Actually, I do care that they debate tonight. In the debate they won't be able to avoid taking a position on this.

Obama has taken a stand, basically backing the Dodd-Frank plan. He has also worked behind the scenes to unify the Democrats fo quick action and suggested in his phone call to McCain on Wednesday morning rallying both parties to common principles for the sake of quick passage.

The crisis is real, urgent and NOT contained to the "Wall Street investment firms" so many people here suggest.

When banks won't lend to each other because they have no idea what's on the other's books, banks fail. When banks fail, other banks fail. When lots of banks fail, we call that all the ingredients necessary for a Depression. Yet inflation is spiraling and will continue to do so in a scenario worse than the stagflation of the 1970s if the crisis is not arrested.

The $700 bailout is not a bailout in the usual sense of the word. The Treasury will eventually recover most of its investment or even profit if the Democrats get their way.

Don't blame Obama. This deal was almost done before McCain rode to the rescue and injected politics right where it doesn't serve any purpose.

Feels a bit like FDR staying vague, prior to assuming office, to keep his freedom of action.

But Obama has taken a stand, just not trumpeted it widely and loudly. We were encouraged to sign a petition to give support to Dems demanding certain principles in the bailout.

Genghis, I respectfully disagree with the proposition that Obama ought to overtly take the lead on the financial situation/crisis/congressional reacharound.

First, you and I both know that he's taking a lead behind the scenes, counseling Dems, talking with the more rational and responsible Republicans, etc. In fact, the Dems are playing the no-drama game in a surprisingly skillful way, showing party unity along with an ability and willingness to give the other side the chance to come along and put country first (dammit!!).

Second, Obama has been far more effective than McCain. Remember, neither is on the Banking Committee, and anything either does is by definition polarizing. McCain sought to exploit this by parachuting in and then sitting through the White House meeting with a Cheshire Cat smile on his face and a plan to take some House Repugs along on the Maverick Express. His whole strategy was about riling up the base, hoping to divert attention from the fact that he's losing.

Contrast that with Obama: he ignores polls revealing that Americans are pissed at the whole thing, knowing that by letting Congress do some work for a change he'll help not only his own cause but that of Dems in general. And, oh by the way, the interests of "Main Street" and long-term market controls.

The outcome? Today, the press continues to bash Palin, gloats at how John McCain blinked both on the bailout and the debates, obliquely questioned McCain's health, and how coolly Obama has walked right past McCain looking as presidential as can be.

And tonight, tonight...I think we're going to see some fireworks. The word is that the venue is hostile to McCain, and I'll betcha Obama is going on the attack in pointed defense of America's interests over all. Too bad he can't just come right out with "country first my ass, John."

Is leadership really that hard a concept for people to wrap their heads around, or is no one willing to criticize Obama?

That's almost a Billy Glad sentiment.

Consider another possibility: some of us think Obama is playing this correctly.

G, I have to respectfully disagree here. While I agree with you in principle, I see something different going on.

First, it should be noted that we have a President. Now, I know it sounds crazy, but we do. He should be fixing this, but he can't because he's so woefully incompetent that he can't even assemble his own party anymore.

I think we can both agree that thus far it appears as if dragging the campaigns into the middle of this probably has not been helpful. This is the reason that McCain's little stunt was a farce from the get-go. There's no crying in baseball and there's no stopping a campaign.

But furthermore, I think Obama is playing this correctly. I would ask you what you would rather have him do? Part of leading is knowing how to use your team. Now, if guys like Dodd and Schumer were the wrong players to tap, then he made a mistake, but from what I can see they appear to be getting the job done. That's good. That's part of sitting in the big chair. You can't be all things to all people, so you have to know how to use your troops.

Sure, he could forcefully take a podium somewhere, but to what end? The average person doesn't understand what's going on here. What could he possibly do but offer bromides? Such an act probably poses more risk than could conceivably be rewarded. His oratory skills will be best used to come to the public once the plan is good to go and assuage their fears. He's going to need to sell the country on this, and soon.

And here's the other thing: There's a lot of due concern over the current situation, but he still has an election to win. This is a finesse situation. We need Dr. J, not Shaq. From what I've seen so far, Obama is there, he's on board with the right plan, his team is on board and his star players are moving the ball forward. The other team is still trying to figure out where the goal is. He can hardly be blamed for that.

He has to come out of this not only with a win for the economy, but with a win for his campaign. That's politics, baby. It might not be pretty, but it is what it is. Self-governance is a messy affair.

This is a most interesting and provocative post Genghis. I don't disagree that leadership is needed, and obviously as you and others have written we do have a president even if he is in lame duck status. But the reality is, of course, that lame duck status is real in the surreal environment of Washington, D.C. in which, among other things, every single member of the House is up for reelection. The simple truth is that George Bush cannot influence more than a handful of stalwart loyalists in the House.

As to Obama and McCain, they cannot help but have a role to play, but if we're leaving politics for a moment and talking about the national interest, they might take a pointer or two from a crotchety union lawyer who has been in his share of negotiations. Unless they are both going to shut down their respective campaigns and come back jointly to Washington to sit at (and around) the table, they should be spending most of their time fleshing out their respective immediate and long-term positions to the American people and they should leave the negotiating to the people who are inside the Beltway. That's not to say that they shouldn't be available, and shouldn't be on the phone with folks in an effort to facilitate a resolution, but, with respect to the Obama campaign, with negotiations like these, there is no walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time.

I think Senator Obama has taken the correct approach from a negotiation perspective. I will leave the political assessment of what he is saying out on the stump and in the debate to others. Senator McCain, on the other hand, made a clumsy and counterproductive move when he came into the the process as he did in the middle of the chaos. Again, I really want to refrain from guessing what the political effect of the McCain suspension gambit might ultimately be, but it was a sloppy thing to do in the midst of an ongoing negotiations. I don't believe the silly spin that there was a deal before he came and then he blew it, but by stepping in so clumsily at a time when there were already round-the-clock talks going on, he necessarily caused a shift in the dynamics--Senator Obama correctly pointed out that the injection of presidential politics into an ongoing multi-dimensional negotiations was probably not a good thing.

So I guess my only qualification to another most excellent and worthy post by you is that I
will caution any against presumption that, in negotiations like these, one can and should be walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time (i.e. campaigning and negotiating). If the campaigning is going to continue, and of course it will, I don't think either candidate can really help at the bargaining table, except as I have discussed above. I think they need to do the other thing that you suggest, and that is to be keeping in touch with you and me and the rest of the American people about what we need to do and where they intend to take us. Heck, not to sound corny in front of all us guys, but we really do need someone to stand up AND convince the American people that, even now, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. . .and here's why.

Nice work Genghis. You rock.

Bruce

P.S. I honestly have no idea what the bailout should look like and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Anyone interested in a comprehensive debate about whether this is a real crisis and what the crisis really is, doesn't have to look far might want to check out these viewpoints:

Here's what 20+ year member of Congress Rep. Marcy Kaptur has to say: here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds&eurl

What another TPM poster and experts on a Harvard panel have to say here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/26/is_the_crisis_real/index.php

What Glen Greenwald and Digby discuss is here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
(just scroll down to his September 24th radio discussion)

What Bruce Marks of NACA says here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/26/homeowners_plan_demonstration_at_nyc_offices