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

[CruzanKenny]

What a whiner. Obama isn't President yet and you have already given him superpowers.
It appears most of us are facing this bailout with a logical posit; It is necessary to spend 700 billion because we need to save the economy.
Why? Because Bush says so?
The Republicans have just given the Dem's an early Christmas present. If I was a Democrat in Congress I would now vote 'no' for any bailout resolution unless the Republicans developed one that they guaranteed was one every of their party members would vote in favor .

[karronna]

I sure hope this voting no by the republicans is not a tactic develped in cahoots with John McCain to allow them to
1) Blame Pelosi
2) Have McCain fly back in and take credit for getting everybody back together on this and pushing it through.

[StillIRise]

1. Blaming Pelosi is utterly ridiculous, and I think both Republicans and Democrats, and most thinking Americans recognize this. This particular "blame game" was even denounced, of all places on Fox News. I'm sure Hannity and Limbaugh will push it, and of course McCain will try to give it some wheels, but most people have already discounted it as a false argument.

2. McCain has already lost credibility with this bill. His Republican colleagues have rejected both his influence and his support for the bill. Whatever bill is ultimately pushed through, I doubt seriously if McCain can take credit for a bill that is not the bill he initially, and very vociferously, supported. The Republicans' stance on this bill was a slap in the face to both Bush and McCain.

[drhooey]

I think at this time it would be a good idea to have a TV show called THE NEXT PRESEDENT and let the people phone in and vote for who they want. And the rest get to go home! Who knows it might work.

[clevelandchick]

How do you know he's not talking to the Democratic leadership behind the scenes? I was panicking like you Nathan but after calming down for a couple of days. I've heard the case made by some House Dems I respect, that this bill is not good and does nothing to fix the underlying problem; mainly the mortgages and housing values that precipitated this slide months ago. If you don't do fix that problem first, then this bailout could make things a lot worse.

You aren't going to fix 20 years of the government letting Wall Street act like a teenager whose parents went on vacation and forgot to lock the liquor cabinet in one week. I prefer that Congress takes some time hammering this out without giving King Henry the golden key to the treasury with no real viable oversight by someone outside of the Bush Administration.

Obama would be wise to be working on the sidelines instead of pulling the Mighty Mouse act like McCain who made a complete fool of himself. Obama is not a whip, he is not a majority leader and he's not even a member of the committee in charge of drafting a solution. Obama is also not president yet. Unfortunuately. I'm sure he's doing what he can behind the scenes, after all like he said, he'd be the guy to inherit this mess if he wins.

[DrPaulProteus]

He can't lead on this because he's a product of the same system. I'm listening to his reaction to it right now on the radio, and he's saying absolutely nothing of substance. He can't even say whether he was for this plan or not.

[radiclib]

.
.
Oh, come on. Don't play dumb. Obama is playing this just right. There's not much he can do at this point. Perhaps in a few days, or weeks, but not yet. He's said all the right things and he will vote the right way when the time comes. But this is a Republican problem. This is the end of the Reagan Era. They had more than a quarter-century with a whip hand. And they are about to get whipped. So, whip 'em. Whip 'em good.
.
.

[BluesDogLefty]

He is a candidate--all he could do besides "keep his calm and collected demeanor" is to further and needlessly politicize this process.

The Dems delivered 141 votes on a politically dangerous bill, which is the solution to a Rep made problem. (more than their 50% +1)

How would Obama get the Reps to deliver more votes when McCain and Bush can't? And what would be the point of him trying to force the remaining Dems to vote yes when their doing so would weaken their chances of being re-elected on Nov 4?

This is not a failure on the Dem side--neither Pelosi and the House, nor Reid and the Senate, nor Obama are to blame in the least.

This failure demonstrates the complete breakdown of leadership and faith in leadership in the Republican party.

[harriscrl3]

Its always easy to blame Obama. Even McCain is blaming Obama and its his people who failed to come on board now you've got democrats blaming Obama. I mean give me a break. I wish folks would realize there is still currently a President he may be a lame duck but Obama is NOT the President as yet. He still has an election to win.

What next are they going to blame him for.

Carol

[castlerider]

Where were you last week, Nathan?
Obama mentioned 5 core principles needed, and saw all these through. He did all this without klieg lights following him around, and with as you say, his calm demeanor all working for him.

I can understand you wanting to see more of the man, but he hasn't won yet and your complainingb sure doesn't help.

[closerthanuthink]

Exactly!! Couldn't have put it better!