Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- In Shift, US Calls for "Amnesty" for Journalists in NK
- Obama Pushes Back Amid Criticism Over G-8 Progress on Iran
- While the President's Away, Health Care will Stray?
- 'My Cousin In Kenya Can't Get a Job Without Paying a Bribe': Obama Tells African Leaders to Get Their Houses in Order
- 'Camp Obama' for Malia and Sasha
- When In Rome...? Actually, not so much
- President Obama Shakes Hands with Qadaffi
- More Qs for O's WH - 7/9/2009
- President Obama Urges Major Economies Forum Nations to Act on Climate Change
- Today's Qs for O's WH - 7/9/2009
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
No One in the Paint, Obama has the Ball
September 15, 2008 8:04 AM
Can he make this lay-up?
With the Merrill Lynch/Lehman Bros. crises, can Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seize this opportunity to make his case -- passionately, convincingly -- on this day that he and running mate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were already previously scheduled to attack Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on the economy?
Or will he be a political version of "Beverly Hills Chihuahua"?
“It's 3 a.m. on Wall Street," former Clinton flack Howard Wolfson writes this morning. "Will either candidate offer an explanation of the problem and a plan to fix it that will reassure voters and break through the din?"
Obama, in a morning statement, says, "I certainly don’t fault Sen. McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. ... Instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up."
Says McCain senior adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, "we believe the time has come and gone that the taxpayer should be viewed as the solution to problems that are not of their making. Unfortunately, that is the fundamental plank of Barack Obama’s economic philosophy -- raise taxes and concentrate power in Washington. That is the wrong direction."
More Wolfson: "There is a tendency on the part of candidates to be cautious about inserting themselves too dramatically into the markets during periods of volatility. No one wants to be accused of saying something that causes an adverse reaction on the trading floor. Still, this is ‘a moment.'"
- jpt
September 15, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (143)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
maria,
I think you are actually claiming that Obama Did 'elude' confidence, but it's all in who you are speaking to, like Giuliani at the convention.
If you want to make the claim that he is advocating a bank run, I think you might consider that argument a time or two before elaborating further.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | Sep 16, 2008 4:05:25 AM
Sigh, back into the trenches...
Well on the other side we have
Donald Luskin, Economic Advisor
to the McCain Campaign:
"Whatever the political outcome this year, hopefully this will prove to be yet another instance of that iron law of economics and markets: The sentiment of the majority is always wrong at key turning points. And the majority is plenty pessimistic right now. That suggests that we're on the brink not of recession, but of accelerating prosperity.
Maybe this will turn out to be the best of times -- at least since the Great Depression."
---------------------------------------
Now there is a bit of Panglossian genius. With an 'iron law' tossed in
for good measure.
Posted by: Leonard Peltier | Sep 16, 2008 3:59:22 AM
Obamas comments this morning where he stated this was the worst disaster since the 1930 Depression....was reckless and melodramatic.
A President is supposed to elude confidence during this trying times while offering solutions on how to handle the current crisis.
Obama did NEITHER.
Instead he chose to sound like a chicken with his head cut off claiming the sky was falling.
Posted by: maria | Sep 16, 2008 3:38:55 AM
Did Obama tell you that Lehman Brothers may have went under because they gave him more money then all but one other Senator....395,000.00....guess who the other Senator was???? Hillary!
Posted by: kennedy | Sep 16, 2008 12:06:39 AM
On July 22, Obama mentioned the Senate Banking Committee saying, "which is my committee". But I'm betting he's not spreading that lie by taking false credit for that committee today.
Posted by: marylou | Sep 15, 2008 4:51:03 PM
Who's the chair of the Senator oversight board responsible for Banking and Finance? What has that committee done that would have helped to mitigate the circumstances that we find ourselves in?
Posted by: gdjmac | Sep 15, 2008 4:39:25 PM
Lehman's collapse was caused by loaning money to people to buy homes they couldn't afford because of a mindset that every American should be able to own a home - whether or not they can afford it. That philosophy might have worked, except that too many Americans have a difficult time discerning "needs" from "wants" and feel they're entitled to everything now; in other words, they haven't a clue as to how to be financially responsible. Thanks to greed on the part of both buyers and lenders, the rest of us are now being dragged down into their hole.
What would Obama have done to prevent this? And did he actually try to do anything as a member of the Senate? Since he seems to believe that everyone is entitled to everything, I can't imagine he would have stepped in to stop these irresponsible loans from taking place.
Posted by: marylou | Sep 15, 2008 4:38:01 PM
Obama did speak out on Lehman's collapse. He didn't blame it on McCain, but said his kind of philosophy contributed to it. Unlike McCain, who said the fundamentals of our economy are strong, Obama acknowledged a crisis. No paintball attack, but reason. Are we mature enough to listen to something other than sensation or denial?
Posted by: kat | Sep 15, 2008 4:25:25 PM
So who's to blame in Washington for Fannie/Freddie? This may be a good place to start looking.
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
Interesting that Obama made the #3 spot, though he's only been in Washington since 2005.
Perhaps Obama isn't throwing the spotlight on McCain because he doesn't want its glare to shine back on him.
Posted by: marylou | Sep 15, 2008 4:16:46 PM
Lehman and Merril Lench have both suffered from the housing crisis, a result of deregulation. Phil Gramm, recently ousted from the McCain campaign, has been a major crusader for decades against government regulation. McCain, like Bush, has extolled deregulation for years. No doubt, there's a basis for calling McCain down on this, but Obama isn't petting a chihuahua by not doing this immediately. Perhaps he cares more about people rushing to the banks and their 401Ks than he does scoring political wins.
Posted by: kat | Sep 15, 2008 3:03:41 PM
The only thing I've heard that "trickles up" is the tingling feeling up Keith Olberman's leg when Obama speaks.
Seriously, this current financial crisis can be traced to that old favorite, greed. Subprime lending regulators sat on their hands while mortgage brokers took advantage of people who were a bad risk. Then Fannie and Freddie were also asleep at the switch, gobbling up thousands of bad loans without applying proper scrutiny.
How is this Obama's fault? Or McCain's?
Posted by: Woody | Sep 15, 2008 2:10:36 PM
Sally,
Can you tell us where you got that from?
Kindly substantiate the allegation that Barack Obama asked Iraq Officials to stall Troops Withdrawal till after the elections
Posted by: Dare Nigeria | Sep 15, 2008 12:45:35 PM
Just google your question. The story was in the NY Post and I quote:
"According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
Posted by: Davei n lv | Sep 15, 2008 1:40:52 PM
"McCain today claimed that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | Sep 15, 2008 12:51:23 PM
The economy grew 3.3% last quarter. Democrats want change- like putting us into a recession.
That's change you can believe in.
Posted by: drjohn | Sep 15, 2008 1:10:38 PM
"Google phil gramm deregulation and you'll see who is behind this financial mess.
Phil Gramm was McCain's top economic adviser before being sacked for calling us a "nation of whiners" experiencing a "mental recession"."
Gramm was dead right.
Posted by: drjohn | Sep 15, 2008 1:08:51 PM
Does Obama think the economy is weak?
What did he do to make it different?
Oh, that's right.
Nothing.
Posted by: drjohn | Sep 15, 2008 1:08:08 PM
Well yeah, if this were the Soviet Union, or as the lefties called it, "Nirvana", the government would have control of all financial institutions and wouldn't that be wonderful. GO O'BABBLE !
Posted by: Ron | Sep 15, 2008 1:07:31 PM
Brooklyn Dem,
Please stop poking fun at McCain's ignorance of the economy. He has confirmed himself, that the economy is not his strong suit.
Posted by: Dare Nigeria | Sep 15, 2008 1:01:35 PM
Google phil gramm deregulation and you'll see who is behind this financial mess.
Phil Gramm was McCain's top economic adviser before being sacked for calling us a "nation of whiners" experiencing a "mental recession".
Posted by: cincyr | Sep 15, 2008 12:58:32 PM
McCain today claimed that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Maybe he confused fundamentals with fundamentalists.
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | Sep 15, 2008 12:51:23 PM
Sally,
Can you tell us where you got that from?
Kindly substantiate the allegation that Barack Obama asked Iraq Officials to stall Troops Withdrawal till after the elections
Posted by: Dare Nigeria | Sep 15, 2008 12:45:35 PM
Post a comment

