Michael Wolraich's picture

    Lead!

    We are facing the worst economic crisis since the 1980's. WaMu just set a record as the "Largest U.S. Bank Failure Ever." (Mazel-tov, WaMu.) Investment titans are on the knees, the ones that haven't gone under or been torn apart. Debt is at a historic high. Credit is tight. People are losing their houses and their jobs. Everyone is angry. Everyone is afraid.

    And at a long serious table in the White House, three men who would lead this country, one at each end and one in the middle, sit impotent. George Bush is despised by two-thirds of the country. Would that he had had the grace to depart in 2006 when the majority made clear that it no longer trusted him to run the country. He is President now only by virtue of the office. The two who would replace him sit quietly while the economy roils, plotting subtle jabs and symbolic gestures, arguing about television schedules. Their positions on the bailout are...vague. Somewhere between "we must act now" and "the plan still needs work." Be careful, candidates. You wouldn't want to say the wrong thing. The bailout might not work, so you don't want to own it. But you can't have us think you're fiddling while we burn either. Gotta do something. Can't commit to anything.

    Fuck that. If you wish to lead, now is your chance. The lame duck can't fly. The parties are divided. There is no one to step up but you. We don't need any namby-pamby joint statements about how seriously you take this crisis. We don't give a shit whether you debate tonight or next Wednesday. We don't care about the status of your campaign ads. We need a plan. We need you to talk to us and tell us what has to happen to avert this crisis. We need you to bend the legislators of your party to your will. We need you to go back to that long serious table, not to participate in a process, but to make a deal. We need you to lead!

    Late update: There was a great NYT article on the subject today.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    (Replying here rather than TPM because this place just seems friendlier.)

    I suspect that Obama is already doing what you've asked, and more. He's just doing it a more effective way than public pronouncements and large, high-profile meetings: he's talking privately to people like Dodd and Paulson and who-knows-who-else on a regular basis.  At least in my experience, that's the sort of negociation that actually gets stuff done.  It has the disadvantage of being relatively hidden from public view until it's completed; but I'd rather have a successful negociation than be "in the know" sooner.

     


    Yeah. There seem to be instant firestorms at TPM lately. Everyone is on edge. My feeling, which I expressed in response to Ripper, is that Obama has not owned the bailout. Nor has he taken the lead as Dem negotiatior. He's helping, but he's not leading.


    I agree with Paige that Obama and his senate staff have probably been working behind the scenes a lot more than we know about and I think that's good. 

    I understand your call for him to lead, but at this point, even though he is the defacto leader of the party, he's not on the banking committee and he doesn't hold a leadership position. To insert himself publicly in the debate could backfire (a la McCain and his grandstanding) AND it could lead to more charges of presumption, which is the last thing he needs right now.

    I'm so pissed off about this financial mess, I can hardly see straight. But so far, I think Obama has been more a part of the solution than a part of the problem.


    Certainly, there is risk for him in stepping forward, and you raise a good point about perceived grandstanding. And if we reach an agreement without him doing more than he has, OK, I won't complain. But if starts to look like the whole thing will fall apart, our leaders are going to have to take political risks to make sure that it doesn't. As the person who I hope will lead us next year, I'll be looking to Obama to do that.


    Latest Comments