Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Unveils New 3 a.m. Ad

Updated 5:27 p.m.
By Chris Cillizza
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) this afternoon released the second ad of her presidential campaign featuring the "3 a.m. phone call" motif, this time with the economy as the theme and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the intended target.

Here's the ad:

"John McCain just said the government shouldn't take any real action in the housing crisis," says the ad's narrator. "He'd let the phone keep ringing."

The ad, which began running today in Pennsylvania, ends with: "It's 3 a.m. Time for a president who's ready." (The ad is an obvious echo of this spot, which ran in advance of the Ohio-Texas Two-Step.)

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, said on a conference call this afternoon announcing the ad that it "raises real and substantive issues with Senator McCain on how to deal with the economy going forward."

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson noted that this is the first ad run by a Democrat in this race that mentions McCain by name.

Continue reading at The Fix »

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds issued this response to the Clinton ad Wednesday afternoon:

John McCain is ready to lead with a pro-growth economic plan to lower taxes, cut government spending, empower America's entrepreneurs and get our economy back on track. Americans can't afford the Democrats' liberal agenda to raise taxes, nationalize health care, cut off trade and crush the economy under big government.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 2, 2008; 4:41 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Keeps Her Pa. Lead
Next: Obama Nets $40 Million in March

Comments

First, McCain has stated more than once that he is not in favor of any measure that can be construed as helping the average American (paraphrasing somewhat, but if one dots his i's and crosses McCain's t's, its there). He is ok with bail-outs of previously uninsured investment banks or at least does not have a problem with it, the fiscal conservative that he is. What happened to letting the market decide?

Second, his spokesperson's statement that McCain wants to 'help enterprenuers' attests to this approach to the current economy and situations in the future while not saying anything about the tax cuts he USED to want to eliminate but now wants to make permanent. They've had such a positive affect on the economy thus far, why not go all out?

Not everyone in America is or wants to be an enterprenuer.


Further, why advocate for someone that admits that he doesn't know much about the economy. In an age when families are getting a 'crash course' in economics, how is it that someone in Congress - that is partially responsible for appropriations and policy establishment, STILL doesn't know much about the economy.
Heck, he'll just call his Keating 5 friends and see what they think is best (which is possibly why he is mum on the current BAILOUT). If the Keating 5 friends don't help, there's always his active lobbyist campaign staff.


John McCain - his military service aside - is an impulsive, flip-flopping (can you saw Falwell?), indifferent person who will do or say anything to please the current President and his ilk.


To me, this is not conduct becoming of a Senator - who has missed some of the most votes of any of his current colleagues - much less the leader of the FORMERLY free US.

Posted by: crazy4glf | April 3, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary go back to being Senator of New York! YOU ARE NOW BECOMING REALLY PATHETIC! YOU WILL SAY OR DO ANYTHING TO WIN! it is all about you not our country. OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 08!! oh and keep Chelsea at work, back home or wherever she was, SHE IS A HORRIBLE , HORRIBLE SPEAKER TRAINED BY HER MOTHER. SHE IS NOT AN INTELLECTUAL, USES THE SAME BUMPER STICKER TALK! YUK!

Posted by: madison7 | April 3, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Ok, the last 3 am ad we learned that in fact that, besides a few speeches abroad, she can't name one foreign policy accomplishment that other people agree she can take credit for. All of them - Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, etc - have been disputed.

Can we have a list of domestic policy accomplishments that everyone agrees you can take credit for?

On the ad:
Its 3 am. Hillary is up, fully dressed, in her no nonsense pant suit. Yeah right. Get some sleep Hillary! You need it.

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 3, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Justin, FYI-It was CNN who revealed Obama's RACIST preference to People like Him!
If I contribute to a Charity, it is Salvation Army or American Red Cross.

Not, the KKK Baptist Church, the German Polka Dance Group, or European CARE!

Obasama can do whatever he wants, he just needs to realize that when he wants to be a Racist, he makes an enemy of me in his quest to usurp the Executive Seat of MY Country! Comprende?

Posted by: rat-the | April 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

David Brooks, New York Times
March 28, 2008

Barack Obama says: "John McCain is determined to carry out four more years of George Bush's failed policies." Obama is a politician, so it's normal that he'd choose to repeat the lines that some of his followers want to hear. But before people buy that argument, I'd ask them to read three speeches.

The first was delivered by McCain on Sept. 28, 1983. The Reagan administration was seeking Congressional authorization to support the deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon. McCain, a freshman legislator, decided to oppose his president and party.

McCain argued that Lebanese society, as it existed then, could not be stabilized and unified by American troops. He made a series of concrete observations about the facts on the ground. Lebanon was in a state of de facto partition. The Lebanese Army would not soon be strong enough to drive out the Syrians. The American presence would not intimidate the Syrians into negotiating.

"I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon." He concluded. "I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawal."

This was not the speech of a man who thinks military force is the answer to every problem. It was the speech of one who conforms policies to facts. And it came a month before a terrorist attack that killed 241 Americans.

The second speech was delivered on Nov. 5, 2003. This was not a grand strategy speech. It was a critique of the execution of existing U.S. policy.

First, McCain wondered about the Pentagon's publicity campaign in Iraq: "When, in the course of days, we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books."

He then pointed out that the U.S. had not committed sufficient troops. He called for a counterinsurgency strategy in which U.S. forces would actually hold secure territory. "Simply put," he said, "there does not appear to be a strategy behind our current force levels in Iraq, other than to preserve the illusion that we have sufficient forces in place to meet our objectives."

He excoriated the arrogance of Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority: "The C.P.A. seems to think that all wisdom is made in America, and that the Iraqi people were defeated, not liberated."

This was the speech of a man, adjusting to changing circumstances, who was calling on the administration to adjust quickly as well.

The third McCain speech was delivered on Wednesday. It is as personal, nuanced and ambitious a speech as any made by a presidential candidate this year.

McCain noted that we are not only fighting a war on terror. The world is seeing a growing split between liberal democracies and growing autocracies. We are seeing a world in which great power rivalries - with China, Russia and Iran - have to be managed and soothed.

Moreover, the U.S. is not the sole hegemon. Power is widely distributed among many rising nations. McCain's core purpose in the speech was to revive the foreign policy tradition that has jumped parties but that has been associated with people like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Stimson, Dean Acheson, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

In this tradition, a strong America is the key to world peace, but America's role is as a leading player in an international system. America didn't defeat communism, McCain said Wednesday, the American-led global community did. This is the tradition that Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment has been describing for a decade.

McCain offered to build new pillars for that system - a League of Democracies, a new nuclear nonproliferation regime and a successor to the Kyoto treaty. In stabilizing Asia and the Middle East, he would rely more on democracies like Turkey, India, Israel and Iraq, and less on Mubarak and Musharraf.

Unlike the realists, McCain believes other nations have to be judged according to how they treat their own citizens. Unlike the Bush administration in its first few years, he believes global treaties cannot solely be evaluated according to a narrow definition of the American interest. The U.S. also has to protect the fabric of the international system.

McCain opened his speech with a description of his father leaving home on the day of Pearl Harbor, and then being gone for much of the next four years. He harkened back repeatedly to the accomplishments of the Truman administration.

In so doing, he signaled that the foreign policy debate of the coming months will be very different from the one of the past six years. Anybody who thinks McCain is merely continuing the Bush agenda is not paying attention.

Posted by: JakeD | April 3, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Senator McCain has far more credibility than this portrays. There is basic soundness in the R strategy - no doubts.

The up and down cycles are endemic to global markets.

We don't want a taxer and spender like this 3 am person who was caught bulling about the Bosnian episode. She does not know how to tax, where to tax and how and where to use tax money. The soundness of capitalist markets is always the better bet.

I would definitely trust Senator Mc Cain's leadership to create more value for you and me than this "tax and spend".

Good luck to you, Senator McCain!

Posted by: mdsubramonia | April 3, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Caller (at 3 a.m.) "I'm broke. I lost my job because of NAFTA. You know that agreement your husband pushed through with the help of the Republicans and Big Business. And, oh yes, yourself."
Hillary: "Your situation's easy to fix. Trade cattle futures. I did it and turned $1000 into $100 000 in 7 months. It's as easy as pie. American pie. In fact, I'm thinking of getting back into it so that I can pay my campaign bills!"

Posted by: gcubitt | April 3, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

TALK ABOUT SUPER EGO.

OBAMA IS A CHARTER MEMBER . WATCH OUT FOLKS FOR THE HANKY PANKY HE WILL TRY TO GET AWAY WITH. ANYTHING LIKE THE SPITZER AFFAIR WILL NOT COMPARE. THIS MAN IS TOO PUFFED UP ON HIS OWN IMPORTANCE NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT FEMALESD WILL THROW IN FRONT OF HIM...................

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | April 3, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

We, as a nation can afford any alternative Hillary will introduce as President. Anything is better than what the GOP (McBush) has to offer. The Republicans raped the country for an illegal war that will take generations of taxpayers money to pay for.

No matter what, I will vote for Hillary and feel good that I cannot be influenced by a Con. Artist who knows nothing more than Islam and his Pastor has brain washed into his Pea Head. He is a Vile Self Centered, Arrogent animal. Prof. of Law - WHAT A JOKE. Does he really believe any thinking American would believe this piece of lieing trash? , Senators who havent got the guts to stand up to him and just love his Islam money are down to the Obama level. Muslins do not believe in the Holacost, have Kentucky removed this part of history from schools as it offends the Muslin Community. Answer that one Hussein. Lets hear your take on the subject. DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS PERSON. HE WILL TRY TO MAKE AMERICA AN ISLAM COUNTRY.

VOTE FOR HILLARY AND YOU VOTE FOR THE AMERICA WE LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | April 3, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Clinton said she "misspoke" about infiltrating Bosnia, Rambo-style, under sniper fire.

Yet "misspoke" doesn't seem like the right word for a story that turns out to be easily distinguishable from the true facts.

I suggest coining a new word: misspeech - meaning a whole speech, or sizeable part thereof, in which the speaker employs a flexible approach toward reality.

By the way, misspeak under oath and you can get five years in the clink for perjury.

Posted by: festy25 | April 3, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 3, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | April 3, 2008 5:51 AM | Report abuse

Time for a president who is ready ? Ready for what, I wonder out loud here. Ready to finish off the ailing economy completely? Welcome to the new era of America's official decline into Third World with the woman who will be CLUELESS in the WH. She doesn't know E for economics. Finito!

Posted by: thisworld | April 3, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

How is this woman going to manage a national economy when it has become apparent that she couldn't even manage her campaign economy well which has left a trail of creditors along the way. Talk to any of these Clinton creditors, then you will get a very clear picture as to where the country will be heading if you put her in charge of this already dire economy. I just shudder at the thought! There is still the small matter of the release of her tax returns. The way she managed her own financial affairs will be definitely indicative of her ability or inability as the case may be to manage the ailing economy.

Posted by: thisworld | April 3, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

The Clintons have shown that they will not hesitate to say anything or to cross any lines for more power and more money. The Clintons records during and after the White House speak for themselves:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before Bill left office, he gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Let's press the Clintons to release all their records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation) so that we understand what lies below the tip of the iceberg.

The negative campaign of Hillary is representative of what the Clintons are; corrupted politicians with a lot of connected friends in the party who owe them and in the lobbying business who hope to collect for their favors to Hillary's campaign and/or to the Clinton's library foundation which is a money laundering machine

Posted by: Logan6 | April 3, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Ignoring the bizarre notion of an economic crisis at 3 AM (last I checked, the markets close at night), it's nice to see an ad in the Democratic race that's aimed at Republicans. Enough with the circular firing squad.

Posted by: davestickler | April 3, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

3 am - Ring, Ring
Hello?

Hello, Hillary?

Yes, Barack.

Listen, I can't sleep, I've been trying to quit these damn cigarettes, but, I just can't. If you'd drop out of the race, I think I could do it.

Fat chance, Barack. I'm in it to win it, so smoke em' if you got em!

Would you drop out if I let you be VP? I mean, you're likeable enough, Hillary.

Don't patronize me, Barack, I'll have my Bosnian snipers take you out!

Oh no you, won't, Hillary, I'll have my oil companies pay off all the superdelegates. It'll be like a Judas Brigade when I'm done.

Whatever, Barack, let's let the voters decide this OK?

No way, that's not fair! I am the next President of the United States of America! I'll have Al Gore demand that you drop out tommorow!

Yeah, Barack, whatever. I gotta go.

Posted by: brigittepj | April 2, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse


PHONEY-CRISIS ON THE CHEAP

Ring....ring...ring
HRC: Hello
Caller. Hi Hillary, it's Howard...Howard Ickes. I know it's 3am, HIllary, but, we're out of money!

Howard, just make another 3am ad, use old footage...and then all the internet media will play it for free!

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 2, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Ring...ring...ring
HRC: Hello
Caller: Hi, Hillary, it's Howard...Howard Ickes. I know it's 3 a.m., Hillary; but, we're out of money! We don't have money for more ads! We overspent! Hillary, can you, you know, maybe, lend the campaign another $5 million? Hillary?...Hillary? How about $3million? Come on, Hillary...please!!!

Posted by: SueB2 | April 2, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

DREAM ON !

When Hillary is SLEEP-DEPRIVED she's in a fantasy dream-land where she and Chelsea are dodging bullets in Bosnia.

If, for any reason, she were to be awakened at 3am. her most likely response would be: Bomb Serbia !

Posted by: kevinlarmee | April 2, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

That's right, I "thoughtfully and needlessly posted [the speech] in its entirety" just so I could point out that McCain went after the lenders as well:

"A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back."

...

"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

...

"When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.

"Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not. Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process. We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior."

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain's speech, that someone thoughtfully and needlessly posted in its entirety here, completely mischaracterizes the biggest problem with the subprime loan mess -- that the lenders created unsound loan products that were improperly marketed to consumers, that loans were fraudulently pitched to consumers and that outright fraud in documentation and loan closings occurred.

McCain's position statement (mirroring that of Bush's) totally casts the consumer as the greedy, gambling speculator who got loans from lenders who were too busy with all the work to pay attention to the greedy consumers' biting off more than they could chew and the managers of investment banks and investors were too confused by the loan derivative products to know they were pushing money into a liquidity bubble and ponzi scheme.

What a skewed view, biased against the consumer and toward the banks. Most economists believe banking and Wall Street caused the problems in many ways, and not consumers.

McCain's narrative really explains why the Bush Administration is so set against doing anything real to stop the ponzi scheme-based mortgage finance system from crashing except to bail out the rich guys!

Posted by: ephemerella | April 2, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am registered Independent, not Republican.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Right on, justin -- lol! Anybody need to see the republican dick nixon dirty tricksters wing just look at good ol' rat and jake -- and by the way -- this ad is ridiculous no matter who the intended target. As Jay Leno said ... Mrs. Clinton's new campaign slogan is "INCOMING"!!!

Posted by: Omyobama | April 2, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

LOL, justin -- if you think I'm Republican, you are mistaken -- I am curious, though, whether you think it was "inconsistent" or just "anti-Islamic" for me to use McCain's middle name as well?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey, rat-the and JakeD, you guys are going completely off message. You're supposed to be bashing Obama and promoting Hillary until August. You're not allowed to promote McCain directly until after the convention.

So, rat-the, get back to your whole racist slander thing. And JakeD, back to your anti-Islamic middle name thing. I mean people around hear are willing to tolerate your slanderous rhetorical diarrhea, but they won't tolerate inconsistency.

Posted by: justin | April 2, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

The reason that Hillary will not win this nomination is because she is completely unoriginal. Rehashing the same commercial,but trying to equate it to the economy is at best moronic.It's 3AM and you are getting really tired Mr.Clinton. Have a glass of milk and go to sleep. There is someone else taking care of the country.

Posted by: mrtutto | April 2, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Tucker Bounds, the next White House Press Secretary.

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Uh, economic crisis at 3am? 3pm is more likely. This is a tired campaign.

Posted by: chrisduckworth | April 2, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

has anyone thought about al gore coming to the rescue of the democratic party? after all he did win the popular vote last time he ran didn't he?

Posted by: rrathbun4 | April 2, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

i'm just waiting to find out this actor is a republican. hahahaahahahaha...

Posted by: jencm | April 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I think a Campaign Manager should have run something through "Legal" First!

Give me a "S"

Give me a "L"

Gimme an "A", a "N", a "D", an "E",

Finally a "R"!

What does that Spell? The END of Billary's Campaign! :-(

Posted by: rat-the | April 2, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Because they are in the tank for Barack HUSSEIN Obama, thejaner. Didn't you see those hilarious SNL skits that hit a little too close to this truth?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: old_europe | April 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Why won't any major TV news media mention the fact that Obama's AD's running in Penn. and In. state that he takes no money from gas and oil companies. According to Newsweek and the Center for Responsive Politics that is very misleading since none of the candidates can take money directly, but all take it indirectly including Obama-over 250 grand.
The difference is that Clinton and McCain aren't running ads claiming to be different than other candidates. Why does the press ignore Obama's blatant lies?

Posted by: thejaner | April 2, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

This is what he DID say:

"While I was traveling overseas, our financial markets experienced another round of upheaval. This market turmoil leaves many Americans feeling both concerned and angry. People see the value of their homes fall at the same time that the price of gasoline and food is rising. Already tight household budgets are getting tighter. A lot of Americans read the headlines about credit crunches and liquidity crises and ask: "How did we get here?" In the end, the motivation and behaviors that caused the current crisis are not terribly complicated, even though the alphabet soup of financial instruments is complex. The past decade witnessed the largest increase in home ownership in the past 50 years. Home ownership is part of the American dream, and we want as many Americans as possible to be able to afford their own home. But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created.

A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up - but never down. We've seen this kind of bubble before -- in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.

A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.

Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?

The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments -- which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets -- were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren't always managed wisely because people couldn't properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.

Because managers did not fully understand the complex financial instruments and because there was insufficient transparency when they did try to learn, the initial losses spawned a crisis of confidence in the markets. Market players are increasingly unnerved by the uncertainty surrounding the level of risk, liability and loss currently in the financial system. Banks no longer trust each other and are increasingly unwilling to put their money to work. Credit is drying up and liquidity is now severely limited -- and small business and hard-working families find themselves unable to get their usual loans.

The net result is the crisis we face. What started as a problem in subprime loans has now convulsed the entire financial system.

Let's start with some straight talk:

I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.

Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not. Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process. We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior.

Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home. I therefore oppose reducing the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and believe that, as conditions allow, the down payment requirement should be raised. So many homeowners have found themselves owing more than their home is worth, because many never had much equity in the house to begin with. When conditions return to normal, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game.

In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.

I am prepared to examine new proposals and evaluate them based on these principals. But I think we need to do two things right away. First, it is time to convene a meeting of the nation's accounting professionals to discuss the current mark to market accounting systems. We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding and there is widespread concern that this approach is exacerbating the credit crunch.

We should also convene a meeting of the nation's top mortgage lenders. Working together, they should pledge to provide maximum support and help to their cash-strapped, but credit worthy customers. They should pledge to do everything possible to keep families in their homes and businesses growing. Recall that immediately after September 11, 2001 General Motors stepped in to provide 0 percent financing as part of keeping the economy growing. We need a similar response by the mortgage lenders. They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling upon them to help their customers, and their nation out. It's time to help American families.

More important than the events of the past is the promise of the future. The American economy is resilient and diverse. Even as financial troubles weigh upon it other parts of the economy hold up or even continue to grow. I have spoken at length in other settings about the need to keep taxes low on our families, entrepreneurs, and small businesses; to make the tax code simpler and fair by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that the middle class was never intended to pay; to improve the ability of our companies to compete by reducing our corporate tax rate, which today are the second highest rates in the world; to provide investment incentives; to control rising health care costs that threaten the budgets of our businesses and families; to improve education and training programs; and to ensure our ability to sell to the 95 percent of the world's customers that lie outside U.S. borders.

These are important steps to strengthen the foundations of the millions of businesses small and large that provide jobs for American workers. There is no government program or policy that is a substitute for a good job. These steps would also strengthen the U.S. dollar and help to control the rising cost of living that hurts our families. These are important issues in this campaign and the debate with my Democrat rivals. But I will get my chance to talk further another day. Now I look forward to hearing from our small business owners -- the very lifeblood of our economy."

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/bea72b48-35ba-48cb-8cea-b3b68b9be7ee.htm

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

When did John SIDNEY McCain say the words "the government shouldn't take any real action"?

Posted by: JakeD | April 2, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company