Bill Clinton defends McCain’s request to Obama to postpone Friday’s debate

Here’s more from the guy who’s supposed to be helping Obama but won’t officially start campaigning for him until after the upcoming Jewish holidays:

ABC News’ Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain’s request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in “good faith” and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

Appearing on Good Morning America Thursday, Clinton told ABC News’ Chris Cuomo that McCain’s push to postpone the debate would only be a good political move if both candidates agreed. McCain announced on Wednesday that he would “suspend” his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill.

“We know he didn’t do it because he’s afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates,” Clinton said, adding that he was “encouraged” by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

“You can put it off a few days the problem is it’s hard to reschedule those things,” Clinton said, “I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted — I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don’t think we ought to overly parse that.”

If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says “they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue.”

That really sounds like a guy who wants to help Obama keep the advantage he’s gained over the last week due to the economic crisis, doesn’t it?

And speaking of, Ed Morrissey’s got probably the best take I’ve read this morning on Obama’s lame response yesterday to McCain’s request for a suspension of the first debate, and adds that the reason McCain made the request is due to a “3:00 AM call” situation after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told McCain surrogate Lindsey Graham that he feared the bailout bill would fail unless McCain got involved:

Here was [Bob] Schieffer speaking with the Early Show’s Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today:

BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you’ve got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you’ve got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don’t do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that’s how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

Here’s the latest on where Congress stands on a deal with the President on the bailout.

3 Responses to "Bill Clinton defends McCain’s request to Obama to postpone Friday’s debate"

Neo says:

September 25, 2008 at 11:35 am

What a scam ..

The federal government creates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who procede to produce securities of questionable value (but they are assumed to be backed by the federal government). Then when the securities are determined to be of questionable value, the federal government sets up a program to buy them back, on the cheap, while possibly making up to $1 trillion by reselling them when their value is cleared up.

Brings a whole new meaning to “Windfall Profits Tax” .. LOL

Tom Sawyer couldn’t think this big. Samuel Clemens must be laughing in his grave.

There must be a sucker born everyday.

Given the push to limit CEO compensation, if there is a profit and the banks that lost money on this deal don’t get some of it back. The federal government won’t ever be able to sell a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac securities product again.
Sister Toldjah says:

September 25, 2008 at 11:45 am

Neo – I hear you. I have to admit this whole thing makes me extremely uncomfortable. It also irks me to no end that the McCain campaign, including Mc himself, has not drilled home the point about how this maybe could have been avoided if the had Democrats worked with Bush and other Republicans on oversight/reform related to this issue before it blew up. I don’t want our party lumped in with the do-nothing Democrats like Barack Obama who looked the other way while all this was going on.
Karmadancer says:

September 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm

You know, sometimes it’s just not enough to sit and b*tch.

Yeah, OK, this problem is going to take (conservatively) ~$700 billion of my money to fix. But I also remember what it took to get into this sitch in the first place and it’s not a question of deregulation. I’m fine with that. It is, however, to a great extent an exercise in common sense and basic economics.

At the end of the Reagan/beginning of the Clinton era, it was quite the vogue thing to do to come up with new and creative ways to “print money.” Many of these new ideas took advantage of the huge leaps in technology we were making (and still do). Some were terrific ideas — things like the aptly-named “money market” and mutual fund instruments were popularized then — but some had foundations in, well, sand at best. The dot.com bubble and the housing explosion(s) are prime examples of business and investment models that haven’t worked very well. But because of the phenomenal potential to make huge amounts of money in a very short time and the unfailing capacity of the common man to ignore long-term consequences in favor of short-term gains, we find ourselves in this pickle.

There are some distinct parallels to be found, too, between the leveraged stock purchasing habits that preceded the Great Depression and this current debacle. I am admittedly not a huge fan of trading paper, as such. Buying someone else’s defaulted mortgages doesn’t make sense to me. Intellectually, I know how it’s supposed to work; but from a practical perspective, I can’t see these kinds of things as a sustainable investment.

On the Unicorn Farm, every man, woman and child is well-versed in logic and the liberal arts; and they all are equipped with sufficient economic common sense to realize that increases in value do not continue indefinitely. At some point, there must be — and has always been — an adjustment or wave in the values of things. If it was absolutely true that, for example, housing prices would increase ceaselessly, how on earth would people be able to afford even a starter home, screwy credit arrangements notwithstanding?

My mental compass, however, does tend to point due real. Truth be told, the first signals the bottom was going to fall out of the housing and mortgage industries came back during the final days of the Clinton era, just as GWB took office. We started seeing people with adjustable-rate mortgages or balloon payments begin to default.

Enough with the history lesson As Karma Sees It. What now?

The Unicorn Farm would suggest that the solution lies in getting people to be ethically, morally and economically educated enough to see through the clouds of BS that represent unsound investment opportunities. At the very least, people should have the strength of character to suck it up when those kinds of risky investments fail.

But since we live in the Real World, and since Karma is such a devotee of Darwinism, it is indeed probable that enough people got stung by this debacle — on both sides — to avoid repeating the same mistake. I don’t favor a bunch more regulation. I suspect — strongly — that mere enforcement of what’s already on the books would do the trick. Allocating resources to that project, now and in the future, would likely help us avoid getting into this kind of a bind again.

Stepping down off her soapbox,
— KD

Comments are closed.