What is your opinion of this article demonstrating that Obama wanted “horrific” Wall St. headlines?

Posted on July 29th, 2010 by admin1 in Political Campaign Advertising Programs

Excerpts of the transcript:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets — and we have been saying for some time on this program this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression — Alan Greenspan said on Sunday the worst economic situation he’s seen — it seems to me that there’s a real turning point now, that that momentum on McCain’s side is likely to fade. And there is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side. I don’t know if he’s going to do it or not. He is trying. McCain has an opportunity here as well. But there’s no question right now that this — this really dark economic situation is now going to be — is going to really — is going to, I think, blot out a lot of this question about who — the backing-and-forthing and the advertising, and focus on the issues.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Right.

GERGEN: And that’s what — that’s what Obama has wanted to do. He’s now got the opportunity.

I think, personally, he’s got the critique down, but he still hasn’t provided a message about what he would do, nor has he really surrounded himself, in the way he needs to, with the Bob Rubins and the Paul Volckers and the Larry Summers and Laura Tysons, and have them as a tight unit. I think he still has to do that.

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.

Isn’t that nice? The nation’s banking system is collapsing, and members of CNN are not only discussing how it helps Obama, but are admitting that this is what his campaign wanted.

How disgraceful.

Here is the link and also a video of this interview:

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnns-crowley-obama-team-wanted-horrific-wall-street-headlines.html

Your thoughts?

Meanwhile, Obama and his Beverly Hills entourage raised $9 million for his presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, while tens of thousands of Hurricane Ike victims are without homes, electricity, food, and water. Which party is suppose to be for the less fortunate again?

Edit:
What Obama won’t admit though is that he made his millions in the Bush economy. Or that President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. Or that the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007 (this compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton’s term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000). Or that debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared to 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

Markets always have ups and downs. It’s the nature of the beast. Remember how the economy tanked after 9/11, but reached unprecedented highs in 2007? Americans are the most resilient and resourceful people in the world. These aren’t unfamiliar problems. We’ll bounce back. It’s sad to think that what’s bad for America is good for the Democrats though.

14 Comments on “What is your opinion of this article demonstrating that Obama wanted “horrific” Wall St. headlines?”

  1. alphabetsoup2

    Well, I must say, if this meltdown happened under Clinton, or any Democratic president, a Republican hopeful, too, would take advantage of the situation. Just the silly nature of policitcs.

    References :

  2. emma-nemma

    Of course Obama wants bad news and a failing economy. It’s the only way he can get people to believe in his "changes". What they don’t know is that "Obamanomics" would put the final nail in the U.S. economic coffin, but what does he care? He’s only interested in his globalistic transformation of America into a second rate member of his world government. If you don’t believe that, just look into his agenda and his backers, including Soros.References :

  3. Michael B

    Lol, you guys have spent 8 years making political hay out of 9/11 and the accuse someone of using a bad issue for the nation for gain?

    Digusting….simply disgusting.

    You have sank to a new low suthrngrl, and I hear about what you do for $5 in your trailer.
    References :

  4. Tejas Rules

    Muslim Barrack Hussein Osama wants the destruction of America…Period!References :

  5. spirishno1

    A banking system that is collapsing under the Bush administration. How convenient that you didn’t mention that. If I were Obama I would seize the opportunity to point that out as well. What’s your point? McCain picked Palin purely for political reasons. That’s politics, get over it.References :

  6. libsticker

    Democrats have been playing the doom and gloom card since entering the race, lowering consumer confidence, and making the markets unstable. Piling on is what I call it. The more they can erode consumer confidence and tank the market, the more they can make the cry for change. Considering all this happened because of the housing mortgage crisis, that McCain tried to get oversight on in 2005. Link provided below on the actual bill that is still not been voted on.References : http://www.opencongress.org/bill/109-s190/show

  7. Mars Hill

    Meanwhile, Obama and his Beverly Hills entourage raised $9 million for his presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, while tens of thousands of Hurricane Ike victims are without homes, electricity, food, and water. Which party is suppose to be for the less fortunate again?

    Edit:
    What Obama won’t admit though is that he made his millions in the Bush economy. Or that President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. Or that the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007 (this compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton’s term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000). Or that debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared to 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

    Markets always have ups and downs. It’s the nature of the beast. Remember how the economy tanked after 9/11, but reached unprecedented highs in 2007? Americans are the most resilient and resourceful people in the world. These aren’t unfamiliar problems. We’ll bounce back. It’s sad to think that what’s bad for America is good for the Democrats though.References : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_en_ce/obama
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94637275

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahMn3AUnD_CY&refer=home

  8. Guv'ner Barbie

    Sounds like you have already decided that Obama is going to be the next President- in fact, you are acting like he already is. Guess what, George W. Bush is the President and has been for 8 bloody years. I think the blood is on HIS hands, not Obama’s.References :

  9. badmotherrucker

    Everything in the transcript is pure speculation. Maybe accurate, but it’s not like they asked Obama, or saw him rubbing his hands while letting loose with an evil laugh. They assume that Obama is rooting for the worse, so they tell the world is if it’s a fact. What’s bad for the republicans is ultimately good for the democrats, Just like what bad for the democrats is good for the republicans. The other side will always run with it. there’s nothing disgraceful about it, it’s just the way it is.References :

  10. just agree w/me it saves time

    The liberals have to have things going poorly so people will accept their positions on things. Another thing that hasn’t been mentioned by the media-that I know of- is how the dems in congress pressured lending companies to lower their standards so more Americans can have the "right" to home ownership. I didn’t know home ownership was a right, I thought it was a privilege.

    Anyway, if things were going well then people wouldn’t want some crazy socialistic/communistic idea running our country. But they’ll panic with these signs-not realizing that it’s just the mkt correcting itself-and of course blame Bush and the Repubs b/c it happened on their watch. Let’s all look past the fact that this began with bills passed under Clinton’s watch that started this whole mess.

    They-the media and politicians-need to spend more time focusing on how to fix the problems and less time on fixing the blame. If they insist on fixing the blame then they need to actually do their homework and find out where it began not where it blew up.References :

  11. Tryad

    Of course this is what the Democrats wanted, They wanted the war to keep failing as well. There strategy is this, if things are bad then they can say we can change things and make it better, if things go well they have nothing to stand on, so for them the worse our economy the better it is. I feel is is a shame that the Democrats wish the worse for our nation just so they can get power, I really think that shows something about there party. So Americans should really be thinking why would they vote for a party that wants the worse for America. It just doesn’t make any sense.References :

  12. Jules

    Yes, this is exactly what Obama wants, he thinks it’s going to help him in the election. But he has not a clue on how to fix this economy, that I am certain of.References :

  13. Sophie

    The overreaction of Obama was dangerously irresponsible, acting like the sky was falling and comparing it to the Great Depression. That’s not what good leaders do. You don’t want to panic the public. You don’t want a run on the banks. President Bush should have come out and adressed the public right after this idiot ran around fearmongering and reassured the public. It would have exposed Obama for his terrible leadership skills. References :

  14. Flip Ant

    Well How will Obama explain having the former Ceos of Lehman @ Fannie Mae as his top economic advisors? How will Obama explain having taken the most campaign contributions from both Fannie @ Freddie second to only DEM Sen Chris Dodd over the last 3 years? How will Dems explain ignoring and blocking legislation to reform both organizations? Blaming the collapse of AIG. Lehman and Fannie and Freddie on Republicans is a can of worms the Dems do not want to open.References :

Leave a Reply

More News