It's Time For Obama to Seize the Moment

Update: Latin America stocks plunge as US bailout rejected
. . .

If you have a helmet -- bicycle, motorcycle, military, safety, whatever -- put it on. Markets around the world are falling, at least for the moment.

Asia Stocks Fall in Worst Rout for 21 Years as Bailout Rejected
Australia Stocks Tumble as Bailout Fails, Sparking Credit Fears

The president announced that the administration's "strategy is to continue to address this economic situation head-on." That is sooooo reassuring. President Bush will make "a statement on the financial-rescue package" tomorrow morning. What could he possibly say at this point that anyone would take seriously? [more ...]

Nobody wants to be Chicken Little, but even if this is not a crisis, it is a serious and urgent economic disruption. Isn't it time for Democrats to tackle it on their own? John McCain couldn't deliver Republican votes for a bipartisan version of the administration's plan. House Democrats should band together to pass their own emergency bill, and they need to create a framework for comprehensive legislative and regulatory reform.

The time is ripe for Barack Obama to advance a populist proposal that would address the adverse fallout of Wall Street excess without rewarding the executives (on Wall Street or elsewhere) who caused the problem. Obama doesn't need to suspend his campaign to lead his party. He told us he can multitask. This is the time for Obama to seize the moment, not to micromanage the drafting of complex legislation, but to outline a clear plan that embraces the values of Democrats. If Obama spends a day with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to hash out new legislation, and his party comes together, Democrats can do something useful, take rightful credit for it, and expose McCain as a failed leader.

< Feelings Before Country | Stevens Prosecutors Hide Witness' Change of Story (and Witness) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hear! Hear! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST

    Amen brother, amen. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM EST

    Why does everyone want politicians to (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:16:42 PM EST
    hash this out but nobody says anything about our leading economists hashing this out with them so that things that will work in the longterm of 18 mos happen when they can help us all the most?  I'm with lambert when it comes to Frank and Dodd trying to buff a t*rd with the bill that failed today.  If a politician is going to lead fine.  He needs to lead with our leading economists in attendance though so that we get real solutions and not just fairydust sprinkled on us.

    Um, several prominent economists, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:26:16 PM EST
    understanding the political realities, endorsed the plan voted on this afternoon, however tepidly.

    And several more even more prominent (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    called it the buffed t*rd it was.

    Right Wing Economists (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    I hope you think very carefully about who you're getting into bed with here.

    There's a reason why this package was mostly opposed by Republicans.


    LaRouche is a Democrat (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
    I doubt Nouriel Roubini is rightwing anything since he proposes an even brandnewer new deal.  Both of these economists also predict that giving Paulson all of his moula will lead to spiraling deflation for all of us and a very very long downturn.  I know exactly who I get into bed with, I don't do one night stands anymore :)  Both of these economists have made very noteworthy predictions in the past.  Particularly Roubini who predicted everything that has happened these past few weeks in Sept of 2006.  He spelled the whole impending disaster out with brilliant clarity and has been completely ignored.

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:55:37 PM EST
    Are you talking about Lyndon LaRouche. . .?

    Yes (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:56:56 PM EST
    Do you know anything about him? (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:00:00 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    And his plan is almost identicle in goal and nature to Roubini's.  Just because Democrats have helped Republican administration's in the past does not make them rightwing.

    I don't think you understand (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    Lyndon LaRouche is a nut and a leader of a cult.

    The pamphlets his cult members hand out a street corners are full of insane and unsupported ramblings.

    The man has a bizarre vendetta against the Queen of England and connections with the racist right in Germany.



    He insanely doesn't like our close (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:16:17 PM EST
    affiliation with Great Britain, I don't pretend to understand that part or portion of who he is, but as far as this economic crisis goes andgarden he is right in there with other top economists who are fully willing to spell this all out clearly.  I know you think it is possible for us to get out of this without losing the sickest of our banks but it isn't a possibility.  I think most of the Democrats in congress have come to accept this too but can't say so outloud for fear of the repercussions that go along with stating such a truth.

    Nobody thinks that (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:00:41 PM EST
    You've put up a big straw man here.  The goal of the Paulson plan is, in big part, to get a value placed on the crapola, let the banks unload a lot of it, and then see who's got a real balance sheet left.  The ones that don't will fail and the ones that do will struggle through.

    NOBODY thinks Paulson's idea is to save all the rotten banks from failing.  Nobody.

    The idea is to make it possible for them to fail in a reasonably orderly way, withough taking down a whole cascade of other institutions and companies (and jobs, and etc.) with them.

    And really, you DO NOT want to be citing Lyndon LaRouche to back up your theories.  Seriously.


    I love how you pick the one economist (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:14:18 PM EST
    you seem to have a real gripe with but ignore the other that you don't who agrees fully.

    I don't think you understand how toxic (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:37:27 PM EST
    LaRouche is.

    He's not any kind of real economist.


    Sorry for typos (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:08:52 PM EST
    Both also agree that there is no way (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    around losing some of our banks.  There is no way around it.....not kidding......you don't have enough money to cover this scale of bank failure and if you print enough money to cover it you will kill all of us in the process.

    It's not about losing some of the banks. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:16:35 PM EST
    This is about losing alot of the banks.

    And so we will (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:21:45 PM EST
    The sickest cannot be salvaged without selling our souls and the futures of our children while we buy ourselves a recession that will be hell to get out of, and that will drag the entire country down for an even longer period of time than if we allowed the market to correct the worst offenders of the insolvent banks.

    Economists Paul Krugman and Ben Stein (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    had a historic moment of agreement (Krugman was in shock and could hardly say it) on Larry King tonight, a fascinating segment.

    Both agreed that it was not a great bill but a good enough bill -- and that it had to pass.  Or something like it and fast.

    And Congress can get on it tomorrow, not Thursday, said Stein -- noting that all three were Jews, but that others in Congress who are not work on Sundays and Christian holidays, so he said that Rosh Hashanah is no reason to let the economy crash.

    If those two, Stein and Krugman, agree -- then I have to think that it was a good enough bill.


    Good enough for what though? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    Too many someones disagree and they disagree to the point that they all left the Hill and went home.

    Oh, really?? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    The Democrats crafted the bill. The Democrats have a majority in Congress. The bill had the support of the Administration and of John McCain.... and then it failed by 23 votes with 94 Democrats voting against.

    And you think the Demos can fix it on their own?

    It failed because Nancy and Obama could not deliver the votes and gave permission to Demos in tough elections to vote no, thinking that the Repubs would cut and run, fearing to be blamed.

    The Repubs might have, but then Pelosi made the political cost too high for the Repubs with her ungodly partisan speech. Instead of extending cover she attacked.

    I have never seen anything stupider.

    The Dems didn't "craft" the bill (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:43:09 PM EST
    They added provisions to the Paulson three-pager through negotiations with the Republican leadership.

    As the majority party (2.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    the Demos had the hammer to introduce or not introduce..... So they "crafted" it enough for them to introduce it.

    The prerequisite to introducing it (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    was broad bipartisan support. To do that the Dems had to negotiate with the Republicans. Then the Republicans didn' deliver.

    I don't know if the Dems could pass a bill even if it was drafted from scratch by the Dems. Any bill will involve significant taxpayer expenditures, and there are some Dems who will peel off no matter what the bill does to protect taxpayers.


    The Demos claimed (2.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    they had a bill and the Repubs disagreed..

    Looks like the Repubs were right.

    But the fact remains that 94 Demos voted against it.

    Whose fault was that??


    The Repubs said they had a bill (none / 0) (#83)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:55:52 PM EST
    at noon. Then, with Sir John flying in to the rescue, Boner started raising doubts.

    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:45:27 PM EST
    So you're another one who thinks the Republicans actually would have voted differently if Pelosi hadn't given a partisan speech.  Such contempt you have for the Republican Party, thinking they are motivated by such pettiness in the midst of a national crisis.

    Don't worry, it is just ppj (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:55:25 PM EST
    He occassionally floats over here from RedState just to try to poke us.

    I have been here quite a while (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:37:30 PM EST
    dear Tracy... and as you know I don't hang out at Red State.

    But then again, why should I expect you to be informed?? You never have been.


    Poke poke poke (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:38:43 PM EST
    petty poke poke poke

    Don't start fights and you won't get poked at (2.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM EST
    Yes PPJ (none / 0) (#64)
    by TChris on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:17:42 PM EST
    you have been here quite awhile, but let's avoid using sexist remarks to antagonize other commenters.  You've been warned.

    Actually I had no idea that was a sexist remark (2.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35:55 PM EST
    but I wouldn't want to bother Tracy.

    I assume she will quit throwing the first stone.

    " Don't worry, it is just ppj (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM CST
    He occassionally floats over here from RedState just to try to poke us."


    But (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:59:00 PM EST
    he is poking his own party in this case.

    He is fine with pettiness though :) (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    I'm not a Repub, thank you.... (2.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:40:46 PM EST
    but then you haven't been around long enough to know... go on Google's Blog search engine and google "social liberal" within TalkLeft and educate your self.

    Nope (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
    I have no such knowledge. But human nature says that when your opponent is getting a free pass to be re-elected in their district and you are asked to take actions that may cost you your job... well, people get PO'd at stuff like that.

    Now. Your turn.

    Why did 94 Democrats vote against the bill?

    Your reply should be interesting.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:46:02 PM EST
    Human nature says that the GOP voted against the bill because of Nancy Pelosi's speech?  You are not making sense.

    Considering a large number of the Democrats who voted against the bill were members with safe seats, like most of the Congressional Black Caucus, your attempt to suggest a simplistic one-size-fits-all answer is likely to fail.

    Why did Dennis Kucinich vote against the bill?  Because he was afraid of losing re-election?  Or because the bipartisan compromise negotiated between both parties and the White House wasn't liberal enough for his taste?  The latter seems more likely.


    well (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    Kucinich was taking a moral stand on Pelosi's abuse of the republican house.    ;)

    All 94 dems voted against it for that reason in fact.  


    About Rep K I would believe that (2.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    But are you sure the little green men didn't tell him not to??



    We could argue all night about why (2.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:53:59 PM EST
    but the fact is that 94 Demos voted against it.

    If this was a country saving vote, why did they vote against it??

    That's all I want to know. Why?

    As for who "they" were, my info is that the majority of the Demos were in tight elections... but I won't push that because I don't have a list..

    And if Pelosi couldn't get 24 more votes on a Demo bill, shouldn't she just resign and let a Demo who has skills run the show? The country can't afford her.


    Gosh (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:59:57 PM EST
    Those 94 Dems didn't agree that it was a country saving vote, much like the Republicans who voted against it.  Aside, of course, from the Republicans you claim voted against it because Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech.  I suppose the jury is still out on whether they felt it was a country saving vote.

    Not sure what is so confusing about this, but if you continue to demand a single explanation for the votes of all 94 Democrats who voted no, you're likely to remain confused.


    Okay, so they didn't agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:18:38 PM EST
    So why is Barney Frank, Pelosi, Reid, et al claiming it is the Repubs fault??

    94 Demos voted against it.

    And I will be happy to accept multiple reasons.

    So far I haven't seen one.


    That's because (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:21:32 PM EST
    you would rather argue than read.

    So your excuse for them (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:32:47 PM EST
    is that they didn't think the country is in trouble??

    6% drop in the market? Largest one day drop in average in history?? Over a trillion dollars lost in value??

    And that isn't important??


    God help the Demos when the country figures that out.

    And by trying to play politics the Demos have assured that the country will.


    Keep lying (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    about what I said, maybe someone will find it persuasive.

    Yes, really (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    It's been reported on various TV news shows today that last night Boehner told the Dems he could deliver 80 votes.  He didn't.

    ya (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:55:39 PM EST
    Turns out he was only able to produce 75 of the missing Gore ballots but says he knows where more are buried.

    So what? (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:22:31 PM EST
    94 Demos voted against it.

    Pelosi could have been a heroine and made the Repubs look like bums.

    Truth is, she doesn't have the clout within her own party and the 94 votes give the Repubs cover and ammunition to attack Hussein with.

    And remember... I'm not a Repub!


    Your argument has (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:22:50 PM EST

    Many of the Democrats voted against this bill because it wasn't 'Democratic' enough.

    The fact is, this bill was the bi-partisan version of the bailout despite what Boehner said.  Boehner was playing politics all the way with his statement.  He voted FOR the bill.

    I think her remarks were an excuse for Boehner and the GOP for rejecting the bi-partisan bill.

    I believe that if House party leadership (and for godsakes a word from Obama) makes the bill more 'Democratic' a significant part and perhaps all of the Democratic opposition will vanish. Democrats like Conyers, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Stupak, etc., etc. will vote for such a measure.

    Look at many of the Republicans who voted against this measure; many of these clowns are libertarian nut jobs like Ron Paul and loony right morons like Issa, Rohrabacher, Walberg, Sensenbrenner, Hoekstra, etc., etc.


    I must agree (none / 0) (#75)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33:56 PM EST
    Nancy really screwed this up.  Someone needs to tell her that it's not a good idea to call people idiots (or whatever) when you need their vote.  She's done this before, she insults people who she clearly needs.  It is not a winning strategy.  

    I was so thrilled when Nancy became speaker, and I have been nothing but disappointed since.  

    IF this ever gets to the Senate, will Obama be able to ignore it and not vote?  Doesn't seem likely.  


    I wouldn't bet on it (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    I'm not one of those who loves to criticize the Dems just for the heck of it, but we saw how they behaved in the prelude to the 2006 election.  The polls looked good, so they took the safe route on every single issue that came up (remember the Military Commissions Act?) and coasted to victory.

    Barack Obama clearly favors the prevent defense as well.  He's doing great in the polls, people don't seem to have a problem with his mushy position on the bailout, so why take a risk?

    The Democratic leadership clearly understands the necessity for a bill to pass, and I'm sure they will continue to work towards that goal, but I'll be shocked if they take anything other than the safe, tell-us-what-concessions-we-need-to-make approach.

    Yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:06:02 PM EST
    but this time it's different. The dems have had congress for 2 years and failed to deliver on promises. It's easier to win when you have no power and no part of the problem.

    Is it different? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    The Democrats continue to hold a clear lead in every poll of Congress, whether you feel they deserve it or not.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM EST
    I'm not saying they won't win but you are advocating that they are going to win the same way they did in 2006 which I don't agree with. It seems like this year it's more like winning by default than running on issues for the party.

    I feel like they deserve it (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    over Republicans, I'm not crazy.....just a little moody.  I wish they could earn it though :)

    Maybe...maybe not (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:42:30 PM EST
    They have went from something around 15 up to around 5 up with a month to go...

    Nobody should be without dreams (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:54:42 PM EST
    I see that you have recovered from the vapors. (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:25:50 PM EST
    Hurt yourself in the fall when you fainted?

    When has Obama (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Makarov on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:59:46 PM EST
    ever missed an opportunity to not lead?

    I pondered for a while why Obama had the obvious support of Pelosi and others in the Dem leadership during the primary. The only thing I could come up with is they felt they could run him, and that Hillary would challenge them in contrast.

    So far, my hare-brained theory is proving correct on this scenario as it did during FISA this summer.

    Ultimately, I believe Obama won't embrace a populist solution because he isn't a populist.

    This (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 06:18:08 AM EST
    whole bailout plan shows me what an Obama administration would be like. With everything having to be bi paritisan because he doesn't want to take responsibility and the GOP constantly opposing as one voice nothing will get done. It's ideological bankruptcy.

    I have it on good authority (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
    that National City is going to run out of gas tomorrow. (I don't need great authority, though. Look at what happened to the stock today).

    I'm also worried about Sovereign.

    Yup, with a drop of 60-70% they (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:44:24 PM EST
    don't look long for this world. Regional banks are starting to line up for the hit.

    The Dow finished below the level (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:44:49 PM EST
    it was at when Bush took office in January 2001.

    There it is. Eight years of gains (with some significant dips and recoveries during that period) have been erased.

    Are we better off than we were eight years ago?


    Hard to say (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:47:37 PM EST
    The question is, without Bush's tax cuts, would you have been much worse off...??

    And the answer is, YES!


    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:57:25 PM EST
    if borrowing money from my kids makes me better off, I guess you're right.

    You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:04:31 PM EST
    I sure hope so.  Because if you're not, you should be out in Sedona prepping Sarah Palin.

    Evidence please.....link or something (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    to a leading economist or something.

    Will National City (none / 0) (#73)
    by cal1942 on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:30:49 PM EST
    flat out go down or will some other institution buy out their banking operations.

    If they fall without someone else buying them out then how are claims made with the FDIC?

    I should have started pulling out our deposits when I heard a little rumble a few weeks ago but so many banks were mentioned that I paid little attention.


    If you're under $100k, you should be OK (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:36:20 PM EST
    If not, I'd be going to T-bonds. . .

    I didn't have time to look through (none / 0) (#87)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:09:24 AM EST
    the whole thing, but here is information on the FDIC,


    I would think it's most likely that another bank would take over. But I'm certainly not an expert.


    I found the FDIC site (none / 0) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:46:02 AM EST
    and discovered that our joint accounts are covered in total up to 100,000 for EACH individual.

    Obama has ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:46:21 PM EST
    made the political calculation that he wants to keep the Washington wrangling at arms length.

    He seems to believe this is a winning strategy.

    He's probably right.

    Obama is going to win this election no (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    matter what happens. He's free. He needs to put pressure on Dem's in the congress, supporters like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Conyers to pass legislation.

    Weather report from ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    hell looks stable all week.

    In other words ... not gonna happen.


    Didn't he say that he was doing that? (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:58:49 AM EST
    Last week, didn't Obama say that he was working the phones to help get the bill passed?

    Puisillanimous... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by marian evans on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
    and short-sighted response. Doing nothing is not an option. Playing Pilate might give you clean hands temporarily, but you end up in the mud nevertheless.

    Surely, Sen Obama would not take this "hands-off" path. His surrogates (god help America, Nancy Pelosi) give as much reassurance as a fake dollar.

    This is that notorious 3am phone call. We don't have time to sit around and talk of cabbages and kings. These kinds of decisions have to be made on the fly.

    You need a politician who can lead. You need a politician who has a commitment to, and a track record in, delivering social benefit to the mass of the American people. You need someone who can get out there and explain to the American people the long-term economic and social implications of these events to them. You need someone who is able to badger, cajole, convince and hold to the overarching goal, both the Dem and the Rep politicians.

    Heeey....you need a Clinton. Shame you don't have one about when you need one, isn't it?

    Now that's a name the Dems really can bank on...better than money in the bank...pure gold....oops monetary analogies seem to be the currency of the day...aaagh!

    Sen Obama needs another lunch with the man from Hope.


    Wouldn't work (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:41:56 PM EST
    Clinton smells blood and Obama will have to win it on his own. Can he? I haven't missed a Presidential election in a long long time but I confess to have no idea as to this one.

    America... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by marian evans on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    is such a great nation, but you have been so ill-led for such a long time. Both the Reps and the Dems are full of flabby, self-serving and petty individuals.

    In some ways, I guess, the kind of real adversity that you are facing is going to focus your attention on what you really need in a leader.

    As an outsider, I thought the first debate represented everything which was wrong with this US election. With the best will in the world, Sen Obama and McCain are lesser men faced with issues beyond their ability.

    A McCain presidency frightens me beyond measure...but an Obama presidency looks a mere matter of superficialities...it will offer us an exciting change in the White House's interior design.

    The Italians have a concept called 'la bella figura" (or something like that)...which means making a good impression, looking good, maintaining your front. We have literally had commentators remarking on the fact that Sen Obama looked "more presidential" in the debate. God help us...I don't care if he looked like a gnome (ok the knickerbockers might set me back a bit), if he had the ideas.

    So far...not.

    Probably now we are going to have the hordes of injunctions telling us to "look at his website". Spare us...


    heh (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM EST
    .which means making a good impression, looking good, maintaining your front.

    We call it "styling."

    If you want to worry, consider that countries that are considered more than willing to fight don't get attacked. McCain gives that impression. Obama doesn't.


    No (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:11:58 PM EST
    Of course, you criticize him for being too aggressive with that policy.

    I criticize him for opening his mouth and talking about it.

    And you know  that. Why do you always try and reframe?

    Good bye, DA.


    yadda yadda DA (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    Factoring in the Bradley effect (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:24:31 PM EST
    how big of a margin do you think he needs?

    Based on the last primaries I say 7%....

    And no... I have no basis... just a gut feel..


    I'm thinking 5% to 7% (none / 0) (#80)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:38:22 PM EST
    Something in that range.  But many people think that there is no Bradley effect.  

    My fear is that if things get bad enough, people won't want to go with someone so inexperienced.  They may not like McCain but they may feel more secure with him.  I sure hope that I'm wrong.  


    If you are right McCain wins (2.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:44:36 PM EST
    Obama has tried to slide on this issue.

    He can't. McCain has him nailed on his trillion in new spending which he's going to gave to say will require new taxes or give it up. Either what he loses support.


    Obama will never admit to raising taxes (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:03:58 AM EST
    That's the kiss of death.  No one can win running on a ticket of raising taxes.  So he will never say that.

    Then McCain (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    will drive home the point that he can't spend a trillion dollars in new programs.

    Voters are smart enough to figure that out.


    This is a leader? (none / 0) (#76)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    I thought he was going to be all about change, leading us to a better way, and now he seems to do nothing but play politics.  I had hoped for so much more from him.

    Don't hold your breath, TChris (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 11:06:30 PM EST