October 2, 2008
It was the opportunity for a “game-changing move” in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Just as John McCain was dropping back in the polls, providing Barack Obama the chance to “close the deal” even more decisively than he did with Hillary Clinton, McCain missed the opportunity to turn the game around. Last week, he arrived in Washington (after the pseudo-suspension of his campaign) on a mission to save us all from the crisis declared by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. After McCain arrived, he found a number of both Republican and Democratic members of the House of Representatives opposed to the revised, 110-page, economic “bailout bill” (the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008). At that point in time, McCain had the opportunity to break with the unpopular Bush Administration and band together with the 133 Republican and 95 Democratic House members (who eventually voted against the bill) to form a “coalition of mavericks” (oxymoron, non-sequitur or both?) resisting this bailout of the big banks and other “fat cats” on Wall Street. He didn’t. He chose instead, to copy whatever Barack Obama was doing. Besides, his move dovetailed well with the pseudo-“bipartisan” duet he had been playing, throughout the entire campaign, with Joe “The Tool” Lieberman. Had McCain stood with those 133 young Republican members of the House and the 95 Democrats (many of whom consider themselves conservative, “Blue Dog” Democrats) he could have re-ignited his flatulent campaign. (Is it really safe to do that? — Let’s ask Johnny Knoxville.)
Howard Fineman provided an interesting retrospective of this phase in the evolution the economic “bailout bill” at the Newsweek website on September 30:
The Paulson Plan is not great. Some two hundred academic economists have ridiculed it, and so have the House Republicans, by a 2-1 margin. Public opinion (and not just the angry phone callers) is turning against the measure—to the extent that anybody understands it.
But the consensus is that Washington has to do something, and that the current version is far better than what the lawmakers started with.
McCain made a show of returning to Washington to try to jam the original measure through. He deserves credit for the instinct. An old Navy motto is: Don’t just stand there, DO something! That is McCain to the core, and so much the better for it.
But when he got to town, he realized something that no one had bothered to tell him, apparently: the grassroots of his own party (the grassroots that has never really trusted him) hated the Paulson Plan. They weren’t about to support it and risk their own necks. McCain worked the phones, but fell back in the ranks.
When the second revision of this bill (at over 400 pages) finally made it to the Senate floor for the vote on Wednesday, October 1, there were 9 Democrats, 15 Republicans and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, voting against it. McCain again missed the opportunity for a truly bipartisan resistance to this measure. Such an act would have demonstrated genuine leadership. He could have rejoined his old buddy, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, as well as Florida Democrat Bill Nelson and rising Democratic star, Maria Cantwell from the State of Washington, all of whom voted against this measure. Such a move would have emboldened resistance to the “bailout bill” in the House of Representatives, where the term of office lasts only two years. (The short term results in greater accountability to American voters, who are believed to have notoriously short memory spans.)
Is this bill really necessary? On the October 1 edition of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, Economics Professor at Princeton University, admitted that:
… it will be relatively ineffective, although rejecting it will cause a big run on the system. Then we will come back and do it right in January or February …
When Keith Olbermann asked Krugman about the likelihood that nothing consequential would happen if this bill did not pass, Krugman responded by saying that such possibilities have “shrunk in the past week”. Krugman went on to claim that “the credit crunch has started to hit Main Street”, using, as an example, the rumor that: “McDonald’s has started to cut credit to its franchisees.” McDonald’s has issued a press release stating that this was not the case. What is really happening is that the banks are acting like spoiled children, holding their breath until the government gives them what they want, using the threat of unavailable credit as a gun to the head of Congress.
Public opposition to this bailout was best summed up by Peggy Noonan, when she appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 1:
But we are in a real economic crisis and the American political establishment said we must do A, B and C to deal with it and the American people … said: “No. We don’t trust you to handle this. We don’t trust you to do the right thing.”
John McCain had the opportunity to stand with those people, as well as the 133 House Republicans and 15 Senate Republicans, to do “the right thing”. He decided to forego that opportunity. Barack Obama said, on the Senate floor Wednesday, that it was not worth risking the American economy and the world economy by challenging this bill. John McCain decided that it was not worth risking his Presidential campaign on such a challenge. That’s too bad for him. The gamble probably would have paid off.
Fun With Bill And Hill
I had always been one of the skeptics on the issue of what support Bill and Hillary Clinton would provide to Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. The fight for their party’s nomination lasted longer than it should have. Hillary’s reluctance to concede defeat underscored longstanding doubts about whether she could ever support Obama as the inevitable Democratic Party nominee. The most outspoken skeptic on this subject has been Maureen Dowd. Her column in the New York Times on August 19 (just before the Democratic Convention) described a fictional meeting between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. The article, entitled Two Against The One, described the following imaginary, conspiratorial conversation between Hillary and McCain:
I had voiced my own doubts about whether the Clintons would support the Obama candidacy, back on June 5:
Whatever motivated her to continue on, ultimately resulted in the dissociative speech she gave on the night of Tuesday, June 3, 2008, when Barack Obama earned enough delegates to guarantee himself the Democratic Presidential nomination. She spoke to her relatively small audience of sycophants and losers, as though she had just assured the nomination for herself. On the following day, she was faced with conference calls from 28 House members and 8 Senators, both pledged delegates and superdelegates for Clinton. According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek, these people made it clear that they were beyond disappointment that she had not given a concession speech. They were outraged by her arrogance and gave her an ultimatum: Hillary must release them as her delegates, or they would endorse Obama, regardless of her consent. Hillary agreed to a concession event, to take place on Saturday, June 7, at which time she would formally endorse Obama.
My suspicions continued for another two months and on August 7, I wrote this about the upcoming convention:
Forget the OxyContin (at least for this weekend). Rush Limbaugh is going to be on a “natural high”, because his favorite fantasy might just become reality. The Clintons are in “full hostility” mode and the Hillarologists are planning a parade and more for the convention in Denver. Limbaugh has attempted to claim credit for the likely showdown in Denver, with his own label: “Operation Chaos”.
Nevertheless, by the time the Convention began, the Clintons were on board for Obama and both gave great speeches for the Obama – Biden ticket. On August 28, I felt humbled enough to say this about Senator Clinton’s performance at that event:
After hearing her speech, I felt motivated to apologize for publicly doubting her loyalty to the Democratic Party. She really did “deliver the goods” by giving what was, perhaps, her best speech on the campaign stump. Although many of us were surprised by the substance of her speech, I was particularly impressed by her delivery. Hillary had always addressed her audiences with Lieberman-esque stiffness. Imagine someone saying “let us go forward” with a groaning, insincere tone for the 10,000th time. That was the way Hillary used to speak. In defeat, she really did find her voice.
Since that time, both Hillary and Bill Clinton have been working hard along the campaign trail, proving themselves as essential compatriots in the Obama – Biden campaign. The best example of this took place on October 30, when Bill Clinton delivered his rousing speech in support of Obama, before a crowd of 35,000 in Kissimmee, Florida. His remarks urging supporters to “get out the vote” for Obama, made it clear that he had no shortage of enthusiasm for this former foe:
For a candid look at Hillary Clinton’s real attitude about the Obama campaign, the November 2 article by Carrie Budoff Brown and Glenn Thrush on the Politico website is essential reading. The following passage described what was really going on in Hillary’s mind during the days before her concession speech:
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton surprised many of us with their tireless efforts for the Obama – Biden campaign, despite the “bad blood” that had been spilled during the primary season. Their conduct will surely be viewed by history as an exemplary model for party unity.