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.

Comments

[StillIRise]

I realize that this article was written before today's vote, but Obama's leadership became evident when the Democrats solidified enough votes to pass the bill that would resolve the crisis. However, since this was intended to be a BIPARTISAN agreement, it was the Republicans, under the lack of leadership of John McCain, who failed to produce the Republican votes that would seal the deal. Although Senator Obama has not politicized his involvement with this crisis as John McCain has, and accordingly has not dramatized it as John McCain did (suspending his campaign and cancelling the debate), Senator Obama was able to accomplish what John McCain was not able to do, which was to galvanize a consensus of the majority of his Democratic colleagues to affirm the bill. This was a classic example of still waters running deep. Senator Obama very quietly accomplished what John McCain very boisterously failed to do.

[the steamer]

It was written at 06:35 PM, not AM.

[raskolnikov72]

Why, so that your portfolio can recover for a few weeks and then tank again? Is that why he should round up Bill and Hillary?

This $700BB is going to to nothing in the end. Here are the facts:

- $13Triilion in mortgage Debt
- $96% of these mortgages are _good_ (eg, get paid)
- leaves, $520 Bilion that are not good
- So, $700BB sounds good on paper, right? No .. if it were that easy, why do they not simply do some forensic accounting to figure out all the "Bad" mortgages?
-Because the plan is not designed to work on those mortgages. Its designed to Help Goldman and Morgan

Here's real ugliness: 50th Percentile (median income) adjusted for inflation is around $41,000 ... Average Household debt is north of $20,000. This has been the case for many, many years

Now, you tell me where in the he double hockey sticks the vaunted "AMERICAN CONSUMER" has gotten the money to purchase things? That's right:
- Home equity loans (buh-bye, those days are over)
- Easy money through credit cards (Buh-bye)

Now, how does Treasury deal with this situation? Well, they make money easy to borrow (low interest rates) .. what does that do? Increase inflation ...Where does that leave us? with the same compounded problem ...

Look at a chart of home prices in the US .. they began to climb right after 9-11 when Greenspan dropped interest rates precipitously ....

This is the post-bubble internet shock + 9-11

[the steamer]

Doing nothing should not be an option. You'd rather your government encouraged a borrowed economy then just walked off? Buy out, work to improve the nation. Don't buy out, say something cynical and ultimately useless.

[nazcalito]

Mr. Gardels asks:

"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?"

Mr. Gardels -- er -- I don't own a home -- I rent, and I don't have any investments that I'm going to lose money on. I shop at the little Spanish markets in the Mission because Safeway's too expensive. I just manage to pay the bills and the rent. So I have a hard time feeling particularly sympathetic about your plight. Your SUV has probably dropped radically in value, too. You want to know where Obama's "leadership" is? The answer is Obama's a smart guy, a lot smarter than most of the people we'll ever meet, and certainly a lot smarter than the Democratic leadership. Obama is the cautious, thinking type, and we need that. He shouldn't do ANY of those things you suggested. He should concentrate on getting elected, first of all, because otherwise we're going to have two incompetents elected who will provide zero leadership and be sitting ducks for the gang of crooks who has been telling Bush what to do. And comparing this to some bailout in Sweden? Oh please. Sweden is a social-democratic state where the government has had a lot of experience involving itself in the economy. The country is highly regulated. This bailout, in contrast, amounts to just giving money to crooked bankers.

[jhNY]

For Democrats, there is a practical limit on just how much saving Bush's ass from the fire of public opinion is worth having to burn in the high heat of the public's dislike themselves. The economy is a Bush economy, the Republican leadership has no followers, the president has no clothes, however imperial his first-term aspirations. Democratic representatives brought in a majority of their membership to vote for the bail-out, only to discover they'd been railroaded by their counterparts across the aisle, and they were left as the only folks in the room holding a bucket. I'm sure they will wait as long as possible for an opportunity to return to bipartisanism of this treacherous sort.

And me, I'm glad. Until Kucinich is on board, I'm certain this bail-out stinks, as I am certain it is literally unconstitutional and a disaster for ordinary citizens, whatever the advantages presently denied to the degenerate gamblers of high finance, who could not be persuaded to promise to loan a penny of the bail-out money to anybody, although it was hoped that were they to recieve the billions, they might be more likely to lean in that direction.­..

Let the Clintons fan out into the hinterlands of the Rust Belt and the South, where they are needed to persuade their faithful to go to the polls for Obama. That's work we need them to perform.

[theHardTruthFairy]

Go "round up" Bill and Hillary?

Do you suggest he use a big whistle, or maybe a metal triangle like the one they use to call cowboys for supper time? Please go back and read some blog posts on how difficult is was to wrangle them into two simple speeches at the DNC convention last month.

In case you didn't know, the Clintons are pro-Wall Street DLC Democrats. Bill can't (and shouldn't) be interviewed right now on this topic because any good journalist will probe him on his administration's roll in deregulation. (Nothing compared to Bush's 8 years, but there is a slice of blame for Clinton.)

The recommendation to enlist Buffet and Orman is good and would go a long way towards swaying public opinion - the only thing that will flip votes our way.

[Soulberry]

There are two aspects to the problem - 1) the correct soulution, and 2) the politics of arriving at that solution at the right time. The first cannot be without the second in a democracy. In this case the complete solution could include also addressing those aspects which first gave rise to such a situation. I have read and heard some commentators wiser and more learned than I, suggest that some of those factors could include the policies followed by a particular party in governance. The politics leading to the best solution would be charged with dealing with that component of the solution.

[genia]

Leadership?
When did he get elected?
Anything he attemps will be viewed as a political stunt. I trust Obama ...100%
Everytime.­.....I have doubted him....the man just blows me away...he'­s better then the rest.
Leave him be....give him a few days ..

[RRonin]

Let me understand this: Bush and his Republican toadies have totally screwed this country, but somehow Obama (who ISN'T President, and don't even get me started on the Clintons!) is to blame. How does that make any sense?

[AspenFreePress]

Where IS Obama's leadership? I like the question. His rolling over for Bush's bailout scheme makes me wonder whether he would have stood up to Bush in connection with sending troops to Iraq, had he been in the Senate then. Now don't get me wrong. If I decide to vote in this Presidential election, it will be for Obama. Right now, however, my inclination is to vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Sterling Greenwood
Aspen Free Press

[cheforacle]

The decision to vote for the war in Iraq and the vote for the bailout or completely different things. In the fall of 2002, in the wake of what, at that juncture, was considered to be a successful enterprise in Afghanistan the pressure to invade Iraq was strong and a huge percentage of the country supported it. This is completely unpoular - under 1%. To support the war in Iraq was overwhelmingly to support not only George Bush but the will of the people - despite the fact that millions like myself opposed it. Furthermore there was no proof that Iraq had done anything to us or had any capacity to do so. Here we have strong evidence credit is drying up. Banking instiutions which hold billions of assets of the American people are failing and the 401(k)s of many middle class people are in potential jeopardy. So the two situations bear no resemblance. And no one is gonna die if this goes through.

[Marlyn]

"His rolling over for Bush's bailout scheme"

Is that right? Obama supports the $700 BILLION bailout?

[jmundstuk]

A decision not to vote in this election is a luxury that we cannot afford. While you contemplate your ideals, the nation is suffering.

[dudervision]

Fine, don't bother to vote and give up your right to complain if McSame gets in the White House and wrecks this nation!!! If things get so bad you find yourself missing the "good old days" of George W (and I honestly fear they will with McCain at the helm!) and you want to know who is to blame??? Just go look in the mirror.

Obama/Biden
Yes, We Can!
Yes, We MUST!

[Alonso Quijano]

Quit blaming the Clintons. Losers in a tough fight need time to grieve for their loss and it is quite unreasonable to ask them to enthusiastically support someone who defeated them. IMHO the Clintons have already gone beyond their duty in convention speeches and other declarations in helping Obama. IMHO Obama stole the candidacy from Hillary by methods reminiscent of the way Bush got electoral votes away from Gore in 2000.

Also quit blaming the Clintons for Gore's loss in 2000. The best one to blame is Ralph Nader, if you need a scapegoat . . .

[StillIRise]

You need to make a YouTube video, the screaming, crying Clinton defender! It would probably be at least as credible as your post, and who knows ... it might even get you the YouTube Video of the Year Award.

[dudervision]

Hillary has done her part to support Obama and is to be commended, but Bill's totally lackluster endorsement will ultimately doom Hillary's chances of winning the presidency in 2012 (and possibly getting re-elected to the Senate) if Obama loses. There are many Obama supporters who will blame both of them and remember the next time they see their name on a ballot.

Time for all hands on deck!!!

[jmundstuk]

Silly. Comparing the primary to 2000 is just silly. Bill Clinton is the Democrat's most recent former president who still carries a lot of weight. He is supposed to support the nominee. Hillary is doing so, with or without enthusiasm, we don't know. Grieving my ass, excuse the language. Do it in private. These are perilous times; ones personal pique needs to be put aside for the greater good.

[lurkingfool]

Obama and the democratic leader ship delivered over 2/3 of their members in the House. Where was leadership of McCain ? The person who dropped everything and suspended his campaign to take charge of delivering the required votes needed to pass this bill, only to have the Repubs in the House tell him and Bush to go jump. This is the same person who was taking credit earlier in the day for getting the
bill passed. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. The blame rests at the feet of McCain and Bush not Obama.

[AnaisKarim]

Exactly! This is supposed to be a bipartisan effort. The republicans didn't deliver their end of the bargain.

[siellis]

Nathan, I disagree. The Dems cannot pass this bill alone. It is a Bush generated problem. Why should the Dem congress roll over for him.? The GOP has to have some skin in the game also. Ideally, the new bill or compromise should pass with 50/50 support. Or something like it. We have enuf Dems for our part. The GOP must step up.

[jmundstuk]

Right. The Democrats *must not* pass this bill alone. Whatever is passed must be done so that everybody has some responsibility for it. Remember the shrewd but cynical Gingrich strategy of voting 100 percent against the first Clinton deficit reduction tax bill that indicated some seriousness about the deficit. Ah, those long gone, simple days of yore.

[DerekRC]

This is not a Bush created problem as you state. Fannie and Freddie are the root cause of this problem with their subprime loans. Why did they make them... because DEMOCRATS passed laws forcing Freddie and Fannie to give loans to people who couldn't realistically pay them back.

This is not a "deregulation" problem. The problem is with government inserting themselves into the free market, and forcing institutions to write bad loans.

Do your research and try to be intellectually honest.

[mandalaina]

Obama hasn't been elected yet. This mess is the fault of the Republicans; if they broke it, they need to fix it. Obama, not being a financial expert (neither candidate is), is best staying away from this and letting people do their jobs (as McCain didn't).

As far a Bill and Hill are concerned? They've made it abundantly clear that they want no part of helping Obama--or the democrats, at this stage of the game. The author of this blog makes the assumption that Obama hasn't asked--maybe the Clintons simply don't WANT to help? That is not out of the realm of possibility, given their behavior lately.

[BubbaC33]

Obama is a candidate for the highest office in the land and has the advisors to help him understand the economic crisis. Which is to say he should not stay away from this issue. As a leader he needs to help guide us out of this mess.
As for the Clintons, you are so wrong. Both have spoken for Obama and are waiting for him to direct them to where they are needed. Case in point- recently on The Daily Show Bill Clinton spoke out strongly in support of Obama and against McCain. I realize some Obama supporters want to continue to attack the Clintons, but that is a good way to make certain McCain will win next month.

[mandalaina]

I'm responding as I am because of what I've heard Clinton say during the campaign.

By the way--fyi--I voted for Bill Clinton.

I disagree that Clinton has spoken "out strongly in support of Obama." That's not what I've heard coming from him. Clinton said that McCain was a great man--which he stopped short of saying about Obama. This is strange behavior from a man whose daughter and wife was so totally disrespected by McCain.

Greater minds than mine are debating whether Obama should be "more of a presence" in this economic disaster. I am of the opinion that he's doing everything he should be doing.

Along these lines--what's stopping the Clintons from holding press conferences and/or meeting with Obama--why is it that Obama needs to beg their help?

You know, the Clintonistas have acting like primadonnas long enough.

[StillIRise]

Obama did not stay away from this bill, as has been evidenced by the majority of his Democratic colleagues voting for it. Obama simply didn't try to politicize his involvement or make as much noise about it as McCain did. Ironically, in spite of McCain's noise (suspension of his campaign and cancellation of the debate), he failed to accomplish what Obama succeeded in accomplishing.

As for the Clintons, it is widely perceived that they are not supporting Obama with the enthusiasm that one would expect and that we had hoped for. President Clinton, in particular, only speaks well of Obama when asked, and even then he parses his words to give an impression of support that is obviously not heartfelt. However, I am not attacking the Clintons. They have every right to campaign for Obama as they choose; but I believe some of the criticism against them is warranted. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt if this criticism will impact Senator Obama's momentum or his election to the presidency. Senator Obama is winning this election on his own merits, and John McCain is losing the election on his merits as well.

[mrpopo]

Dear Mr. Gardels,

I think you've really hit on something here. What a tremendous lack of leadership Obama is showing by not calling in Suze Orman to fix all of our problems.

Sheer brilliance on your part. The country owes you a debt of gratitude.

[springsm]

baloney...­mccain popped in, made a rat's patooty out of himself and then moved on declaring a victory. Don't they have a committee working on this? Don't they have economists working on this or at least saying what is wrong? I wonder why Obama hasn't come in also..but maybe he is letting the process work. But mr popo ...you are rather snide. Why don't you just come out and say it...you don't have to be nice...mos­t trolls aren't Tho you do have alittle creativity in your post..that does add abit.

[Truthosaurus]

Hey springsm - are you half asleep? Lighten up and re-read the post - mrpopo is not criticizing Obama. Jeeze.

[Truthosaurus]

And Suze claims she is a virgin too. So we can trust her judgment.

[AngryCenter]

A - he already got 67% of Dems to support it
B - the bill sucks and he's wrong to support it. I hope he uses the opportunity to correct his position and introduce a better bill with some expert testimony