Still not sure... (4.00 / 1)

That the general-public sees this as "Obama's Plan" now... but even so, I don't think it will hurt him in the polls, and if people think that he's actually helping craft a solution for the mess, all the better.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 23:36:23 PM UTC

No one sees this as "Obama's Plan" (0.00 / 0)

Including people like me, who actually pay attention.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:08:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They don't now (0.00 / 0)

And in any case the final verdict on this bailout won't be in for at least a year.

It could only be a problem for him if he wins; Republicans will use his support for the bail-out to oppose his programs, and during the midterm elections Republicans could argue legitimately that it was Obama's bailout.

This will likely be one of those votes--like NAFTA--that will stick to pols (especially Obama) for the rest of their political lives.  

---

by: david mizner @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:34:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually doubt it... (0.00 / 0)

Even NAFTA isn't the seeming electoral winner that everyone thought it was.  It didn't really work in the primaries and no one is talking about it in the general election either.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:52:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha (0.00 / 0)

It's to Obama's great discredit that he's not talking about it. It's political malpractice given it's symbolic power and the fact that 13 percent of the country supports it.

As for the primary, I'm not sure if you were paying attention. Hillary used the NAFTA-Canada miniscandal against Obama in Ohio, where she won big--an amazing feat given that it was her husband's baby. In any case, the NAFTA positions of Clinton and Obama were more or less the same--not so with McCain and Obama, which gets me back to my original point: so so stupid he's not using it.

The bailout could prove to be even more of a stigma due to its bipartisan nature. Or, on the other hand, its negative impact could get lost amid all the pain of the coming depression.

---

by: david mizner @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:05:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about by REGION? (0.00 / 0)

On the first bill, this is where we saw the greatest disparity - the less connected an area was to 'financial centers of power', the less likely they were to vot for bailing out Wall Street (and the other centers of finance in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.)

---

by: JC @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 23:38:25 PM UTC

I don't see why it's not Bush's bail out (0.00 / 0)

supported by BOTH candidates and both the House and the Senate.

It's his bail out if he wins....he's have to fix the economy.

---

by: ksh01 @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 23:47:05 PM UTC

Its the leadership (0.00 / 0)

If he had come out strongly against it, it would have failed. Period.

Frankly, at this point in the race, and with Obama being the clear odds on favorite, had he come out strongly for a law allowing gay-marriage, and saying THAT would fix the economy, the Democratic party would have had to have passed it.

At this point, the leadership, and most rank-and-file have to do whatever he wants. The White House is the goal, and they all know it.

To paraphrase Chuck Todd: This is Barack Obamas Democratic party now.

I am just frankly happy that they stuck to the No Mccain Yes vote, no bill.  

---

by: benjamink @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:02:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, whatever you think of the merits of the bill (4.00 / 6)

(and I know the majority here hate it)

We have one Presidential candidate who said the bill was needed, voted for it, but despite "suspending" his campaign could not deliver his own party.

The other one also said the bill was needed, also voted for it, but got a majority of his party, got the changes he said he wanted, and has Representatives who say he was the key factor in getting them to switch.

It's obvious who the leader is if you want the government to try to do something for the crisis, and I think that is why Obama is strong in the polls even if the bailout is unpopular.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 23:53:23 PM UTC

All I want to know is (0.00 / 0)

Will he be able to corral votes this effectively on energy policy and gay rights? :P

---

by: mcc @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:02:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope so (4.00 / 1)

I think both Carter and Clinton ran into trouble with Democratic Congresses.  I hope that Obama, as an ex-legislator, and Biden, with his Senate relationships, will be able to do better.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:26:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are Obama's real values? (0.00 / 0)

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey,

Which changes would those be?  I know he and Biden have spoken quite frequently about Obama's "Core Principles" regarding the bailout.  I am not aware, however, of any efforts to amend the bailout so that his principles were reflected.  

For example,  there is language which says that people ought to be able to keep their homes but there is no money or authority in the bill to do anything beyond what the Bush administration has already done.  In what way is this effective leadership to achieve progressive goals?

This is basically the first legislative act of Obama's presidency, and it stinks like a dead fish.  

---

by: Mitch Guthman @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:24:00 AM UTC

Sections 110, 124 (0.00 / 0)

Sec. 110. Assistance to homeowners.
...
Sec. 124. HOPE for Homeowners amendments.
...
(2) MODIFICATIONS.-In the case of a residential mortgage loan, modifications made under paragraph (1) may include-
(A) reduction in interest rates;
(B) reduction of loan principal; and
(C) other similar modifications.

There's more.  But this is certainly a case where who runs the executive branch makes a big difference.  I don't see this being much good under Bush, but it provides a lot of power to help people when handed over to folks who actually give a damn.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:35:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well (4.00 / 1)

I simply meant my comment as one about appearances in this political campaign.  So often in our campaigns the Republicans are cast as the decisive (therefore strong) figures, but this time things are different.

Of course you are quite right to worry about substance rather than appearance.  I myself have high hopes for Obama but have read too much Paul Rosenberg to be very confident.  :)

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:40:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Forgot (0.00 / 1)

After blaming Obama for this bailout you forgot to add, I'm John McCain, and I approved this ad.  But at least you remembered to include the signature, "my friends".

---

by: Kane @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:37:13 AM UTC

Give me break (0.00 / 0)

I'm as hard on Matt and others than anyone not banned, but this is not the post to complain about.  I actually agree that Obama owns this bailout.  Now, I think that is more good than bad; people don't like the bailout but they also want something to happen and have no idea what.  So, I'd use the word "credit" more than "blame", but you can't have it both ways; if one counts so does the other.  (Unless you're a Republican, of course.)

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 00:57:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Give Me A Break (0.00 / 0)

There's a world of difference in getting fellow Dems on board and even in finding reason to sign this bill under the circumstances in an attept to make the best of a situation.  But it's a stretch to claim it's Obama's bailout now.  And just because you agree with the notion that "Obama owns this bailout", it doesn't make it so.

---

by: Kane @ Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:41:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]