Where is Obama's Leadership?
As the markets plummet and the value of my house and investments disappear where is my
candidate? Like everyone else, my anger is mounting with plenty of blame to go around. But where is Obama's leadership?
Fine, he should keep his calm and collected demeanor, but nonethless work furiously to bring the Democratic rebels in Congress in line and pass the compromise rescue plan without the need
for those fringe Republican ideologues. Why doesn't Obama go round up Bill and Hillary -- the other most influential leaders of the Democratic Party -- mobilize his enormous e-network and for good measure bring on board the gurus of high and low finance -- Warren Buffet and Suze Orman -- for a full court press?
Thanks to the hard negotiating of the Democratic Congressional leadership, the Paulson plan has a large investment element where the public gets equity warrants-- the government would be buying assets at rock bottom prices likely to make a profit later. For this reason Suze Orman calls it an "investment plan" not a bailout. Its what Sweden did in their banking and credit crisis just over a decade ago, and the taxpayer has made out fine.
There are many reasons we are where we are -- low interest rates, macroeconomic stability, plenty of global capital sloshing around, the deregulation regime since the Reagan days and, it must be said, the American consumer out of control.
But you can't fix 20 years worth of Wall St. manipulation and consumer indiscipline overnight. And yes the plan is not a panacea and has problems, etc.
Politics is the art of the possible. This deal just voted down is what's possible. The only
possibility now is to revive it with the requisite votes from the Democratic side.
Obama needn't drop his campaign to focus on the crisis. Rescuing the rescue plan ought
to be his campaign. Its leadership the country is looking for. Let's see some.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Give me the POSSIBILITY of calamity over CERTAIN calamity any day, and especially when the certain calamity isn't going to help fix the underlying causes of the possible calamity.
That is: The Proposed Fix, a buyout, will be awful and will NOT resolve the problem.
People who are FOR the bailout need to think hard about what happens when you expand the money supply by 700B in one fled swoop. (Ans: devaluation of the dollar, primarily experienced as inflation.)
People who are FOR the bailout also need to think hard about what the REAL problem here is. (Ans: "liquidity" - the ability to make loans.)
A REAL solution is to alter the Federal Reserve; leave the originating banks alone and let them continue to hold their questionable assets. Create a New Fed which is wholely owned by us, the people, and seed it with power to expand the money supply only as necessary, perhaps starting with $250B and asking for congressional approval in increments of, oh $100B.
This leaves the "entire system" more or less as it was regarding assets and merely guarantees a clean money supply from here forward, originating new loans as the old Fed did, the key difference being that the old balance sheets aren't altered at all and that we, the people are the ones who the banks are beholden to, instead of the other way 'round.
THAT would be a real fix we should all support.
.
Yeah, I'm sure of the Dems in cogress – 60% of whom voted for the bill – are waiting around with nothing to do, hoping that a bunch of people not even involved in the legislative process call a meeting and take them away from the bargaining table. Obama is not superman.
Suze Orman? Are you kidding??
Who's next? Matthew Lesko?
Orman is a 'television personality'. She may be very smart and perhaps a "guru" of finance, but if Obama turns to her he is going to look like a clown. I bet it would help Orman's book sales though! He might as well bring in Jim Cramer as an adviser or get Dr. Phil to mediate the disagreement in congress. Then he could call Emeril to make lunch and hire Tony Robbins as his image manager and make Tony Little his adviser on health issues.
The leadership is in letting congress do their jobs, and not injecting himself in the process. I guess you want Obama to tie that noose around his neck himself? He can exert influence, and be an organizer in the process, but it sounds like you want him to drop everything and come in and rescue this joke of a bill. Round up Bill and Hillary Clinton? That one was laughable, Bill shares a large amount of culpability in this mess as well, Obama would be best served to stay away from the Clintons right now. The question you should be asking Mr. Gardels is where the hell is the oaf of a president that is still the leader of this country? He's so revered, that house republicans torpedoed his own bill. As the new leader of the Democratic party, yes Obama can assist in the process, but stop feeding us this bull like he can save the day here, this is bigger than Obama or McCain.
Now that bipartisanship failed, the Democrats should put a Democratic leaning bill including bankruptcy protection, keeping people in their homes, etc., and send to Bush's desk and dare him to veto it.
Your article reflects my thinking exactly. IF Obama is the ONE, he could easily prove it right now and seal up this election now! IF he's the ONE, the true leader of the Democratic Party as he's purported himself to be post-primary, then he could easily show that power now when we need someone to grab hold of the steering wheel and get the car back on the road. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words and leaders know the difference.
The ONE??
He WILL be the leader of a party and an administration, period. He's not now, and he won't be your god when he is. Look elsewhere for your ONE.
You're the reason the crazy-right makes messiah jokes.
Ever heard of sarcasm, AnotherMike? From your response to my comment I would say the answer is no, you haven't. Please refer to any given dictionary for the meaning of the word. Doing so will undoubtedly help you better understand any number of articles and posts on this website.
So now you're laying this at Obama's feet..flucking unbelievable!! When Obama went overseas(as suggested by McPalin and Company) looking presidential he was being presumptuous but now you want him to step in ala McCain riding in on a white horse and save the country with this bailout? Obama can't win..damed if he do and damned if he don't..
Not.
Obama has said that adding presidential politics to the mix does nothing to help the situation.
Obama's job right now is Senator and Presidential nominee. Acting like some kind of "surrogate President" would be presumptuous and unhelpful.
Because their democrats and in the end democrats typically do whatever is necessary to f *&k up whatever they touch, much like Bush. and conservatives .
Remember Jimmy Carter's calm, collected demeanor? It was refreshing after Watergate. Then what had appeared to be thoughful became vacuous.
A calm exterior can either be a manifestation of a cool demeanor, or the freezing up of someone who doesn't know what to do and has learned from history to do nothing.
Obama freezes. He has done absolutely nothing that would show he has been tested personally or professionally.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
If Jimmy Carter's problem had simply been vacuousness, Reagan never would have been elected, since he was an absolute void in comparison.
You've answered your own question. Obama is a guy with a "first do no harm" motto. He is nobody's patsy or pushover, believe that. He is not Carter. Calm and collected is essential now. If braggadoccio and swagger were needed, he would do that. But he has impeccable instincts. That's why he is steadily getting what he wants from EVERYBODY.
LOL, FirstShirt! Your comparison to Jimmy is f..king wonderful. Yep, think that is why he gets on my nerves. Where is the righteous anger? When Carter failed to take on Ronald Raygun for his treason, he essentially said, okay, you're the best, you know what you are doing, and it's probably not God's will in the first place. When Obama fails to take on George Bush and Paulson and fight for some meaningful solution to the economic crisis, he is virtually saying that it's okay to allow Wall St. to be the winner in the bailout rather than a healthcare plan here and a mortgage regulation structure there.
Gee, I don't know. How many bridge officers were elbowing each other to grab the wheel of the Titanic, as it slid under the waves?
The Bush Bailout was a disaster. Good riddance. Anyone who swallows his sky-is-falling, it's-the-end-of-the-world routine is a fool. The middle class already has been in a recession for years, papered over by phony financial stats courtesy of Bush cronies. Let their ponzi scheme crash and burn.
You ask some excellent questions.
I can only guess, but I would say one of the main reasons Obama is not heavily invested in this effort is because, unlike his opponent and his opponent's advisors, Obama and Obama's advisors are not stupid.
But I'm guessing.
'Bill and Hillary' are part of the problem. Their Reagan-nomics lite is part of the reason we are in this mess. We don't need anyone's help to pass a give away to the crooks who were betting on pieces of paper in the first place.
We need a real bill that raises taxes on the top 1% who benefited from these policies, an equity stake in the banks, a wholesale firing of banking executives and a replacement with government employees, and some government re-regulation for starters.
[sarcasm] Socialism! [/sarcasm]
They should pass an economic stimulus passage that invests in infrastructure, alternative energy, schools, and state and local municipalities. But to say Obama should be working for this bill AS IS is luducrous. Calls to congress were 200-to-1 against the bill. Some would call that "deeply unpopular." I call it dead in the water. Obama owning something like that would be political suicide.
And I'm sorry about the value of your house and investments, Mr. Gardels. Those of us who can't even afford a house in this economy and are not part of the investor class just weep for you. But let me know how that "leading off with selfishness instead of what's good for America" strategy works out for the Democrats.
This isn't just about the "investor class" as you so sarcastically put it tuttlemsm, this is also about the little man workforce out there. If more people lose their jobs over this economic down turn, then you just might be scr%wed too, that is unless you are jobless, on welfare, or who knows eeking out a meeger existence.
Nice post!
"Why doesn't Obama go round up Bill and Hillary -- the other most influential leaders of the Democratic Party -- mobilize his enormous e-network and for good measure bring on board the gurus of high and low finance -- Warren Buffet and Suze Orman -- for a full court press?"
Because he can't?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
