It might be true that the Obama campaign in North Dakota has reached the point of diminishing returns and will be put to better use in shoring up Wisconsin and Minnesota. But it is not good news that they are being transferred from offense to defense. That doesn’t mean it isn’t the smart strategy. It probably is.
The common wisdom is that the economic meltdown is helpful to Barack Obama and to the Democrats in general. But the fiasco opens up an opportunity for John McCain to do two important things. McCain can use the bailout plan to highlight his differences with George W. Bush and he can strike an outraged, populist tone to appeal to the people who have been victimized by his deregulatory policies. The Democrats have to be ready at every moment to wield a baseball bat to John McCain’s phony and hypocritical rhetoric. There must be no quarter, and no populist pitch that goes unanswered. John McCain must not be allowed to escape from the shadow of his voting record or his ironclad support for Bush’s economic policies. There is a real danger that McCain can turn this disaster to his advantage if we take our feet off his neck for even a second.
Only problem is that Obama is supporting a bailout of Wall Street as well. His first instinct was to take politics off the table and let the Bush administration set the agenda. We’ve been in a financial crisis for over a year and Obama waits until THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION (!) finally admits there’s a problem and demands an immediate bailout for our corporate overlords. I guess Obama doesn’t do anything unless Bush holds a gun to his head then he jumps as high as Bush demands.
Sure, he might tack on a few wasteful provisions to make it appear he’s standing up for the little guy but make no mistake about it; Obama fully supports this socialist takeover of Wall Street’s debt. There’s very little upside for the average taxpayer but maybe Obmama can continue to get corporate donations and then when he’s in office he’ll finally have the political courage to stand up to them (Ha ha!).
So you can play your silly political games and try to pretend that Obama is supporting the little guy. But the Democrats are political retards and have a very slim chance of convincing the average family that they support the little guy–because it’s not true. Anyway, my bet is on McCain pulling off the populist maverick skullduggery.
Both parties have ruined this country. Obama is not the answer. He’s the problem.
yeah, you’re right. It’s Obama’s fault and John McCain is the answer.
No. John McCain is slightly worse. The point is we are screwed regardless.
Obama’s Republican-lite economic policies and fake populism (token pork sent to “middle-America”) are almost as harmful as the Republican supply-side-free-market-fundamentalism. It will permanently set the appropriate range of economic debate as being between these far-right corporatist fundamentalists and the slightly (emphasis on slightly) more palatable Obama (DLC) position.
This country will experience massive pain. Both economic and with our upcoming “other wars” and the continuation of our current wars. Until you and your right-leaning (oops, sorry, moderate) Dem friends decide to stand up to this radical right-wing takeover of this country we are doomed.
I wouldn’t say that it’s Obama’s “fault” or that McCain is better.
I will say that Obama’s economics instincts worry me. I look at the team he’s put together on the Economics side and I see Robert Rubin – that’s a honking huge red flag. He’s a deregulation hawk and his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury setup a lot of these problems we’re seeing with the banking system today. He didn’t “cause” the problem either, but he damn sure didn’t do anything to make it better.
That said, for every Rubin on Obama’s side McCain seems to have a Phil Gramm. So the choice in this election is blindingly obvious. I just wish that elections didn’t always seem to come down to choosing between someone who is clearly nuts and should never be allowed near the reigns of power and someone who is not as bad as the other guy.
And, since McCain has now moved into the realm of “not afraid to lie his ass off at every opportunity”, he’s is going to be out there going full-hellfire populist in his rhetoric without any need to worry about backing it up with actions once he’s elected. Obama seems to be constrained by little things like facts, reality, and some level of intellectual honesty that doesn’t allow him to spout off about things he doesn’t actually believe in. So I also am beginning to get queasy about McCain’s ability to upend this mess into something in his favor – especially if the Dems in Congress give him a brilliant neon shiny object to point at where he can say “See – look at how nasty those tax and spend liberal Democrats are!” And Congress sounds like its well on it’s way to doing just that as we speak. That they’re doing it at the behest of the Bush Administration will be meaningless if McCain successfully convinces people that he’s against it as it is happening.
has Obama come out calling for punitive measures to discourage CEOs from doing this again? Is he proposing new regulations? Is he saying “no bailout”?
I think your response is kind of flip: i didn’t think SFHawkguy was blaming Obama for this mess. But he is certainly supporting a bailout, and it’s hard to see how democrats have their foot on the GOP’s neck when people like the Anonymous congressman are saying that Pelosi will at the end of the day do what the Blue Dogs tell her, and influential dems like Chris Dodd are calling Paulson “the right man for the job”.
it’s not obama’s fault and john mccain is NOT the answer, but let’s not pretend that our preferred candidate has no flaws and is right about everything. if Obama supports the bailout as written (and it’s my understanding that he SAYS he doesn’t but we all know how often a politicians words line up with his/her actions) than he deserves no quarter.
and I think SFHawkguy is right to be cynical and to keep his eyes on washington DC. you can’t trust them, not a one and it takes constant vigilance and pressure to make them do the right thing.
with all due respect, I don’t think many realize that on Thursday morning before the bell rang, via NYPost,we’re ALMOST ARMAGEDDON – 500 trades away from total meltdown to usher in the second great depression.
500 trades are all of 1 minute, OK 2. Meaning $500 billion of sell orders before the bell with no buyers Not hyper hystrics.
Sure us taxpayers will be mugged. We have a choice. Pay up or collapse…. like being cornered in a dark alley by hoods – “Your wallet or your life”
We’re in a world of hurt no matter what we do. We’re here because we followed failed conservative ideology.
The stock market may need to go down to 8,000. That’s the free market. That’s what happens with loose monetary policy and supply side fiscal policy. Trying to artificially prop up assets when the inevitable correction happens does not work. We’ve tried to get rid of the business cycle and to only have bubbles and no bubble popping but that only delays the inevitable. Sometimes ripping the band-Aid off is better then taking it off one little bit at a time. If we let the markets fall to where they should be then we can put our capital to productive use and be on track to a fundamentally sound economy more quickly. We need fundamental change to savings. Not more reckless debt. Giving huge bailouts to the people that took unnecessary risk only makes the problem worse.
Heck, Russia’s stock market went down 17% in one day last week. Other markets around the world are also in trouble. It’s very ironic that Russia is allowing its stock exchange to suffer from the ups and downs of free market capitalism whereas the U.S. preaches free market capitalism but follows the Pakistanis and Chinese and attempts to artificially prop up the markets. And it will probably end as it always does when the government tries to prop up a stock market (just look at the Chinese stock market).
I agree we are in a mess. I have been saying this for years. But the solution is not more of what got us here. We have to take our medicine.
3rd option. Both pay up and collapse. It isn’t obvious that the bailout will prevent collapse.
Actually, to be completely cynical, my view is that the bailout will cause a devaluation of the dollar, and eventually price increases, which will ironically mean that all of those underwater mortgages won’t be underwater any more. Not that the houses will be worth more – just that the dollar and all of the dollar denominated debt will be worth less.
And you should thank your lucky stars that the GOP didn’t privatize social security because then that would be an even bigger reason to bail out Wall Street. Can’t have the stock market going down when the retirement of millions of Americans depends on it.
That’s their plan. It’s the final solution that the corporatists have been looking for since the late 19th century. I don’t think you appreciate how close we are to the REAL financial Armageddon–the total unraveling of American capitalism as we’ve known it the last 75 years and the complete takeover by our corporate overlords.
Slowly but surely they have been chipping away. They’ve renegged on their pension promises, labor protections have been gutted, bankruptcy laws have been changed to protect corporations and not people, the social security net has been eviscerated for average Americans while corporate welfare has skyrocketed, our tax code has been rejiggered to favor the wealthy, our public and private debt has risen to levels not seen since the 1920s. Our government represents the interests of the corporate elite alone. Republican vodoo economic theory has been adopted by the Democrats and the MSM.
The end is nigh and the meek protestations of Obama and the Democrats are too little too late.
Hey all three comments: I doubt you’d like see a collapse of the world’s financial system because these were investment products created by U.S. banksters and exported.
Frankly, few Americans are prepared to handle a financial collapse and the ensuing struggle for 5-15 years.
Unthinkabkle CONSEQUENCES.
Seeing how John McCain is proud of voting 90% of the time with W, means this debacle is his mess. He is for more deregulation of Wall Street.
Unfortunately, there has to be some kind of a bailout. The question is, who pays for it, and who controls what is done with the money. I was pleased to see that Warren Buffett is advising the Obama people, because he seems to be one billionire who understands that this cannot be dumped on the taxpayer.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/obama-campaign.html
I find it really odd that Obama is giving up on North Dakota. It doesn’t seem consistent with the spirit of his campaign. In the grand scheme of things the cost of competing there is peanuts, and there is some public relations downside to bailing out. I thought we were serious about competing in all 50 states, even if prospects were better in some than others. I wonder if money is getting tight within Obama’s operation? I understand that campaigns have finite resources and you’ve got to try getting the most bang for your buck, but something about this doesn’t add up. Plouffe and Axelrod have been brilliant, but this move bothers me– it just feels wrong.
North Dakota doesn’t have party registration, so it is hard to identify your voters. Evidently, they have done the hard work of identifying their voters and they are moving on to more productive pastures.
The last polls out of ND were very discouraging, so that also has to be influencing them. And the polls in Wisconsin and Minnesota have narrowed to a worrying degree.
ND-3 (4?)
SD-3
WI-11 (12?)
MN-11
Not a difficult addition problem here.