Obama took Hawaii too, so 10 in a row for our Barack
U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Obama vs McCain... it was obvious from quite a long time.
Dont underestimate her. She has no morals or ethics and will do anything to become the nominee.
She first agreed along with other candidates that Florida and Michigan delegates wouldn't be seated but now will go to court to seat them. Nobody campaigned in those states and Barack didnt even have his name listed at Michigan.
Their camp is talking about wooing not just super delegates but pledged delegates who have already been allocated to Obama based on his primary/caucus victories. It makes a mockery of democracy if delegates pledged based on votes are being approached to change their minds.
She makes a speech that the economy is in bad shape because executives working in hedge funds are paid a lot of money for doing no work. Her own daughter works for a hedge fund
She does not want to divulge her tax returns but keeps lending her own campaign millions of dollars. Obama has already made public his tax returns and income sources.
The Clintons have no values and even lie about small stuff. When asked about drug use, Bill cleverly said that 'he has never broken the laws of his country'. Later he admitted he had experimented with marijuana in London but claimed he never inhaled
. When Obama was asked by a reporter if he inhaled, he replied 'That was the point'think Texas and Ohio will be her last stand....yes she is a 'fighter' but I think even she does not want the Democratic Party destroyed....which is what will happen if she tries to 'strong arm' her way to get the nomination....
March 4th...thats when this will all come down....and she is not certain to win both either....she is neck and neck in Texas and 7 points ahead in OH in the latest polls...
of course I could be wrong
March 4th...thats when this will all come down....and she is not certain to win both either....she is neck and neck in Texas and 7 points ahead in OH in the latest polls...
of course I could be wrong
think Texas and Ohio will be her last stand....yes she is a 'fighter' but I think even she does not want the Democratic Party destroyed....which is what will happen if she tries to 'strong arm' her way to get the nomination....
March 4th...thats when this will all come down....and she is not certain to win both either....she is neck and neck in Texas and 7 points ahead in OH in the latest polls...
of course I could be wrong
What a sweet b-day present for me - Hillary losing her bid!
Wonder if McCain would ask Condoleeza to be his VP... would be the perfect counter-measure against Obama for the black vote (which Obama will still get majority of). And she's good at foreign politics.
Rumors in GA are Sonny Perdue might be in the running for VP. I really hope not. Don't need more sourthern bible thumpers involved. But this is exactly the reasons being floated that McCain will look to find a southern Republican for his VP - to get the southern vote (mostly bible thumpers).
BTW, did anyone catch the youtube clip of Huckabee talking about changing the constitution to reflect the "word of God."
Can someone explain how it is fair that Obama gets 35 out of 50 delegates from Washington based on some caucus that about 30,000 ppl voted in when the primaries last night had them pretty much neck and neck?
Wonder if McCain would ask Condoleeza to be his VP... would be the perfect counter-measure against Obama for the black vote (which Obama will still get majority of). And she's good at foreign politics.
Rumors in GA are Sonny Perdue might be in the running for VP. I really hope not. Don't need more sourthern bible thumpers involved. But this is exactly the reasons being floated that McCain will look to find a southern Republican for his VP - to get the southern vote (mostly bible thumpers).
BTW, did anyone catch the youtube clip of Huckabee talking about changing the constitution to reflect the "word of God."
For the ignorant limeys out there like me, who is Sonny Perdue?
She's experienced and that's a significant advantage on international stage (foreign politics).
To put this in a shorter way... everyone but not Giuliani.
Can someone explain how it is fair that Obama gets 35 out of 50 delegates from Washington based on some caucus that about 30,000 ppl voted in when the primaries last night had them pretty much neck and neck?
it was agreed by the DNC that the caucus would be the process through which the delegates would be awarded.....this was a 'beauty contest'...but Hillary may just sue to get the delegates reawarded
Wonder if McCain would ask Condoleeza to be his VP... would be the perfect counter-measure against Obama for the black vote (which Obama will still get majority of). And she's good at foreign politics.
Rumors in GA are Sonny Perdue might be in the running for VP. I really hope not. Don't need more sourthern bible thumpers involved. But this is exactly the reasons being floated that McCain will look to find a southern Republican for his VP - to get the southern vote (mostly bible thumpers).
BTW, did anyone catch the youtube clip of Huckabee talking about changing the constitution to reflect the "word of God."
I have 'heard' our Govenor Pawlenty will be the VP nominee...he is close to being made redundant in MN because the legislature is only a few seats away from being 'veto proof'...which the Dems will pick up in 2008..
This election is following the final 2 seasons of The West Wing pretty closely
i know, you couldn't make it up....
This guy http://gov.georgia.gov/02/gov/home/...l;jsessionid=3D4F8FC36F34E2B83770A148C8D38289. The same guy that held a public prayer on the Capitol steps (isn't this against the law?) in the hopes that God would end the drought in Georgia a few months ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/13/southern.drought.ap/index.html
Jesus Christ
What's all this about McCain shagging a lobbyist?
Devotees of the West Wing have been talking about it for weeks: the uncanny similarity between the fictional presidential contest that dominated the final seasons of the acclaimed TV show and the real-life drama of this year's election.
Both the real and imagined campaigns have centred on a young, charismatic candidate from an ethnic minority, daring to take on an establishment workhorse with a promise to transcend race and heal America's partisan divide.
But there's a twist.
For what those West Wing fans stunned by the similarity between the fictitious Matthew Santos and the real-life Barack Obama have not known is that the resemblance is no coincidence. When the West Wing scriptwriters first devised their fictitious presidential candidate in the late summer of 2004, they modelled him in part on a young Illinois politician - not yet even a US senator - by the name of Barack Obama.
"I drew inspiration from him in drawing this character," West Wing writer and producer Eli Attie told the Guardian. "When I had to write, Obama was just appearing on the national scene. He had done a great speech at the convention [which nominated John Kerry] and people were beginning to talk about him."
Attie, who served as chief speechwriter to Al Gore during the ill-fated 2000 campaign and who wrote many of the key Santos episodes of the West Wing, put in a call to Obama aide David Axelrod.
"I said, 'Tell me about this guy Barack Obama.'"
With the Latino actor Jimmy Smits already cast for the show, Attie was especially keen to know how rising star Obama approached the question of his race. Axelrod's answers helped inform Santos's approach to his own Hispanic identity.
"Some of Santos's insistence on not being defined by his race, his pride in it even as he rises above it, came from that," Attie said.
The scriptwriter also borrowed from Obama's life the notion of a superstar candidate. "After that convention speech, Obama's life changed. He was mobbed wherever he went. He was more than a candidate seeking votes: people were seeking him. Some of Santos's celebrity aura came from that."
The result is a bizarre case of art imitating life - only for life to imitate art back again.
In the TV show, Santos begins as the rank outsider up against a national figure famous for standing at the side of a popular Democratic president. There are doubts about Santos's inexperience, having served just a few years in Congress, and about his ability to persuade voters to back an ethnic minority candidate - even as his own ethnic group harbour suspicions that he might not identify with them sufficiently.
But the soaring power of his rhetoric, his declaration that the old divisions belong in the past and his sheer magnetism, ensure that he comes from behind in a fiercely close primary campaign and draws level with his once all-commanding opponent. Every aspect of that storyline has come true for Barack Obama. Axelrod, now chief strategist for the Obama campaign, recently joked in an email to Attie: "We're living your scripts!"
What's more, the West Wing had the Republicans choose between a Christian preacher - a pre-echo of Mike Huckabee - and an older, maverick senator from the American west whose liberal positions on some issues had earned the distrust of the party's conservative base: a dead ringer for John McCain.
In the West Wing, the McCain figure emerges comfortably as the party's choice. Apparently the character was not based on the current Republican frontrunner, but was simply a function of the casting of Alan Alda.
"It was always an inside joke on the West Wing that the show had a prophetic quality," recalls Attie, now a writer and producer of House, starring Hugh Laurie.
Various political scenarios sketched out on the programme would often materialise within weeks of airing. But the 2008 campaign, Attie concedes, is in an entirely different league.
There are small differences of course. Santos had a white wife - stressing, says Attie, Santos's standing as a "post-racial figure" - while Michelle Obama is African-American. Ms Obama is the more outspoken, but with two young children each, both are equally photogenic.
Obama aides will be hoping that the West Wing's prophetic streak holds: Santos eventually emerged as the Democratic nominee from a brokered convention - and went on to win the presidency.
Barack Obama v Matt Santos
Barack Obama
Young, handsome and charismatic member of Congress, attempts to become America's first non-white president.
Began political career as a community organiser in a big city (Chicago) before winning first election at local level. Married, with two young children.
Faced stiff opposition in Democratic primary against occupant of the White House during previous Democratic administration (first lady Hillary Clinton)
Rivals attack him as inexperienced after just four years in Congress, but triumphs through grassroots support, inspiring speeches and message of change.
Republican opponent is veteran moderate senator from a western state, unpopular with conservative base (John McCain of Arizona).
Matt Santos
Young, handsome and charismatic member of Congress, attempts to become America's first non-white president.
Began political career as a community organiser in a big city (Houston) before winning first election at local level. Married, with two young children.
Faced stiff opposition in Democratic primary against occupant of the White House during previous Democratic administration (vice president Bob Russell).
Rivals attack him as inexperienced after just six years in Congress, but triumphs through grassroots support, inspiring speeches and message of change.
Republican opponent was veteran moderate senator from a western state, unpopular with conservative base (Arnie Vinick of California).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/barackobama.uselections2008
11 in a row for Obama
Barack Obama has gained an 11th straight victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination by winning the Democrats Abroad primary.
He now faces his rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, in a TV debate in Texas ahead of crucial primaries there and in Ohio next month.
She is seeking to revive her campaign with wins in the two key states in order to stop Mr Obama's momentum.
Mrs Clinton now needs a majority of the remaining delegates to beat Mr Obama.
He has at least 1,351 - according to an Associated Press projection - of the 2,025 delegates he needs to secure the Democratic nomination at the party's convention in August.
'Yes we can' message
While Democrats Abroad, representing the party's supporters living in more than 30 countries, gives Mr Obama only 2.5 delegates over two for Mrs Clinton, it continues his winning streak.
Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday was significant for Mr Obama, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale, because he ate into Mrs Clinton's support base of white women and lower-income workers.
Correspondents say the blue-collar vote will be crucial in the Ohio and Texas contests, and the Clinton campaign has already begun targeting lower-income workers in its ads.
But in his drive to become the first black US president, Mr Obama has gained important support from some powerful unions, including the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union.
The first-term Illinois senator has brushed off criticism from Mrs Clinton and Republican front-runner John McCain that he lacks substance.
His eloquent speeches and "yes we can" message of hope have inspired many voters.
"It's a choice between a politics that offers more of the same divisions and distractions that didn't work in South Carolina and didn't work in Wisconsin and will not work in Texas," he said to a crowd of 17,000 in Dallas.
"Or a politics of common sense, of common purpose, of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
Victories needed
But Mrs Clinton shot back at a New York fund-raiser, saying: "It's about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work, on hard work."
Mrs Clinton has pursued live debates with Mr Obama, hoping her keen grasp of policy issues will be seen to outweigh his sparkling rhetoric.
The Texas debate, at 0100 GMT Friday, is the first of two the Obama camp agreed to.
Many analysts are saying Mrs Clinton can only turn around her campaign with big victories in Texas and Ohio on 4 March.
She has not won a state primary or caucus since 5 February.
Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, said he thought she could win the nomination over Mr Obama if she won the two large states.
"If she wins in Texas and Ohio, she will win in Pennsylvania and I believe she will win the nomination," he said campaigning for his wife in Texas on Wednesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7256937.stm
Barack Obama has gained an 11th straight victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination by winning the Democrats Abroad primary.
He now faces his rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, in a TV debate in Texas ahead of crucial primaries there and in Ohio next month.
She is seeking to revive her campaign with wins in the two key states in order to stop Mr Obama's momentum.
Mrs Clinton now needs a majority of the remaining delegates to beat Mr Obama.
He has at least 1,351 - according to an Associated Press projection - of the 2,025 delegates he needs to secure the Democratic nomination at the party's convention in August.
'Yes we can' message
While Democrats Abroad, representing the party's supporters living in more than 30 countries, gives Mr Obama only 2.5 delegates over two for Mrs Clinton, it continues his winning streak.
Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday was significant for Mr Obama, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale, because he ate into Mrs Clinton's support base of white women and lower-income workers.
Correspondents say the blue-collar vote will be crucial in the Ohio and Texas contests, and the Clinton campaign has already begun targeting lower-income workers in its ads.
But in his drive to become the first black US president, Mr Obama has gained important support from some powerful unions, including the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union.
The first-term Illinois senator has brushed off criticism from Mrs Clinton and Republican front-runner John McCain that he lacks substance.
His eloquent speeches and "yes we can" message of hope have inspired many voters.
"It's a choice between a politics that offers more of the same divisions and distractions that didn't work in South Carolina and didn't work in Wisconsin and will not work in Texas," he said to a crowd of 17,000 in Dallas.
"Or a politics of common sense, of common purpose, of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."
Victories needed
But Mrs Clinton shot back at a New York fund-raiser, saying: "It's about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work, on hard work."
Mrs Clinton has pursued live debates with Mr Obama, hoping her keen grasp of policy issues will be seen to outweigh his sparkling rhetoric.
The Texas debate, at 0100 GMT Friday, is the first of two the Obama camp agreed to.
Many analysts are saying Mrs Clinton can only turn around her campaign with big victories in Texas and Ohio on 4 March.
She has not won a state primary or caucus since 5 February.
Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, said he thought she could win the nomination over Mr Obama if she won the two large states.
"If she wins in Texas and Ohio, she will win in Pennsylvania and I believe she will win the nomination," he said campaigning for his wife in Texas on Wednesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7256937.stm
Texas is gonna be huge for both candidates especially Clint
Apparently McCain's been sleeping around. Shocking... and to think he could be president!
Actually, he's probably just trying to win the "new JFK" mantle from Bambam
Actually, he's probably just trying to win the "new JFK" mantle from Bambam
Is it Obama who has the substance and Clinton who has the style?
US elections 2008: Hillary Clinton's plan to solve the subprime mortgage fiasco is the worst proposal to come along in decades
Americans who have paid any attention to the financial news of the past year know that something has gone terribly wrong with subprime mortgages. They may not know why something went wrong, nor even what a subprime mortgage is, but they know that there is trouble in the subprime sector, and that trouble in the subprime sector has led to trouble in the housing market and trouble for the economy generally.
Americans who have paid any attention to the political news of the past year know that the deadlocked race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination is a classic match-up of style versus substance (just ask David Brooks). Obama, as we all know, offers inspiration, uplift, perhaps even euphoria for his most devoted followers, but doesn't deliver much in the way of specific policy. Clinton, on the other hand, offers specific, concrete, detailed solutions to the problems facing her country and the world, and she promises to make up with hard work what she lacks in flash.
Given these converging financial and political circumstances, what positions and actions should we expect the Democratic candidates to have taken on the subprime mortgage crisis? Surely, we should expect something like a moving speech about the plight of subprime borrowers from Obama (but nothing more), versus a 12-point plan from Clinton that would actually fix the mess.
In fact, Obama and Clinton both have plans to address the subprime crisis. There are two salient differences between them: Obama's plan is significantly more detailed than Clinton's , and Obama's plan is a reasonable approach to the problem, while Clinton's is quite possibly the worst proposal any major presidential candidate has made in decades.
To see why Clinton's plan is so misguided, let's first put the matter into some perspective. With the term "subprime" having entered everyday parlance denoting some vaguely sinister lending practices, it's easy to forget that subprime loans are an essential means of extending credit to working-class people, thereby greatly enhancing their prospects for owning property and joining the middle class. Bill Clinton and his supporters regularly like to boast of the expansion of homeownership during the Clinton-Gore years, particularly among minorities. But that expansion did not occur by magic: more people are homeowners now than in the past because of financial instruments that extend borrowing privileges down the socioeconomic ladder. Moreover, on the whole, subprime lending is a dramatic success. As of March last year, a full 87% of subprime borrowers were able to meet the obligations of their loans. (That figure is likely somewhat lower now, but still very impressive.)
However, there is a subset of subprime borrowers who cannot meet their mortgage payments and are on the verge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Typically, these are borrowers who have taken on an adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM. Here is how an ARM works, and how it can go awry: A prospective borrower is offered a short-term (say, three-year) interest rate on a mortgage significantly lower than what would be offered on an equivalent 30-year fixed interest rate mortgage. Once the period of the initial rate expires, the interest rate is recalculated to meet current market conditions, at which point it frequently spikes and leaves borrowers unable to afford their monthly payments. Too often, though, this second stage of an ARM does not enter prospective borrowers' calculations. They are lured in by the initial low rate, and in some cases misled by unscrupulous brokers who promise that refinancing is an option if the interest rate increases, without bothering to mention that such refinancing is never guaranteed to present more favourable terms to the borrower.
The proportion of borrowers facing financial ruin because of an unwise or fraudulent ARM may be small, but it is large enough to exert a downward pull on the housing market generally - hence it affects all of us - and even absent any self-interest, it entails that a large number of people are really suffering.
Both Democratic candidates agree that something should be done to provide relief. What should it be?
There are two primary factors that determine the monthly payment on a mortgage, the principal balance (ie, what the mortgage is worth), and the interest rate. Hence there are two ways the government can enable struggling borrowers to meet their mortgage obligations, namely by either altering the principal balance or altering the interest rate. The second solution is the more obvious of the two, precisely because it is the adjustable rates of subprime mortgages that have brought about the loan defaults that have saturated recent news. Suppose a borrower can afford an 8% monthly interest rate but not the 10% rate to which his ARM will soon adjust. To ease that borrower's burden, the government can decree that his interest rate will remain fixed at 8%, and so he need not worry about bankruptcy or foreclosure. This approach is the centrepiece of Clinton's plan: a five-year (at minimum) freeze on existing mortgage interest rates.
At first glance, the plan may seem attractive. It unquestionably provides immediate relief to borrowers on the verge of default. The problem is that such an interest rate freeze provides short-term relief to a relatively small number of people at the cost of inflicting longer-term pain on a much larger number of people and risking damage to the broader housing market of indefinite duration. Why is that the case? Because a freeze on existing mortgage interest rates would quickly drive investors out of the housing market. Investors are an easily frightened bunch, and the uncertainty that an interest rate freeze would inject into the housing market would lead the risk-averse among them to move their investments elsewhere. Now, the price of a mortgage-backed security, like any asset, is determined by a supply-demand relationship. With fewer and fewer investors interested in buying mortgage-backed securities, the demand and therefore the price of such securities will fall.
There also happens to be an inversely proportional relationship between the price and the yield (which can be understood as an interest rate) of a mortgage-backed security. Consequently, as the price of mortgage-derived assets falls, the yield will increase. And the ultimate effect will be a massive spike in the interest rates on new mortgages, as much as 8% or more according to Fortune's Jon Birger. So forget about the interests of the investor class: purely from the perspective of the average working man or woman, Clinton's interest rate freeze plan will make the obstacles to financial security and prosperity significantly more difficult to overcome.
But of course, the implications of Clinton's plan extend well beyond the burdens it places on working people. Freezing existing mortgage interest rates will wreak havoc on the housing market as a whole, by eroding the investment base underlying the market and exacerbating the many problems of the housing market beyond anyone's predictive capabilities. What's more, Clinton insists on imposing an interest rate freeze for five full years. It should go without saying that conditions in the housing market are impossible to anticipate that far in advance.
And even putting aside the manifold conceptual problems with the Clinton approach, the practical complications that would be involved in its implementation could strip away even the meagre achievement of giving some borrowers short-term relief. Imagine it is January 2009, and you are an investor buying some assets backed by ARMs. You are buying those assets because you expect the yield to increase, per the structure of ARMs. However, the recently inaugurated President Clinton has pushed through Congress her Mortgage Relief Act of 2009. Suddenly, the increased returns you were expecting, and which were guaranteed by the legally binding agreements to which you are a party, have been nullified by fiat. In that case, would you not go to court to recover your lost capital?
Many investors would do just that. And so the reams upon reams of litigation Clinton's interest rate freeze would provoke could quite possibly forestall any easing of the burdens on homeowners on the brink of losing their homes. Yet the fact that such a proposal had become law could be sufficient to create the uncertainty in the housing market that would drive away investment and drive up new interest rates. In other words, the Clinton plan, if enacted, could very well simultaneously bring about the harms attendant upon it without providing any of its benefits.
US elections 2008: Hillary Clinton's plan to solve the subprime mortgage fiasco is the worst proposal to come along in decades
Americans who have paid any attention to the financial news of the past year know that something has gone terribly wrong with subprime mortgages. They may not know why something went wrong, nor even what a subprime mortgage is, but they know that there is trouble in the subprime sector, and that trouble in the subprime sector has led to trouble in the housing market and trouble for the economy generally.
Americans who have paid any attention to the political news of the past year know that the deadlocked race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination is a classic match-up of style versus substance (just ask David Brooks). Obama, as we all know, offers inspiration, uplift, perhaps even euphoria for his most devoted followers, but doesn't deliver much in the way of specific policy. Clinton, on the other hand, offers specific, concrete, detailed solutions to the problems facing her country and the world, and she promises to make up with hard work what she lacks in flash.
Given these converging financial and political circumstances, what positions and actions should we expect the Democratic candidates to have taken on the subprime mortgage crisis? Surely, we should expect something like a moving speech about the plight of subprime borrowers from Obama (but nothing more), versus a 12-point plan from Clinton that would actually fix the mess.
In fact, Obama and Clinton both have plans to address the subprime crisis. There are two salient differences between them: Obama's plan is significantly more detailed than Clinton's , and Obama's plan is a reasonable approach to the problem, while Clinton's is quite possibly the worst proposal any major presidential candidate has made in decades.
To see why Clinton's plan is so misguided, let's first put the matter into some perspective. With the term "subprime" having entered everyday parlance denoting some vaguely sinister lending practices, it's easy to forget that subprime loans are an essential means of extending credit to working-class people, thereby greatly enhancing their prospects for owning property and joining the middle class. Bill Clinton and his supporters regularly like to boast of the expansion of homeownership during the Clinton-Gore years, particularly among minorities. But that expansion did not occur by magic: more people are homeowners now than in the past because of financial instruments that extend borrowing privileges down the socioeconomic ladder. Moreover, on the whole, subprime lending is a dramatic success. As of March last year, a full 87% of subprime borrowers were able to meet the obligations of their loans. (That figure is likely somewhat lower now, but still very impressive.)
However, there is a subset of subprime borrowers who cannot meet their mortgage payments and are on the verge of foreclosure or bankruptcy. Typically, these are borrowers who have taken on an adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM. Here is how an ARM works, and how it can go awry: A prospective borrower is offered a short-term (say, three-year) interest rate on a mortgage significantly lower than what would be offered on an equivalent 30-year fixed interest rate mortgage. Once the period of the initial rate expires, the interest rate is recalculated to meet current market conditions, at which point it frequently spikes and leaves borrowers unable to afford their monthly payments. Too often, though, this second stage of an ARM does not enter prospective borrowers' calculations. They are lured in by the initial low rate, and in some cases misled by unscrupulous brokers who promise that refinancing is an option if the interest rate increases, without bothering to mention that such refinancing is never guaranteed to present more favourable terms to the borrower.
The proportion of borrowers facing financial ruin because of an unwise or fraudulent ARM may be small, but it is large enough to exert a downward pull on the housing market generally - hence it affects all of us - and even absent any self-interest, it entails that a large number of people are really suffering.
Both Democratic candidates agree that something should be done to provide relief. What should it be?
There are two primary factors that determine the monthly payment on a mortgage, the principal balance (ie, what the mortgage is worth), and the interest rate. Hence there are two ways the government can enable struggling borrowers to meet their mortgage obligations, namely by either altering the principal balance or altering the interest rate. The second solution is the more obvious of the two, precisely because it is the adjustable rates of subprime mortgages that have brought about the loan defaults that have saturated recent news. Suppose a borrower can afford an 8% monthly interest rate but not the 10% rate to which his ARM will soon adjust. To ease that borrower's burden, the government can decree that his interest rate will remain fixed at 8%, and so he need not worry about bankruptcy or foreclosure. This approach is the centrepiece of Clinton's plan: a five-year (at minimum) freeze on existing mortgage interest rates.
At first glance, the plan may seem attractive. It unquestionably provides immediate relief to borrowers on the verge of default. The problem is that such an interest rate freeze provides short-term relief to a relatively small number of people at the cost of inflicting longer-term pain on a much larger number of people and risking damage to the broader housing market of indefinite duration. Why is that the case? Because a freeze on existing mortgage interest rates would quickly drive investors out of the housing market. Investors are an easily frightened bunch, and the uncertainty that an interest rate freeze would inject into the housing market would lead the risk-averse among them to move their investments elsewhere. Now, the price of a mortgage-backed security, like any asset, is determined by a supply-demand relationship. With fewer and fewer investors interested in buying mortgage-backed securities, the demand and therefore the price of such securities will fall.
There also happens to be an inversely proportional relationship between the price and the yield (which can be understood as an interest rate) of a mortgage-backed security. Consequently, as the price of mortgage-derived assets falls, the yield will increase. And the ultimate effect will be a massive spike in the interest rates on new mortgages, as much as 8% or more according to Fortune's Jon Birger. So forget about the interests of the investor class: purely from the perspective of the average working man or woman, Clinton's interest rate freeze plan will make the obstacles to financial security and prosperity significantly more difficult to overcome.
But of course, the implications of Clinton's plan extend well beyond the burdens it places on working people. Freezing existing mortgage interest rates will wreak havoc on the housing market as a whole, by eroding the investment base underlying the market and exacerbating the many problems of the housing market beyond anyone's predictive capabilities. What's more, Clinton insists on imposing an interest rate freeze for five full years. It should go without saying that conditions in the housing market are impossible to anticipate that far in advance.
And even putting aside the manifold conceptual problems with the Clinton approach, the practical complications that would be involved in its implementation could strip away even the meagre achievement of giving some borrowers short-term relief. Imagine it is January 2009, and you are an investor buying some assets backed by ARMs. You are buying those assets because you expect the yield to increase, per the structure of ARMs. However, the recently inaugurated President Clinton has pushed through Congress her Mortgage Relief Act of 2009. Suddenly, the increased returns you were expecting, and which were guaranteed by the legally binding agreements to which you are a party, have been nullified by fiat. In that case, would you not go to court to recover your lost capital?
Many investors would do just that. And so the reams upon reams of litigation Clinton's interest rate freeze would provoke could quite possibly forestall any easing of the burdens on homeowners on the brink of losing their homes. Yet the fact that such a proposal had become law could be sufficient to create the uncertainty in the housing market that would drive away investment and drive up new interest rates. In other words, the Clinton plan, if enacted, could very well simultaneously bring about the harms attendant upon it without providing any of its benefits.
The alternative to tinkering with interest rates is to bring the principal balances of mortgages into line the values of mortgaged properties, so that borrowers are not left paying interest on mortgages worth more than their homes, and so that they have equity in their homes and hence an incentive to meet their mortgage payments. This is the centrepiece of Obama's plan: he intends to enable bankruptcy courts to modify mortgage payments, which they are currently prevented from doing by statute. Combined with what he calls a Universal Mortgage Credit, and a variety of other subsidies, the clear idea is to allow borrowers facing default to pay interest against effectively lower principals.
This proposal, like Clinton's, relieves the burdens on struggling borrowers. Unlike Clinton's plan, it does not punish investors or block prospective responsible borrowers from access to affordable home mortgages. On the contrary, it provides a means for those who work hard to amass capital and build a financially secure future for themselves.
What's more, Obama also proposes to enhance the transparency of lending practices by instituting standardised metrics by which prospective borrowers can compare loans, so that they are able to make informed decisions. Such transparency is clearly good for borrowers, but it is also good for investors, who may be encouraged to reinvest by the knowledge that garbage securities with inflated ratings have been culled from the market, and thereby speed the recovery of the housing market. By contrast, Clinton demands "status reports" on the conversion of ARMs to fixed-rate mortgages, a policy that will likely achieve nothing apart from enabling her administration to pad its statistics. Both in conceptual breadth and in every specific policy detail, the Obama plan is vastly superior to the Clinton plan. The choice between the two is not even close.
The moral of the story is that, in this instance as in many others, the prefabricated narrative of Hillary Clinton's concrete substance versus Barack Obama's ethereal uplift is wildly off-base. On a broad range of issues from education to trade to healthcare to immigration to retirement security and more, Obama's proposals are more substantive, more innovative and more intelligently crafted than Clinton's.
In his victory speech after the South Carolina primary, Obama framed his contest with Clinton as "the past versus the future". This remark was widely interpreted to amount to little more than a rhetorical emphasis, or at most a barb at the idea of a restoration of the Clinton dynasty. But Obama's past-versus-future framework has a concrete meaning as well. Whereas his policies represent cutting-edge efforts to promote civil and social equality without impoverishing the country or installing an austerity regime, her policies are frequently a return to the 1970s-style price controls that we rightfully abandoned after it became clear that they had crippled the economy (this is literally so in the case of her interest rate freeze).
Hillary Clinton's critics frequently charge that the junior senator from New York has waged a campaign that looks backward to the 1990s. They are off by about 20 years.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/02/frezer_burn.html
This proposal, like Clinton's, relieves the burdens on struggling borrowers. Unlike Clinton's plan, it does not punish investors or block prospective responsible borrowers from access to affordable home mortgages. On the contrary, it provides a means for those who work hard to amass capital and build a financially secure future for themselves.
What's more, Obama also proposes to enhance the transparency of lending practices by instituting standardised metrics by which prospective borrowers can compare loans, so that they are able to make informed decisions. Such transparency is clearly good for borrowers, but it is also good for investors, who may be encouraged to reinvest by the knowledge that garbage securities with inflated ratings have been culled from the market, and thereby speed the recovery of the housing market. By contrast, Clinton demands "status reports" on the conversion of ARMs to fixed-rate mortgages, a policy that will likely achieve nothing apart from enabling her administration to pad its statistics. Both in conceptual breadth and in every specific policy detail, the Obama plan is vastly superior to the Clinton plan. The choice between the two is not even close.
The moral of the story is that, in this instance as in many others, the prefabricated narrative of Hillary Clinton's concrete substance versus Barack Obama's ethereal uplift is wildly off-base. On a broad range of issues from education to trade to healthcare to immigration to retirement security and more, Obama's proposals are more substantive, more innovative and more intelligently crafted than Clinton's.
In his victory speech after the South Carolina primary, Obama framed his contest with Clinton as "the past versus the future". This remark was widely interpreted to amount to little more than a rhetorical emphasis, or at most a barb at the idea of a restoration of the Clinton dynasty. But Obama's past-versus-future framework has a concrete meaning as well. Whereas his policies represent cutting-edge efforts to promote civil and social equality without impoverishing the country or installing an austerity regime, her policies are frequently a return to the 1970s-style price controls that we rightfully abandoned after it became clear that they had crippled the economy (this is literally so in the case of her interest rate freeze).
Hillary Clinton's critics frequently charge that the junior senator from New York has waged a campaign that looks backward to the 1990s. They are off by about 20 years.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/02/frezer_burn.html
Hope you're joking here....ever heard of Bill Clinton and a certain cigar holder he had?
This is typical NY Times BS. What a shame what that paper has turned into over the last bunch of years.
The comments that he lacks substance is ridiculous anyway. Someone with no substance hardly goes to Harvard Law school and get elected as the top dog there - president of Harvard Law review.
Anyone see the debate? Pretty much a stalemate but Clinton got booed for repeating her plaigarism claims.
The way I look at who should win the Presidency is who will be able to handle the likes of Beijing and Moscow as that is essentially the only thing the President can directly control.
Which is why I'd like to see Hillary win, I think from some of the comments Obama has made regarding foreign affairs shows him up for as far too naive for the job. When he said last year that in order to hunt for Al Queda he would order the bombing of Pakistan I turned against him on the spot.
Which is why I'd like to see Hillary win, I think from some of the comments Obama has made regarding foreign affairs shows him up for as far too naive for the job. When he said last year that in order to hunt for Al Queda he would order the bombing of Pakistan I turned against him on the spot.
Just got the sound bites, unfortunately. That attack on Obama seemed to backfire. Wonder if the Clinton camp had the proper info on it or Obama was lying. In either case it sounded like an act of desperation on her part.
Surely you think she'd be able to work out by now that character attacks are evidently not working and will not work against a candidate who will stand above it.
Her campaign staff are obviously top notch.
Maybe she hired the advisors of Neil Kinnock from 1992.
Her campaign staff are obviously top notch.
Maybe she hired the advisors of Neil Kinnock from 1992.
I caught the last minute of Hannity and Colmes last night and this guy was talking about neither Democratic nominee has a plan for boarder security and this will lead to another Al Qeada attack and the US gov't won't have a plan for retaliation due to the nature of Democratic planning. Thoughts?
Not in its entirety but i hearda few clips, and Fivelive had their reguarl political analyst on to provide some decent insight.
Hillary would not want to have been listening to her after the debate i can tell you.
A stalemate your say? Though that may as well be a defeat for Clinton, she needed something a whole lot more convincing with the current state of play.
Well there's one last debate next Tuesday before Ohio, Texas, Vermont and RI vote. The two candidates share a common position on so many issues that I think Clinton will have to do something amazing, or Obama something stupid, to turn this one around.
That ignores the possibility that any such terrorist attack could be homegrown, as we have been through here in Britain. Border security can only do so much against a threat such as that.
Connie Lawn who was on the BBC suggested that if there were an attack godforbid, it could with McCain's national security credentials, be the making of his campaign.
All kinds of theories will be circling if one does happen or there is a plot uncovered. A politics of fear, and the convenience of it e.t.c.
Counter Terrorism plans are not published in detail and debated like health care plans. It would render the plan useless. I doubt that the democrats are naive enough to underestimate the threat of terrorism.
Counter Terrorism plans are not published in detail and debated like health care plans. It would render the plan useless. I doubt that the democrats are naive enough to underestimate the threat of terrorism.
Agreed. Publication of such plans goes against all security protocol.
Anyway, the charge that Democratic presidents are weak on national defence
is a Fox fairy tale.
Frosty said:
Actually, Hillary Clinton's plan isn't as dumb as the Guardian thinks it is. Converting all existing ARMs to fixed rate mortgages for 5 years would basically mimic the situation in the UK, where you fix for a few years then refinance or float. The bonds might need to be repackaged, which would give the securitisation whizzes and the salesmen something to do, but there will be people buying these things. I can't believe that there will be no investors once there's some clarity on the mechanics will be used. There are people champing at the bit even today.
Come to think of it, this is a pretty good example of lazy reporting.
Obama's plan is basically to extending a subsidy to affected borrowers, with the lenders to suffer the burden. Which is fine, except that it lets the main culprits off the hook - the borrowers themselves and the mortgage brokers. I'm also not a fan of letting courts decide the level of new equity, something which should be worked out by the markets.
US Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have traded accusations over a photo of Mr Obama circulating on the internet.
The picture, sent to the Drudge Report website, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional African dress during a visit to Kenya in 2006.
The Obama camp says it was circulated by Mrs Clinton's staff as a smear. Mrs Clinton's team strongly denies this.
The row comes as the rivals campaign for two crucial primaries next week.
Analysts say Mrs Clinton needs to win the contests, in Texas and Ohio, to remain in the race to choose the Democratic candidate for November's presidential election.
'Fear-mongering'
The photograph shows Mr Obama - whose father came from Kenya - wearing a white turban and a white robe presented to him by elders in the north-east of the country.
According to the Drudge Report, which published the photograph on Monday, it was circulated by "Clinton staffers".
Some Clinton aides have tried in the past to suggest to Democrats that Barak Obama's background might be off-putting to mainstream voters.
A campaign volunteer was sacked last year after circulating an email suggesting, falsely, that Mr Obama was a Muslim.
But the BBC Justin Webb in Ohio says the photograph - coming at this pivotal moment in the campaign - is being seen by the Obama team as particularly offensive.
His campaign manager, David Plouffe, accused Mrs Clinton's aides of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election".
The accusation was dismissed by Mrs Clinton's campaign manager Maggie Williams.
"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," she said.
"Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."
Mrs Williams did not address the question of whether staffers circulated the photo.
They've been right at it this week, who needs soaps!
The picture, sent to the Drudge Report website, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional African dress during a visit to Kenya in 2006.
The Obama camp says it was circulated by Mrs Clinton's staff as a smear. Mrs Clinton's team strongly denies this.
The row comes as the rivals campaign for two crucial primaries next week.
Analysts say Mrs Clinton needs to win the contests, in Texas and Ohio, to remain in the race to choose the Democratic candidate for November's presidential election.
'Fear-mongering'
The photograph shows Mr Obama - whose father came from Kenya - wearing a white turban and a white robe presented to him by elders in the north-east of the country.
According to the Drudge Report, which published the photograph on Monday, it was circulated by "Clinton staffers".
Some Clinton aides have tried in the past to suggest to Democrats that Barak Obama's background might be off-putting to mainstream voters.
A campaign volunteer was sacked last year after circulating an email suggesting, falsely, that Mr Obama was a Muslim.
But the BBC Justin Webb in Ohio says the photograph - coming at this pivotal moment in the campaign - is being seen by the Obama team as particularly offensive.
His campaign manager, David Plouffe, accused Mrs Clinton's aides of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election".
The accusation was dismissed by Mrs Clinton's campaign manager Maggie Williams.
"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," she said.
"Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."
Mrs Williams did not address the question of whether staffers circulated the photo.
They've been right at it this week, who needs soaps!
Nader has entered the race so we can listen yet again to his pretentious broken record. He may as well be on the Republican payroll. Self-righteous, disengenuous windbag. And this coming from someone who agrees with what he purports to stand for.
that Obama pic is been shown for what reason?
probably the same reason that the Clinton campaign staffer sent an email around saying he was Muslim. That worked to some degree as one of my not too smart neighbours thought he was Muslim, which he's not.
reminds me of a movie I saw once when there was a very dirty campaign being run and one campaign decided to label the opponent as a pig fecker. One guy said he's not but the hard nosed guy said "I know that, but let's make the fcuker deny it".
probably the same reason that the Clinton campaign staffer sent an email around saying he was Muslim. That worked to some degree as one of my not too smart neighbours thought he was Muslim, which he's not.
reminds me of a movie I saw once when there was a very dirty campaign being run and one campaign decided to label the opponent as a pig fecker. One guy said he's not but the hard nosed guy said "I know that, but let's make the fcuker deny it".
CNN and all the network channels don't seem to be getting that the harder they promote Hillary, the more people don't like her. The same is for John McCain, the more the mainstream media props up McCain the less trustworthy he appears.
If there is anything the media should learn is, we do not have ANY trust in their pundits. Rather, voters appear to be purposefully voting in the opposite direction of the media recommendations.
But that is just how I'm seeing it.
I will tell you this - if the Super Delegates hijack this election, Belgrade will look like a neighborhood crime watch meet'n'greet when the angry voters are done.
If there is anything the media should learn is, we do not have ANY trust in their pundits. Rather, voters appear to be purposefully voting in the opposite direction of the media recommendations.
But that is just how I'm seeing it.
I will tell you this - if the Super Delegates hijack this election, Belgrade will look like a neighborhood crime watch meet'n'greet when the angry voters are done.
Hillary is running a scotched earth final run...Obama probably rejected any idea she could be a VP on the ticket....once she loses, she will be a pariah in the party....with Bill the pussy hound....