Just because of the way it shapes the discourse on the matter, the way it causes the public to value the players and the voices, the way it will shape the election, and how the election will shape the eventual path forward. I watched most of the McCain / Obama debate last week, and I have to say, when asked about their opinions on the bailout plans, I felt embarrassed that either tried to express any opinion whatsoever. Henry Paulson's request for $700bn came with a "trust me, I know what I am doing" style plea, there wasn't much to make an opinion of. Most of congress seemed perplexed by the details, so why should Obama or McCain represent to have a grasp of what it entailed, and then elaborate? Why can't they just say "I dunno, my economists will advise me on that when the details become more clear..."?
The republicans have voted down the bailout plan. The market is in a panic-style reaction. Stocks are way down, treasuries are way up, flight to safety. Even if some of them support the bailout effort, they all know that if they allow it to pass on a democrat-carried vote, McCain can soapbox all the way to the November election about how the democrats are bailing out Wall Street. You have to wonder what this would have looked like if it happend after the election...
Here are some more politically charged items floating around my desk today:
1- NY Times article dated 9 years ago tomorrow, talks about the Clinton Administration urging FannieMae to make more subprime loans. From the article:
2- Ron Paul preaching tough medicine in today's bailout plan vote.
3- On the fall of Lehman Brothers, Bill Bonner writes: