« Kos To Kossacks: We Haven't Been Scummy Enough! | Main | Barack Obama: The "Acme Corporation" Of Education Reform »

Obama Camp Wanted "Horrific" Headlines about Wall Street

The news that Obama's campaign needed and wanted "horrific" headlines about Wall Street comes to us from CNN's Candy Crowley. NewsBusters has the transcript from the Anderson Cooper show:

COOPER: Candy, no doubt -- very quickly -- on the campaign trail, it obviously played a big role today. You anticipate, in the days ahead, issue number one, it's going to be front and center?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: Oh, absolutely.

I mean, listen, just as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street.

COOPER: Right.

CROWLEY: I mean, this is what they wanted. They believe, of course, that the economy is one of their strengths and that they can paint John McCain as George Bush.

This is what the Obama campaign wanted. Got that? The American people watched the Dow drop by 500 points yesterday and banks go under and declare bankruptcy, and Crowley reports that this is what the Obama team wanted because they see the chance to score political points. But this is typical of Democrats because in order to win, they need suffering, they need upheaval, they need fear.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31642.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Camp Wanted "Horrific" Headlines about Wall Street:

» Adam's Blog linked with We Can Stand Up

Comments (38)

A number of politica... (Below threshold)
Larry:


A number of political pundits and poll takers have pointed out that a declining economy may be negative for Obama instead of positive. Is this the case of be careful what you wish for?

That's what they wanted acc... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

That's what they wanted according to Candy Crowley. Since when does she work for Obama's campaign?

Modus Operandi - "... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Modus Operandi -

"HOPE the economy tanks so Obambi wins!"

"Hey, let's tell the little people we want troops out now, then attempt to CHANGE foreign policy (read: "TREASON") to make sure that doesn't happen to soon so The One looks good!"

Look at the transcript here... (Below threshold)

Look at the transcript here. This is the journalist's(Candy Crowley's) own opinion, not that of the Obama Campaign.

Does the Obama Campaign believe that economic issues are one of it's strengths? Certainly. But that hardly means that they wish for bad news. There is a bad enough eight year record of Bush that McCain supported 90% of the time for Obama to run against without new problems developing, God forbid. No one wants to see bank failures or 50,000 Lehman Brothers workers and related jobs gone. Or AIG in serious financial trouble. Or Washington Mutual. Or Ford Motor Company.....

This is not the worst econo... (Below threshold)

This is not the worst economy "since the Depression." The depression saw 30%+ unemployment. We are at 6.1%.

Foreclosure rates, while higher than comfortable, are still less than 2%, with 3% behind in payments.

There were, in the Depression, unmitigated runs on banks and bails from stocks. We have yet to see this beyond isolated points.

Furthermore, the fix for a sputtering free-market capitalist economy is never - NEVER - increased government and the spread of socialist systems. Yet this is the fix offered by Obama and every Democrat candidate in my adult lifetime.

Makes one look at those otherwise intelligent people (energetically) sipping from the chalice in ignorance and want to bang one's head against a brick wall.

Steve, you're right, mortga... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Steve, you're right, mortgage markets obviously need less regulation. Sheesh...

This is not the worst ec... (Below threshold)
mantis:

This is not the worst economy "since the Depression."

The quote was "worst financial crisis" not "worst economy". I guess we know Steve not only doesn't understand what the word "since" means, but he can't accurately quote people either.

I didn't say that, Hyperbol... (Below threshold)

I didn't say that, Hyperbolist.

I said that to say the ecoomy is the worst since the Depression is a gross overstatement.

I then went on to say that sweeping socialization of the economy and the government mechanisms is not the answer.

The question then remains: At what point does regulation cross over into socialized governmental control?

Remember, "What this liberal is all about is about socializing...errr...ummm....errr...about us taking over your companies."

Name something the federal government runs efficiently.

Name a successful company, large or small, that does not run efficiently.

Therein lies the rub. If you want a European economy, feel free to find the exit sign, follow it and participate in one. It has no home here.

First, let's not use this t... (Below threshold)

First, let's not use this to beat the Obama campaign with. It's not an Obama campaign statement or policy; clearly any political campaign will make an issue of anything that will get them votes; and there are so many real issues and actual campaign errors to beat the campaign with that it will just make you look petty to gin one up from a reporter's comments.

Second, to hyperbolist, actually, yes, less regulation is exactly what is needed, in combination with less protection for the mortgage lending companies and less federal assistance when things go south. Look, the reason that we are in this mess is that Congress got it into their heads that having everyone own a home, regardless of ability to pay, was a public good. They therefore gave Fannie and Freddie essentially carte blanche backed by government assurance of a bailout in case of failure. This created the housing bubble, by lending at interest rates below the natural market rate (not coincidentally contributing to currency inflation, while we're at it), into which all the private money flowed. Had Fannie and Freddie been public companies, and had none of these companies expected government backstops to mitigate their risk, the lending pattern would have been much healthier. Yeah, we would have had fewer homeowners and more renters. Why is that a bad thing? (Heck, we've rented ever since we sold our home in TX a month after the bubble peaked.)

Besides, when these companies fail, it's not like the homes they hold mortgages on (or insure, or finance, depending on the company) suddenly disappear. If the homeowners are making their payments, they'll end up making them to whatever company buys their mortgage. If they're not making their payments, then whomever buys the mortgage has legal mechanisms available to redress or end the situation. So people who are responsible would be fine even if Fannie and Freddie were not bailed out while those who are not are in trouble eventually no matter whether Fannie and Freddie are or are not bailed out.

The other companies are just getting killed by Fannie and Freddie failing, as far as I can tell. So yes, hyperbolist, that is exactly what is needed: less government intrusion.

Mantis - Were you ... (Below threshold)

Mantis -

Were you alive in the mid- an late-1970's?

I understand fully what 'since' means. Thanks for clarifying, however.

One last bit:"T... (Below threshold)

One last bit:

"The quote was "worst financial crisis" not "worst economy". "

I was not quoting a particular article here. I was addressing the overriding perception and the way it has actually been phrased elsewhere. Just to be clear.

The quote was "wor... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
The quote was "worst financial crisis" not "worst economy"

Which quote was that mantis? Everyone else was saying worst economy. If it's at newbusters.org, I can't pull up the page right now.

I can see why Obama would u... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I can see why Obama would use this for political points since the dems would like the economic "crisis" to be all the Republican's fault. How quickly they forgot who kept lowering interest rates back in the 90s. The idea behind a ploy like this would be the Big Corporation machine, while somewhat true, is not only a right wing platform.

hyperbolist,Govern... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

hyperbolist,

Government interference in the mortgage market is what CAUSED this mess in the first place. So, yeah, less goverment interference would solve the problem.

Were you alive in ... (Below threshold)
mantis:
Were you alive in the mid- an late-1970's?

I understand fully what 'since' means. Thanks for clarifying, however.

Then why did your comment compare the current economy with that during the Great Depression, thus demonstrating that the current crisis is not as bad?

I was alive, but very young, in the mid-late 70s. It is debatable whether we'll be in worse shape than then once this all plays out, but you weren't making that argument, were you? You were comparing the Great Depression as if anyone said we were in worse shape than then.

I was not quoting a particular article here. I was addressing the overriding perception and the way it has actually been phrased elsewhere. Just to be clear.

Fair enough (but maybe using quotes is misleading, no?). In any case I am just making the clarification that there is a difference between a financial crisis and the general state of the economy.

Which quote was th... (Below threshold)
mantis:
Which quote was that mantis? Everyone else was saying worst economy. If it's at newbusters.org, I can't pull up the page right now.

I assumed he was talking about Obama, who actually said this is "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

Of course, in correcting the quote I myself misquoted him, replacing "most serious" with "worst". A little egg on my face there, but the salient point is that crisis and economy are two different things.

mantis - "The quote was... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis - "The quote was "worst financial crisis" not "worst economy". I guess we know Steve not only doesn't understand what the word "since" means, but he can't accurately quote people either."

Well, I guess you didn't look before you leaped.

Kim you are an irresponsibl... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Kim you are an irresponsible blogist that does not deserve to have your own blog.

You create a headline that it is totaly mis-leading. Nobody in the Obama camp made such a statement. What you are doing is gutter journalism.

You create a headl... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
You create a headline that it is totaly mis-leading. Nobody in the Obama camp made such a statement. What you are doing is gutter journalism.

Save the self-serving outrage for DU and Kos, Dave. I'm sure they are stirring up for rumors for you to relish over even as we speak.

*more rumors... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

*more rumors

Well, I guess you didn't... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, I guess you didn't look before you leaped.

Oh, Steve was referring to Roubini now (he wasn't, as you can tell from his comment, but whatever)? First of all, Luskin quotes Roubini making a prediction, not stating that the current economy is the "worst since the depression." Here is the full quote:

What economic developments does Roubini see on the horizon? And what does he think we should do about them? The first step, he told me in a recent conversation, is to acknowledge the extent of the problem. "We are in a recession, and denying it is nonsense," he said. When Jim Nussle, the White House budget director, announced last month that the nation had "avoided a recession," Roubini was incredulous. For months, he has been predicting that the United States will suffer through an 18-month recession that will eventually rank as the "worst since the Great Depression." Though he is confident that the economy will enter a technical recovery toward the end of next year, he says that job losses, corporate bankruptcies and other drags on growth will continue to take a toll for years.

Making a prediction and defining the current state of the economy are two different things. Further, Roubini stated yesterday:

Unfortunately, this is the worst financial crisis we've experienced in the Unites States since the Great Depression. Even Alan Greenspan says this is once-in-a-century phenomenon. So things are getting worse.

Plus, Roubini is a notorious pessimist (the Times Magazine article was called "Dr. Doom").

Very weak, marc. Good try, though. At least you can use Google.

Nobody in the Obam... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
Nobody in the Obama camp made such a statement.

Uhm, newsflash... CNN IS in the Obama camp.

LaMedusa & Kim,The... (Below threshold)
Dave:

LaMedusa & Kim,

The problem with Republicans is they would rather lose their integrity then lose the presidentcy.

I can see why Obam... (Below threshold)
Dave:
I can see why Obama would use this for political points since the dems would like the economic "crisis" to be all the Republican's fault. How quickly they forgot who kept lowering interest rates back in the 90s. The idea behind a ploy like this would be the Big Corporation machine, while somewhat true, is not only a right wing platform.

LaMedusa,

You don't need to wory about the economy. McCain says

the fundamentals of our economy are strong


I bet McCain thinks the eco... (Below threshold)
Dave:

I bet McCain thinks the economy is doing a heck of a job!

Let's see. Who loses in th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Let's see. Who loses in this 'collapse'?

Mortgage holders? Not likely - they've still got their land. It might not be worth as much, but it'll appreciate.

Folks with good credit who want to get mortgages? Might be a bit harder to get a loan, but housing prices will be dropping so they'll not be hurt bad by this.

Folks who have crappy credit who want to get big mortgages w/no money down? Yeah, they'll hurt - and maybe face reality that they cannot, indeed, get something for nothing.

Employees of the firms? Yep. Sucks to be them. Except the bosses who get $15-20 mil.

Who have I missed?

Who have I missed? <... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Who have I missed?

The stockholders (including a lot of retirement account holders).

Having stricter lending con... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Having stricter lending conditions would have prevented the mortgage-related securities mess. I understand that increased regulation is often, or usually, not in the best interests of the market or of the individuals who comprise it, but the position that less rules, and less controls, will inevitably lead to more wealth, and more security, is obviously false. And one needn't be an advocate for a "Europeanized" economy to recognize this fact which is so obvious as to be trivially true.

McCain says</b... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

McCain says

the fundamentals of our economy are strong

Way to cherry pick a quote, Dave:

"fundamentals of our economy are strong" and then abruptly shifting to say the fundamentals are "at great risk."

At a morning rally in Jacksonville, McCain noted what he called "tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street,'' but continued to say he believes the economy is sound -- a line from his stump speech for which Democrats have mocked him.

"Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times,'' McCain said. "I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/15/mccain_fundamentals_of_economy.html

"I bet McCain thinks the ec... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"I bet McCain thinks the economy is doing a heck of a job!"

I see your reasoning has graduated to selective, along with your reading comprehension.

Does the Obama Cam... (Below threshold)
Does the Obama Campaign believe that economic issues are one of it's strengths? Certainly. But that hardly means that they wish for bad news. There is a bad enough eight year record of Bush that McCain supported 90% of the time for Obama to run against without new problems developing, God forbid. No one wants to see bank failures or 50,000 Lehman Brothers workers and related jobs gone. Or AIG in serious financial trouble. Or Washington Mutual. Or Ford Motor Company.....

Right on Paul! U Duh Man!

Nice of you to mention Bush has not allowed a piece of real estate to fall to the ground in almost eight years. Two points!

I'm almost certain that when the market fell 500 points yesterday not one political advisor or pundit of Obama didn't smile and say "this is good news for our team". No way! Two more points!

And there's no way that Obama would jeopardize one life of our troops getting home in a "timely manner" by asking the Iraqi government to postpone the withdrawal process until after his coronation. Of course if this were true, trading the lives of our military for the "greater good" of personal political gain has its merits, right Paul? After all, what's a few lives lost compared to all these folks losing their jobs?

The problem with R... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
The problem with Republicans is they would rather lose their integrity then lose the presidentcy.

Dave, integrity eludes you with your tunnel vision against the Republicans.

Wow, this is a new low, eve... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow, this is a new low, even for Kim. Obama "wanted" horrific headlines? I believe this is precisely Jay's definition of a "smear". Good job.

I guess you needed to stoop so low to counter McCain's chief advisor saying the assassination of Benazir Bhutto "helped us". And that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil "would be a big advantage to [McCain]".

Actually, that's not a very good comparison, since McCain's campaign actually said it.

9-16-08Obama keeps c... (Below threshold)
Ben:

9-16-08
Obama keeps crying about how bad the economy is, but if Americans are hurting so bad, how come they were able to send Obama a record breaking 66 million dollars last month? ... And, tonight Obama is asking Americans to give him $28,500.00 each for the Obama/Streisand fund raiser dinner. Two faced Obama has no credibility. No Wright, no Farrakhan, no Pfleger, no Rezko, no Ayers, no mean Michelle, and, NOBAMA !!!

This is old-school democrat... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

This is old-school democrat playbook.
Harry Reid saying the war is lost.
Those saps invested in defeat.
They've been saying since day 1 that tax cuts don't work. Even after they worked, they "only helped the rich and all of Bush and Cheneys evil oil buddies".
Notice how the sun shined a little brighter and everything was simply amazing in the 90's when the dems were in office, but once mean ol' george and dick came to town, it's been cloudy since.

They still won't admit that Clinton left office with a recession (2 quarters of negative growth) and they say Bush has led us into a recession for the last 2 years. Compare the numbers! The numbers don't lie. There is no recession now, and there was when Clinton left.

They love bad news when republicans are in office, yet they pretend the bad news doesn't exist when dems are in charge, or they blame it on republicans. Pelosi today is trying to say that Bush caused all the problems the last 2 years since they took over and were gonna "drain the swap of corruption". Wheres the drain been at? Gas has skyrocketed since they won in 06 as well as all this housing and lending mess. I would say it was going quite well up until they stepped in in 2006.

Obama "wanted" hor... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:
Obama "wanted" horrific headlines? I believe this is precisely Jay's definition of a "smear". Good job.

Yeah, that's nothing like telling your minions you want the troops out of Iraq, but then attempting to subvert the foreign policy of the United States to keep them there just a little bit longer. Great catch, Bri!

Cute how liberals gloss ove... (Below threshold)
ObamaHatesWomen:

Cute how liberals gloss over the facts on Obama and this financial OH MY GOD APOCALYPSE AHHHHH! liberal pants-wetting "crisis."

Three Democrats top the list of those getting bribes (blind contributions) from these institutions. Obama's bribe was over $140 MILLION dollars to keep government regulators from looking too closely at his cronies' operations. He's second behind Dodd and just before Kerry.

The Carter and Clinton administrations forced these institutions to write loans they all knew could never be repaid.

And Carter, and Clinton and Obama CASHED IN.

The fault and collusion and corruption is in the Democrats. To vote for Obama is to give them the power to screw us again.

Obama/Biden will say and do... (Below threshold)
Ken:

Obama/Biden will say and do anything to smear McCain/Palin! Obama said that he was a different kind of politician, as I see it, he is no different than any other politician who will do anything to beat his completion.

The Democrats have been in control for the past two years and have done even less that the previous congress. They should have seen this coming!

McCain/Palin 2008

Hillary Clinton 2012




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy