayers footing the bill), but those aren't absolutely necessary to the immediate goal.  You'd like them to get in, and so would I, but they aren't load-bearing walls, so to speak.

    And if you understand the way our f*&$ed-up economy is hanging together right now, you understand that propping up the credit markets is absolutely necessary right now.

    Parent

    Why can't we do it from the bottom up? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    Isn't that how Obama said he ran his campaign? Isn't HOLC bottom-up help? Why save those at the top first other than some emergency measures? I don't understand.

    Parent
    And if we don't stop the bleeding at the bottom (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:48:08 PM EST
    won't we land our collective behinds right back where we are?

    Parent
    Seems that way to me. I'm no economics (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    expert but I thought that's where the problem started. Or at least part of it.

    Parent
    HOLC is a great idea, but (none / 0) (#106)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    it can't prop up the value of bad investment paper.  It's great for addressing the structural and institutional problems that led to this fiasco, but if the Wall Street investment houses all fall (and they will without some sort of bailout; they really will) it won't matter because we won't have made it that far.

    Parent
    By not dealing with it (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:07:40 PM EST
    aren't you creating more bad investment paper? Seems to me, by dealing with it, you are creating more good investment, turning some bad investment back to good and keeping some investment where it still is, in the good.

    Parent
    Then you don't understand the root of the problem (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    We have to stabilize the housing market. You don't do that until you slow down foreclosures. End. Of. Story.

    Parent
    I understand the root of the problem (4.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:56:20 PM EST
    quite well, thanks.  There's a medium-term problem with mortgage foreclosures and plummeting home values, and it needs to be addressed in the medium term.

    But right now there are toxic assets poisoning the credit markets, perhaps fatally, and that's what matters in the short term.  If that isn't addressed in the next month or so, the national economy implodes.  Period.

    FWIW, I agree that the bankruptcy restructuring provisions should be included in the bailout measure, because better now than later and I think it'd be do-able politically.  I just disagree with your overblown rhetoric.  The bailout can work without them, all questions of whether or not they should be included aside.

    Parent

    Apparently you don't understand (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:00:48 PM EST
    Because people who have really looked at this estimate the CDS mess is really a $65 TRILLION problem.

    If you seriously think this bail out is going to fix this than I am glad you are not in charge of my money.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    If you're one of those who is expecting the maximum flameout on account of swaps to occur, how the heck do you really think jiggling the bankruptcy laws is going to save us?  Most of those swaps aren't even backed by subprime mortgages.

    All that stuff aside, you must have missed my distinction between "medium" and "short" term.  There's stuff we have to do now, and stuff we can wait to do until later.  Slowing down foreclosure rates falls in the latter category.

    I don't think we should wait, but I do think we can.  It's really not a hard idea to grasp (apparently harder than I thought, though).

    Parent

    I think you may just be (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    more trusting in the "wait" attitude. After what we've been watching these past few years, I'm impressed that you still can. I don't mind saying to the world that we are doing the bailout, but I don't want them to cut that check until we have a bill that works for us also. We lose our negotiation position the minute we bail without. We'll be caving to the GOP over the people once again.

    Geeze after the total drilling cave yesterday . . .  how can you believe we will get anything down the road?

    Parent

    I'm actually with you, mostly. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    This strikes me as a perfect time to get a good bankruptcy bill passed while the iron's hot.  I think we'd get a better bill now that if we wait, anyway.

    I do think things look a lot brighter with a Dem president, though.  Maybe that makes me naive, and if so, so be it.

    Parent

    What exactly would happen if they wait? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    I'm being serious. How scary is this?

    Parent
    "Dogs and cats living together" scary. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    In my opinion (and I note that I'm not an economist, so grain of salt and all that) if nothing is done we'll lose another bank or two (or more) in 2008.  WaMu's troubles are well known, Citi took on Merrill's assets and is badly undercapitalized so they're pretty vulnerable, and the list of dominoes is pretty much everybody but JP and maybe Goldman.

    If that happens, there won't be enough credit available in this country to sustain anything close to our current standard of living.  We live in a consumption-based economy, and if people can't buy crap we've got nothing else going for us.

    Parent

    If Buffett were more patriotic, (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:48:50 PM EST
    he could solve everything.  One-man bailout. Except he demands an equity position.

    Parent
    Here's how scary it is for students (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    trying to get an education, which is the number-one indicator of future income, so they will be able to contribute more in taxes rather than cost us more.

    Students at the technical college (read, really needy people not asking for a lot, as tuition is not that high there) in my city were about to be booted out of school only a few weeks into the semester, until the school (read, we-the taxpayers) came up with emergency funding to loan them their promised student loans.

    Why?  Because the massive bank that promised them the student loans could not afford, borrow, whatever, to be able to cut the checks.  There is hope that it eventually will be able to do so and pay us back.  Or not.  But at least students stayed in school, if only for a few more months.

    It's not like there are good jobs out there for them if they don't get at least the two-year degree in plumbing or carpentry or hospitality, etc.

    Parent

    A little late, but a good overview: (none / 0) (#161)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM EST
    From Andrew Leonard, who both understands this stuff better than I do and is much better at using layman's terms.

    Parent
    Thanks, that is a good piece (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    and tells me what I was seeking -- the timing of McCain's announcement today, Obama's call for a joint announcement, too, etc.  Reading in my morning paper that a big bank could not come through on cutting student loan checks told me something was not good -- banks love giving those loans to gouge students for years after graduation.  So your link affirms that those who tend to dismiss this as entirely game-playing and PR ploys and the like on both sides of the campaign today did not hear what I heard in McCain's announcement, when he said progress had to happen before markets open on Monday.

    Something in it told me that there was a reason for this today.  I.e., as usual, some of us find it possible that both of the following could be true:  The PR ploy AND the real economic problem, the "systemic meltdown," per your link.  

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:10:42 PM EST
    Notwithstanding the political posturing, there is a real credit crisis with real consequences for real people.

    The people who think this is another Bush-directed snow job like the Iraq war and we should just ignore it until January do not get it, in my view.

    Then again, it is the job of opinion leaders to persuade reluctant people of the need for immediate action, so there is that.  In my view, outside the context of the presidential campaign, most folks in Washington have been acting very maturely in the face of this crisis - much moreso than I've become accustomed to, for certain.

    Parent

    but so is (none / 0) (#87)
    by patriotgames on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    helping "Joe Average" the REAL victims of this crisis.

    Parent
    When I say "absolutely necessary" (none / 0) (#97)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    that's as in, hey folks, let's not have a full-fledged Depression on our hands.  So I'm just talking from a consequentialist perspective when I say that.

    From my own personal perspective, I do agree with you that there's a moral obligation to help out homeowners who got/are getting fleeced.  The failure to do so wouldn't be catastrophic in terms of the national economy, though.

    Parent

    There's nothing much the US can do if (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:25:09 PM EST
    the system is fundamentally unsound. An entire economy based on financial products and services is a depression waiting to happen.

    Parent
    Yeah, that's us. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    No doubt we're just putting off the inevitable if we don't ever do anything to keep ordinary people in their homes.

    Parent
    the cash can be handed out to pay off mortgages (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    directly.  But it'll disapear into the golden pararchutes that the flailing banks are giving their soon to be unemployed CEOs.

    Parent
    Why wait mom? I'm tired of us always (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    having to wait. Isn't a crisis like this the best time to push it through? There are enough Republicans up for re-election right now that would look really bad voting against that.

    Parent
    Can you explain the cram-down to me? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:05:01 PM EST
    I tried to follow the discussion here yesterday but I'm on some new medicine that is messing with my head. I'm not sure I'd understand it anyway so tell me in really plain English what that means.

    Parent
    Cram down. . . (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    as I understand it, means the ability of a judge to restructure debts during a bankruptcy proceeding.

    If permitted, then a during a personal bankruptcy a judge could say "well, the first thing I see is that the terms of this mortgage are onerous.  Therefore, I order the lender to convert this 75 percent ARM to a 6.5 percent fixed rate mortgage."


    Parent

    Thanks Larry. I hope those talking heads (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    heard wrong. I guess we'll need a replay or transcript.

    Parent
    Is this what you mean? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    Business Dictionary: Cram Down
    In Bankruptcy, the reduction of various classes of Debt to a lower amount, with acceptance by the bankruptcy court. For real estate assets, the loan may be reduced (crammed down) to the property value.

    Does this mean he doesn't support it for the people with the mortgages or the companies that hold them?

    Parent

    Bankruptcy (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    He wants bankruptcy provisions (reform) to not be part of the bill in which case distressed families are hurt, the reforms will probably never be passed and foreclosures will continue unabated.

    So, the some of the key reasons behind the mortgage crisis will not be dealt with but you get to pay $700 billion to bail out the thieves that made these mortgages.

    Parent

    I can only hope that's not true. (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    I thought we were holding out for some help for the little guys here.

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:25:41 PM EST
    there won't be any if what I'm reading here is right.

    Parent
    Says a lot doesn't it (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dissenter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST
    You have chance to ram reforms down the throats of the republicans and instead of running with it you undercut your own party.

    It defies explanation really unless you aren't interested in those reforms.

    Parent

    wait (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by patriotgames on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    if he is opposed to the cram-down, what is the friggin point???

    Without something like that this is nothing more than a gift to wall street!

    Parent

    Seems OK. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    I'm not huge on the idea of a joint statement, but I suppose he's salvaged something by pointing out how McCain sorta stabbed him in the back by going over his head in the press.  

    This pretty much neutralizes the "who's playing politics?" question (at worst, they both are) and puts economics on the table for Friday night.

    Interesting gambit by Obama too (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:02:36 PM EST
    trying to get McCain to agree to a statement of joint principles. Obama does not want to be the only candidate in the race tied to Bush on the final bill.

    Not sure it is the right way to go on Obama's part, but interesting.

    Sounds like he said what you wanted him to say (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST


    ha (none / 0) (#18)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    I watched it and thought Obama was pretty good.  Best bit was the subtle chuckling at McCains running for the tv cameras after they talked.

    Schumer just ate McCains lunch of the stunt.  He didnt coordinate a thing with Obama, just trying to pull a stunt to get his polls up.  Schumer says the negotiations are delicate and McCain has been AWOL from day one.  Schumer said intjecting partisan presidential politics into this is the last thing we need.

    I think McCain did accomplish something (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    Sneaky but significant:  he further inflated the ego of some Obama supporters who will spend the next 48 hours telling anyone who will listen that McCain is a coward who'll get blown off the stage in Oxford.

    This now means that McCain doesn't have to win the debate, just not embarrass himself.  And I'm sure he'll accomplish that much-  he's well versed in the rituals of debate.

    It's the old expectations game, and I think McCain plays it as well, and Obama as poorly, as anyone.

    Parent

    eh (none / 0) (#37)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    Maybe. But I dont think this about the expectations game. I think its about reversing a poll slide.  I think there is some limit to the number of gimmicks the public will forgive McCain for...

    McCain is a skilled debater, I think Obama will do well just to hold his ground.

    Parent

    That is a fascinating idea. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    McCain has performed political miracles by keeping his polling above 35% IMHO.  I doubt any other GOPer could have got this far.

    Parent
    McCain will be exhausted (none / 0) (#168)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:10:38 AM EST
    From working so hard at his job in the Senate, trying to bring about bipartisan support for the bailout bill, one that will punish CEOs and allow low income people (and others) to keep their houses.  McCain will talk about what he did this week, what a leader he was, and how exhausted he is from working so hard.  Expectations decline even further.  A few witty lines about doing his job, while Obama campaigns and ignores his real job, and McCain looks like a winner.  A bunch of baloney that just might work.  

    Parent
    McGames (none / 0) (#26)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    If what Obama says is true then it really seems McCain tried to blindside him by unilaterally making a decision and appear to be statesmanlike -or something.
    Good reporting Big Tent. Now is the time to hear what each candidate has on the table with this economic issue. The debates should go on. Obama gets it. McCain is playing games.

    McCain looks frantic (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    while Obama looks calm and in control.  I think Obama wins on that front, no doubt.

    I agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    In fact, I think this is another green screen (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    moment for McCain.

    Parent
    I think both political ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    party's are so behind the curve on this issue.

    But I don't think that will be clear for some months.

    Parent

    If my suspicions are correct (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    capitalism itself is probably going to be a huge issue of contention among the electorate.  Maybe not so much the pols but it'll be a sentiment that the pols will have to pander to now.

    Parent
    I agree ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    but it's going take a while for people in Polworld to figure this out.

    Parent
    Here are the McCain talking points... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    ...straight from the horse's mouth.  Note they tried to recall them when they sent them out to their press list...

    "Tom Kise would like to recall the message, "TALKING POINTS: Suspending; The Campaign".
    Please see talking points on the suspension of the campaign. Please do not proactively reach out to the media on this. If you are contacted independently, please let me know.

    Thanks,

    Tom

    ------

    Tom Kise
    Regional Communications Director - South Central Region
    John McCain '08

    Email: tkise@mccain08hq.com
    Cell: (303) 885-8915
    Direct Dial: (303) 952-4696
    Press Office: (703) 650-5550

    TALKING POINTS: SUSPENDING THE CAMPAIGN
    Topline Messaging:

    ·         To address our nation's financial crisis, John McCain will suspend his campaign and return to Washington. He has spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of his decision and has asked Senator Obama to join him.  The campaign is suspending its advertising and fundraising.

    ·         John McCain is calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including himself and Senator Obama.

    ·         John McCain is directing his campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until action has been taken to address this crisis.

    ·         It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.  This is a time to put our country first. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.

    ·         It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal.  He does not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

    ·         Last Friday, John McCain laid out his proposal and has discussed his priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward.

    ·         America faces an historic crisis in our financial system, and we must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy.

    ·         John McCain is confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people"
    --ColoradoPols

    help me out here :) (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    did these talking points go out before or after McCain's announcement?

    Parent
    Not sure... (none / 0) (#93)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    ...you'd have to ask the diarist over at CoPols that question, since he's the one that got the e-mail.  

    Parent
    "do, no one knows what exactly" (none / 0) (#41)
    by patriotgames on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    Uh.

    Shouldn't a SENATOR know what to do in the Senate in this situation??????

    Please, I'm not voting for you Obama, but don't just GIVE the GOP the election!!!

    Huh? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Pegasus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    "do, no one knows what exactly"

    That's a quote of BTD's you've got up there, paraphrasing McCain.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#65)
    by patriotgames on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
    thought with the title it was Obama speaking about mcCain.

    Parent
    Debate (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    Representatives seem to think it's still on.

    And in a completely unscientific poll on CNN's home page, 69% of people see McCain's stunt as a political gimmick and only 26% see this as something to help the economy.  Not that that really means anything because of the nature of the poll - but I hope it's right :)

    Also (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    Just peaked over at hotair to see what the other side is saying.  Thay also seem to view this as a stunt.  I think Obama wins this one.

    Parent
    You should see the comments at the NYT (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    All the commenters are calling McCain a coward. And there are already over a hundred comments.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    But it means more to me when some of the posters at hotair are saying McCain looks like he's freaking out and Obama looks presidential.  Granted most of them don't say that, but a lot more than on any other given topic.

    Even CNN is less obviously left than NYT, at least the readers that is.

    Parent

    Please, consider the source (none / 0) (#169)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:13:21 AM EST
    And the location.  Most voters in CO and VA do not care what NYT readers think.  

    I hope you guys are right and it's not just the democrats who think this won't work for McCain.

    Parent

    Too much Unity Pony ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    stuff for my liking.  Politically a fairly good response.

    But I hate the Unity Pony stuff.

    In the long run, I think it's a loser.

    But it probably makes centrists cream in their jeans.

    Still this should keep Obama at parity for the day.

    Poll out on this already (none / 0) (#81)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    One of those snap polls says this:

    What to do about debates?
    Hold as Scheduled 50%
    Hold with Econ Focus 36%
    Postpone 10%

    The voters want to see and hear their candidates.

    Half of them do (none / 0) (#170)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:14:53 AM EST
    That's not even a majority.  

    McCain will show up, like a White Knight, straight from battle in Washington!  

    Parent

    On a lighter note ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by cymro on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    Today's Borowitz Report:

    McCain Supports Bailing Out of Debate

    When asked what motivated his dramatic bailout proposal, Sen. McCain said, "When I woke up this morning and I saw those terrible numbers, I knew that a bailout was necessary to keep those numbers from getting worse."

    Mr. McCain refused to answer a reporter's question about whether he was talking about economic numbers or poll numbers, saying, "I am bailing out of any response to that question."



    It's a shame... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    ...we can't pay for the bailout with chutzpah cards.  The Republicans seem to have an infinite supply of those, based on the way they keep playing them.

    Seriously, this is one of those days when the dividing line between the real and the surreal is mighty hard to find.


    You probably are going to get flamed for that... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ks on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    But, to the subject at hand, there don't seem to be any rational reasons, other than political gamesmanship, that explains why delaying the  debate is a problem.  I guess that's why the "mulitasking" spin is coming up which could easily be answered by a prioritizing" spin.  Also, the American people have been hearing from both of these guys for almost two years now so the idea that they MUST hear from them on Friday, as opposed to next Wednesday, is kinda silly.  It lokks like the old turtle has outmanuvered the young rabbit at the momeent.  

    John McCain Cancels Letterman Appearance, Keith Ol (none / 0) (#156)
    by Blowback on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    John McCain Cancels Letterman Appearance, Keith Olbermann To Fill In

    "In the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

    "He can't run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sarah Palin. Where is she?"

    "What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html