The Wall Street meltdown has provided Barack Obama with perhaps his best opportunity to extricate himself from the sludge poured so copiously by his opponents. This is serious stuff, unlike the various pig/lipstick/Britney/Paris/Palin sideshows, and, quite frankly, if Obama can't turn this economic crisis to his political advantage, he doesn't deserve to win. Indeed (and here I am updating one of my old lines), if the Democrats can't win a presidential election in this climate, they should simply go out of business, just like Lehman Brothers, and take up residence in the history wing of the Smithsonian Museum, sharing a display window with the Whigs.
The present opportunity has these components:
1. Most voters have been telling pollsters for a long time that America is on the "wrong track," and that they dislike President Bush's stewardship of the economy. Bush has been in charge for the past eight years; Republicans have run Congress for most of that time. Obama, as the nominee of the party that is generally more trusted on economic issues, is better positioned than John McCain to remind voters that the current economic woes have occurred on the GOP's watch. McCain has the burden of trying to distance himself from the governing party, which happens to be his. The old James Carville advice ("It's the economy, stupid") is new again.
2. The current crisis, particularly the mortgage meltdown, is the direct result of Republican deregulation policies, the notion that Wall Street and the free market works best when supervised least. In reality, that's when human greed - the dark side of free enterprise - rises to the fore. Not to get into the weeds here, but the housing bubble burst because the commercial banks, stock firms, and hedge funds were allowed to engage in Ponzi-like mortgage swaps - thanks to two deregulation measures pioneered by Senate Republicans back when they ran the chamber at the end of the Bill Clinton era (and, yes, Clinton signed off). Taken together, these two laws seriously loosened oversight of the financial community.
3. The prime mover behind those GOP deregulation efforts was Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. The name might ring a bell. That's the same Phil Gramm who has long been tight with McCain - and vice versa, since it was McCain who chaired Gramm's failed run for the presidency in 1996. Gramm, in his current incarnation as a banker, was also serving this year as McCain's chief economic advisor until he was bounced from the post after referring to Americans as "whiners" suffering "a mental recession." Obama now has the opportunity to repeatedly tie McCain to Gramm and hence to the deregulation climate fostered by Gramm.
4. McCain quickly put out a statement yesterday saying that as president he would "replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street" - which is a bit rich, considering the actual fact that he has been in Washington for a quarter of a century and has a virtually zero track record as a reformer of the patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight. Six years ago, he reportedly did offer one amendment on an accountability reform bill, but otherwise, his long tenure contradicts his "maverick" marketing. In fact, back in the mid-'90s, when the GOP was riding high on Capitol Hill, McCain proposed a moratorium on existing federal regulations, which he insisted were wrecking "the American dream." And as he told The Wall Street Journal earlier this year, "I'm always for less regulation." Obama now has the opportunity to factually demonstrate that the McCain's "maverick" image is a fraud.
5. McCain handed Obama a gift yesterday, by declaring that, despite the Wall Street meltdown, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." The McCain people quickly realized that their candidate had screwed up (after all, if Obama had uttered those same seven words, the McCain people would have jumped for joy). So they made sure that McCain got out there, within the same news cycle, with a clarification of sorts. McCain soon explained that what he had meant to say was that the fundamentals of the economy are strong because of the greatness of America's workers. (Which perhaps means that, from now on, whenever Obama talks pessimistically about the state of the economy, McCain will accuse him of being "against the workers," a distant cousin of "against the troops.") Obama now has the opportunity to repeatedly quote McCain's initial remark, and perhaps tie it to McCain's primary-season admission about how "the issue of economics is not something that I've understood as well as I should."
6. The current crisis gives Obama the opportunity to invoke the Democratic label and close the sale with some of the resistent working-class Democrats. They may never warm to him, but he can potentially argue that the Republican ideology is responsible for their woes and that the Republican candidate, who has long been in thrall to that ideology, can't be trusted to make things better. Indeed, Joe Biden played the party card this morning on CNN: "Who has been the captain of the helm (for) these past eight years?...The Republican economic philosophy that John (McCain) has adhered to, that has driven us into this hole."
Given such rhetorical weaponry, is it possible that Obama could still fail to hit the target and profit politically? Absolutely.
He has yet to demonstrate that he can speak affirmatively about his own kitchen-table proposals in the kind of everyday language that resonates (for his sake, he'd better pick up some tips from his allegedly new best friend, Bill Clinton); he is dogged by the liberal label, to the point where, even though he is repeatedly promising tax cuts to most Americans, and even though his agenda spells out the details, a lot of voters simply don't believe him; and even though he did warn of an impending housing crisis 18 months ago, and delivered a speech six months ago about the need for better federal oversight of the financial sector, he can't prove to the voters that he has successfully championed oversight during his brief Senate career. Because he hasn't.
Nevertheless, points one through six should be enough to help Obama regain his mojo. If he can't do it now, he may never.
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 Name Office Party/State Total 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 4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550 5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500 jwad56
Comment removed.
Obama wants to spend $50 Billion on some type of economic bailout plan and revamp the bankruptcy laws that prevent a court from allowing a person to keep their home....the same bankruptcy law pushed by his running mate Joe Biden at the behest of MBNA. He also wants to punish lenders, those like Fannie & Freddie that gave him over $100K in the past three years. Right...he's a champion. tom - wilmington, de
McCain has been in the Senate for a quarter century and hasn't lifted a finger to address the Wall Street greed he says he now cares about. He admits that the economy isn't his strong suit. Yesterday he says to one group in the morning that the economy is sound and resilient and things are not as bad as they seem. Then, to another group in the afternoon, he says that things are really bad. He was against Wall Street regulation for 25 years, now today he is for it. Or is he? His head is spinning to try to figure out which person to be, by the hour. Obama has had a plan to address problems in the financial industry posted on his website for months. No such plan appears on McCain's website. McCain clearly doesn't care about or have much of an understanding of the single most important issue facing our country right now. djoseph
Obama wants everything but to investigate Fannie & Freddie for whatever abuses they took with money and excess compensation. I wonder why that is? tom - wilmington, de
Comment removed.
Biden has been in the Senate since 1972 and actually passed legislation helping banks and hurting the consumer. That the experience we need. tom - wilmington, de- Keep beating those drums Tom. I'm sure the McCain camp and the top 1 percent of income earners will reward you well!
- If the Dems can't parlay this economic mess, breaking at this time, into electoral success then Polman is right on, they should go the way of the Dodo.
Comment removed.
Frank...you miss my point. Polman excludes in his piece that Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin (Clinton's treasury secretary) came up with the plan for de-regulation back in the late 1990's/2000. Fannie & Freddie were Democrat controlled institutions since their inception. Biden and his son worked to ease banking regulations for years. Mortgages were written that people could not afford, and they were designed by Freddie and Fannie (see A- mortgages). And all of this is lost because of the blame Bush mantra. Blame should go all around, not just to Bush (though he shares some). Franklin Raines (ex-Clinton aide) was put in charge of Fannie Mae in 1999, and when he was kicked out in 2005, he had received compensation totaling more than $100 million. Jamie Gorelick received compensation $75 million. Fannie had to pay a regulatory fine for bad accounting and taking on too much risk. All this was allowed to go unfettered by both Democrats (who were chief recipients of donations from Freddie and Fannie) and Republicans. This is not just a Bush crisis, and some on this site should acknowledge it. It is only right that an investigation be held into this, but it won't be for too many in Congress would be embarassed and possibly held to account. I thought Democrats were for accountability....but I guess that is only when it relates to the other party. Apparently Polman believes so. tom - wilmington, de
Obama on Good Morning America: "if we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily." Yes, take that teleprompter away and he is just a rhetorical genius. He should be able to articulate on the economy well. tom - wilmington, de
Comment removed.- Liberals once again need things to go bad for America in order win elections, they just can't do it on the strength of their ideology. Gibba: Your "analysis" of the stock market omits a pretty big negative event for the economy. I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with nine-eleven. jmc
Comment removed.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
- December 2011
- August 2010
- August
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008







