Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has the support of Jamie Dimon, now widely viewed as one of the most important bankers on Wall Street, and he's raised three times more money from top executives at Goldman Sachs than John McCain. Lehman CEO Dick Fuld is keeps a copy of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" on his desk. Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack, a longtime Republican stalwart, is likely to endorse Obama.
In today's New York Post, Charlie Gasparino tries to figure out why Wall Street has gone gaga for Obama.
While some of Obama's policy proposals, such a having the government pick-up the health care tab for corporate America, will help stock prices many, including a hefty hike in capital gains taxes and income taxes, would seem to be toxic to Wall Street.
Is it just noblesse oblige? Have the masters of the universe simply decided to start sacrificing for the good of the country?
Perhaps but Gasparino thinks something more sinister could be at work. These senior executives may not feel the pain of Obama's tax hikes because the high-rolling days of Wall Street are over for the foreseeable future. What's more, they are already rich and Obama isn't threatening to touch the wealth they accumulated during the boom.
"At bottom, Obama is about taxing wealth creation - not the piles of cash these guys have already accumulated," Gasparino writes.
There's a generational aspect to this. While the senior executives on Wall Street might not have much to lose from higher taxes, junior Wall Streeters may well feel the sting of higher taxes. In short, supporting Obama is another way for the bosses to screw the worker bees on compensation.
Wall St's Death Wish [New York Post]
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 1:11PM
Fools!
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 1:15PM
Wall Street has long been home to rich liberal Democrats.It's a huge canard to say that it's GOP country when it just is the opposite.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 1:21PM
There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no ideologues in CEO offices. You don't get to the Big Corner Office if you've got a lot of opinions not related to the business. Those guys are just trying to determine which ass is more worth kissing, and right now it's Obama's.
Posted by Anal_yst , Aug 04, 2008 1:28PM
Uh, or because theres less need to kiss ass to McCain than Obama, because if (heaven forbid) he gets elected, maybe, just maybe, he'll remember the favor and think twice about instituting wall street-screwing policies.
There may be a few instances of people genuinely supporting the dems, but - and call me a cynic - I think its just as much, if not moreso, motivated by self interest
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 1:34PM
Is this really that hard to figure out? They all know the guy is going to win. Best to back the winning horse, regardles of ideology.
Posted by merkin capital partners , Aug 04, 2008 2:12PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Barry, we would like to invite you to speak at our facility as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
The Lorraine Motel
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 2:19PM
"There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no ideologues in CEO offices."
Bingo
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 2:25PM
Of course, Obama is supported many of the 'already rich' crowd. Why else is the Democratic platform based on increasing income taxes?
If they really cared about equality - or prevention of a 'plutocracy' as many a rich liberal so dearly claims to profess - then they would go straight to taxing wealth. That would be the true inequality buster.
But of course, that is not what these people would want. I mean when you are sitting on top of millions of dollars of GOOG stock that allows you to but a personal 767 and an airport, of course you can sing peans to 'equality' and higher taxes as a means of achieving that.
Incidentally, I do not quite think the outcome of the race is going to be the 90-10 Obama sweep that one would assume looking at MSM - check out the latest polls. The messiah is running even against an old blustering fool. No the outright winner, eh?
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 2:42PM
post# 6 by merkin capital partners is highly offensive.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 2:53PM
I never understand this Randian idea that intelligent people cannot possible think in anyway besides self-interest. Guess what, I could be a cotton-trader in 1850 and still oppose slavery, theoretically I have faith in my ability to profit in an altered (better) environment because I have intellect and talent. The guy isn't proposing communism.
Also, I think 8 years of rampant republicanism has shown itself to be unsustainable, like a kid gorging himself on cotton candy and puking all over the place. I would rather operate in a system that has a prayer of being sustainable in the long-term. Like, a long enough period to raise a family and live a fulfilled life.
Posted by Anal_yst , Aug 04, 2008 2:55PM
@ MCP
Not sure if the commentary was necessary, but the fact remains that - especially for a guy from Chicago - his understanding of even basic economics and finance boggles the mind. Even if his rhetoric on 'windfall profits' is just that, its still scary to think that someone who would publically endorse such ridiculous ideas may very well be the next President.
Not to say that McCain is much better with economics, but god-willing at least he'll keep from such silly meddling.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:00PM
@2:53
Read Hayek. The Repubs have made a mess of things to be sure, but at least some of them have their brains in the right place. So we're not yet riding the toboggan onto the thin ice, and we've still got a chance to save ourselves.
4 years of Obama and a Congress controlled by those duplicitous socialist hypocritical do-gooder moron dems, though, and all bets are off.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:08PM
There is a whole lotta talking but aint nobody sayin nothin
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:11PM
Key to politics,
"Its not your fault. You see those guys over there? Its their fault."
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:11PM
@3:00; Senate/Presidency was Dem in 1992, and guess what, no apocalypse.
Duplicitous socialism? Thy name is Farm Tariffs, Southern (read: republican) Roads-to-Nowhere, and crippling anti-immigration policies.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:13PM
#9 Agree, but if you weren't at least 12 years old in 1968 the comment probably went right over your head. And the fact that many of you younguns are now scurrying to google "lorraine motel" might even be a good thing.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:24PM
not only are they backing the winning horse - with McCain in office, business execs will never be able to figure out what the future holds - will he kowtow to the libs in Congress? will he veto their crap? will he propose his own noxious regs and taxes ? who knows?
With Obama - we know he's going to f-ck everybody over quickly and painfully, but at least we'll know what to expect and can plan around it.
Also, I think personality is a big issue too, McCain often comes off as weak (old) and whiny, Obama comes across as smart, sharp, and charismatic - the way Wall Streeters would like to be themselves (but seldom are).
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:24PM
15 No repub here, but gotta say that things were actually taking a bad turn from 92 till the triangulation started, which coincided with Gingrich becoming speaker. Plus remember Rubin was around to instill a bit of discipline. Don't see any Rubins on the horizon with BO. I could live with McCain and a D congress.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:25PM
Because some people choose to vote something other than their own self-interest. People donate to charity because they think doing so will help others. Same thing with who you vote for. And aside from the capital gains tax rate and a 4% rise in the highest personal income tax bracket, there's no reason to support the Republicans; they're wrong about almost everything else.
Plus, the Republican party needs a firm kick in the ass after the past 8 years and some time in the penalty box to get its priorities back in order.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:26PM
@10
maximizing your personal utility did not start with Ayn Rand, it is a basic tenet of society ..... any society. If you had a background in economics you might understand.
The actions you undertake are done so under the premise that you will be better off as a result of those decisions. Period.
As for the rampant republicanism, (whatever that is) I will point out that it was the Democratic patron saint Bill Clinton that signed the repeal of Glass Steagall.
Might want to check it out, it has a lot to do with mess created in the financials.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:27PM
17 Funny, he comes across to me like an empty suit. Like a lot of Wall Streeters.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:36PM
19 I'll buy that, but problem is that BO simply has a very weak resume. And I think many others have that same problem with him, which is why he's having trouble closing the deal and getting the party faithful to truly rally. It was the same in the primaries, where he essentially squeaked by, helped by some fancy footwork in the early caucus states. He reads a speech very well, but note how bad he is off the cuff, eps when the topic has anything to do with economics or any other wonky issue. Go ahead: call me a racist.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:39PM
@18 I think BO is pretty pragmatic, I would assume he is just going to grab the latest off the GS assembly line just like every other President does.
@20 Yes, I consider myself better off when society is better off, better for me to serve in heaven than rule in hell. I value sleeping at night with a clear conscience.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall in mind was the biggest mistake of the Clinton administration and should be reversed (shoudl never have happened). On the other hand, EVERYTHING Bush has done has been a mistake. He fucks up as a rule, not an exception.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:41PM
When those who have profited so well from the system ( the free market), learn that they have an obligation to invest in the society that allows such a system to exist and prosper, then we will have a more functional democracy.
Social Darwninists might just as well go buy their island, build their fortress and hide with their fortunes. There are more important things at stake here other than a few elitist, well connected greedy folks maintaining their ability to feather their nests at the expense of and the detriment to the general good of society. It is a moral issue at its core.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:47PM
@24 Hear, hear. When the hell did this begin to be regarded as counterintuitive?
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 3:51PM
24 I don't think too many are going to argue with you there - except for the few that would actually like to be on that island. The really divisive issue though is whether or not the govt is good at investing. In simplistic terms, that is should they tax us and build for the common good, or leave the money to us and have services delivered in a privatized way.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 4:24PM
Wow, the media really has everyone convinced that Barry is the anti-Bush. Guess what, McCain is not Bush.
When did democrats decide that they are the only ones who care if society is better off?
Guess what else, prescribing to a viewpoint that more taxes does not make society better off does not make someone anti-society any more so than driving a car makes you anti-environment.
Couple of my favorite quotes -
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle."
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Both Winston Churchill. I can't remember if he was a republican or democrat.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 4:25PM
jews?
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 4:34PM
not a destroyer destroyer of wealth?
lol
if obama is elected, the average manhattan condo and coop price will drop ~50%. maybe more.
the dollar is already beginning it's return to parity with the ero, so say bye bye to all those retarded euro buyers. they'll be panic sellers instead of panic buyers.
wall street income is going to drop precipitously over the next 7 years.
anyway, without digreesing too much, i would say a big boss who bout a 12 million dollar pad which is now worth 5 million in 5 years is going to feel like his wealth got destroyed.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 4:35PM
not a destroyer destroyer of wealth?
lol
if obama is elected, the average manhattan condo and coop price will drop ~50%. maybe more.
the dollar is already beginning it's return to parity with the ero, so say bye bye to all those retarded euro buyers. they'll be panic sellers instead of panic buyers.
wall street income is going to drop precipitously over the next 7 years.
anyway, without digressing too much, i would say a big boss who bought a 12 million dollar pad which is now worth 5 million in 5 years is going to feel like his wealth got destroyed.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 4:51PM
#24,
I see that you have taken the communist manifesto to heart. The difference between a 'free market' and communism is not that all folks in a free market want to stay alone and do everything alone. Human beings - by nature - are more effective at accomplishing tasks when they work together.
The philosophical (and not moral) issue is whether people are free to form groups of their own will (as in a free society) or whether they are forced into a group irrespective of whether they want to or not (the communist society you envision).
Biggest example currently is the 'Employee Free Choice Bill' - named as either a cruel joke or a blatant lie. apparently democrats believe that banning secret ballot and coercing workers to sign a sheet to unionize is 'free choice.'
The philosophical difference is between whether we are to ensure equality of opportunity or equality or outcome. Collectivists / progressives / socialists / democrats like you profess to practice the former (and call it a moral thing) but only ensure and care about the latter.
Somehow, most people believe that that is not what the founding fathers had in mind - that is what Karl Marx had in mind.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 7:09PM
I think the next big thing to invest in is Chapstix. There is going to be a lot of A$$ kissing going on in November. Pucker up boys and girls, it's going to be a interesting ride.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 7:09PM
I think the next big thing to invest in is Chapstix. There is going to be a lot of A$$ kissing going on in November. Pucker up boys and girls, it's going to be a interesting ride.
Posted by Anal_yst , Aug 04, 2008 7:36PM
31 above put it quite succinctly re: the problem with (modern) democrats,
"The philosophical difference is between whether we are to ensure equality of opportunity or equality or outcome. Collectivists / progressives / socialists / democrats like you profess to practice the former (and call it a moral thing) but only ensure and care about the latter."
Couldn't have (still can't) say it better myself.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 8:24PM
Obama is a socialist
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 9:55PM
@34 bullshit, gutting education and welfare of the youth is the definition of destroying equality of opportunity. There's a reason there are so many self-made liberals, and I doubt any of us support equality of (I'm assuming the correct word you meant) outcome.
Lazy, reductive and pathetic.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 10:18PM
Why in the world is Obama against School Choice (which is certainly providing a better opportunity -- esp for minorities) when he himself sends his kids to a private school. And he was just a Senator. He could have sent them to a teacher's union school in Chicago, but NOOOOO, because public schools in Chicago suck. Like everywhere not in the suburbs.
School Choice -- at least we should try it. But Obama says no! He doesn't even care about black people.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 10:47PM
Could it be that Wall Street is supporting Obana is that they see through the Republicant spin and realize that Democrats usually do a better job with the economy. Do you expect some guy who wasn't born into money or family connections that got into Ivy League schools on his own merits (don't give me the bull about affirmative action because Obama succeeded when he was there) to do better than an Admiral's son (and grandson) who finished almost in the bottom of his class and who admittedly doesn't understand economics? Think Clinton and his balanced budget (smart guy and economics major) versus W (legacy or otherwise known as affirmative action for rich white guys, not so smart based upon his grades) and W's economic record. BTW, before Clinton, when was the last time there was balanced budget? It was under another Democrat, JFK. Let's stop electing stupid jerks as President and get back to electing smart guys.
It's okay to have a president that is smarter than yourself, especially if you're not very bright.
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 11:41PM
That comment about the Lorraine Motel was racist, pro-violence, and extremely offensive. The Lorraine Motel was where Martin Luther King, Jr. was assasinated. "Inviting someone to speak" at the Lorraine Motel ... OK, you get it. If Obama is elected to the presidency, the comment is advocating the assasination of a U.S. president. If Obama is not elected to the presidency, the comment is advocating a racially-based murder. Either way it's a disgrace.
Who or what is Merkin Capital Partners?
Posted by guest , Aug 04, 2008 11:48PM
I think the Wall Streeters you mention who support Barack Obama do so because he is leading in the polls. If Obama does win, isn't it better that he gets some practical advice on economic matters from people in finance than rely solely on information from long-time bureaucrats and academics?
Does "The Audacity of Hope" really contain such wisdom that Dick Fuld needs to keep it on his desk for daily consultation?
Posted by guest , Aug 05, 2008 1:25AM
Th reason their so many liberal voices in the comments it that this page is linked to Huffington Post, so here comth the socialists.
Posted by guest , Aug 05, 2008 2:47AM
jews?
Posted by strangebrew , Aug 05, 2008 10:13AM
#38:
Clinton was an Economics major? That would be news to him. Better do another Google search on that one Sparky. His balanced budgets? Well, the dot-com boom that flooded government coffers had a big part to do with that. Bill also drastically cut back on military spending, much to the detriment of our nation's security. Even Obama says he wants to increase the size of our armed forces. So at what cost did that balanced budget come?
McCain might have admitted he doesn't know much. At least he is not pretending to know like your boy Obama is. Clearly anyone who is 'smart' would not be advocating the populist nonsense that he has been spouting. What is Obama's Economics background anyway?
Funny thing about JFK, he was probably the last Democrat that actually cut taxes while he was in office.
Posted by guest , Aug 05, 2008 12:48PM
39 - Merkin Capital Partners is a lesser known and extremely private hedge fund that plays almost exclusively in defence and aerospace companies. Several ex heads of state sit on its board and they have at least one retired 4 star general as a non-exec. Being a private partnership, they don't publish accounts, but are widely reputed to have been extremely successful in trading subprime and were apparently involved in starting the run on Britain's Northern Rock bank.
I can't say more - but I would be very careful about calling them out on the above comment.
Posted by guest , Aug 05, 2008 12:56PM
Are voters really expected to be this monoculture? I find this odd. I mean, okay people of a certain income level will be negatively affected by more taxes, but there are so many more issues.
What if they're gay? I doubt you'll find any "HOMOS FOR MCCAIN" signs in the GOP crowds. Or what if that person is your daughter, son, brother, sister, father, mother, etc?
What if someone in their family has been to Iraq? What if that person is dead now?
What if they just really like a good green policy? What if they have investments in solar tech? What if they're economists, who for the most part, scoff at McCain's plans? What if you just like reading FactCheck and notice that the strong majority of this year's campaign coverage is just them correcting McCain?
And conversely there's probably a fair number of reasons people would plan to vote for McCain too.
I don't get why people think that single issues are so pivotal. I feel like our national discourse is a bunch of 11-year olds going "nuh-uh" and "no u".
-JWGondek
Posted by guest , Aug 05, 2008 5:22PM
22, so your answer is the guy who was only admitted into the Naval Academy because his father and grandfather were Admirals, finished 5th from the bottom of his class, was then admitted to flight school, again because his father and grandfather were Admirals (flight school is usually a reward for finishing the TOP of your class), and crashed 3 planes (2 of which were beyond a reasonable doubt due to pilot error)during his aviation career not including the one he was shot down in? I was a Marine for 10 years, working in aviation and I never met a single pilot who still had his wings after ONE crash that was attributed to pilot error. The pilots in my squadron would have refused to fly with anyone who had McCain's safety record... but after all he's a war hero because he followed the standard Military Code of Conduct for prisoners by refusing early release... right before he signed the confession! Other POWs were court martialed for less McCain's signed confession. Everyone has a breaking point so it is no dishonor to be broken under torture but it doesn't make you a hero or qualify you in any way to be Commander in Chief, especially when you vote against a law forbidding our own government from mistreating it's prisoners in a simliar manner! A long resume does not automatically equal a good resume! How many of the Wall St firms this article talks about would hire someone with a 35 year long resume that doesn't potray a great deal of competence, who finished fifth from the bottom of his class? How many would hire the President of the Harvard Law Review, with a shorter resume and a strong record of making good decisions?
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_mccain_lost_five_u.htm
Posted by BlackSwan06 , Aug 05, 2008 6:05PM
@44 - I don't think there's a problem calling someone out if they make a comment that's an ugly reference to a racially-motivated assassination. And if MCP doesn't advocate that opinion, I'm sure they'd be bent out of shape at a poster who is so free with associating their name with advocacy of such views.
@46 - This is exactly what people don't care to look at... his past record of achievement is obscured by his war hero status, when we all know that had he not had a Navy legacy behind him, he probably wouldn't have lasted in Naval Aviation long enough to jack up 3 planes. His headwork was probably piss-poor long before he had the opportunity to actually fly. In my years in the Navy (disclaimer - not an aviator), I'd seen pilots go before a board for MUCH less egregious transgressions.
We are still pre-election, and message delivery is being driven by pollsters, statistics, demographics in key voting communities, and the numbers are crunched ad infinitum and messages are redelivered and refined until it's time to vote. It's all strategery until the returns start coming in. I'm more interested on the quality of minds each surrounds himself with. We can't afford another Rove & Co groupthink circus, regardless of whether it's McCain or Obama getting sworn in.
Posted by guest , Aug 05, 2008 6:26PM
McCain may be an old fool, but at least he is honest. If he doesn't know much about economics - he at least has the balls to state it upfront.
And what about economics doesn Obama exactly know? The one debate where ONE moderator asked him one tough questions where he could not revert to pre-prepared answers (would you raise marginal tax rates even in the overall tax collections go down? why would that make sense?) - he was ALL AT SEA! Of course he refused any debates after that.
Obama is a marketing package, sold only through soaring rhetorical speeches read from a tekeprompter.
If McCain was to be as packages as Omaba is - instead of accepting that he was not an Economics pro, he would probably set up a tour of the economics department of all leading universities on a 'fact finding mission' and declare that he knew all about economics now.
After all, if a vacation through europe and the middle east counts as 'foreign policy experience' from someone who is not honest enough to accept that he knows shit about that area, I am sure this would be a fine method of gaining 'economic experience'!
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 1:09PM
Can't stand Barrry. He is nothing more than a "know it all", arrogant, back stubbing, money hungry politician.
Can't stand the fact that he and his wife are being compared to the Kennedy's. What a disgrace!
McCain 08
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 1:22PM
No. 44. Nice try. I don't think Merkin Capital Partners exists. What is the basis of the comparison when you say they are "lesser known?" Lesser known than who or what? Kind of witty when you say they started the run on Northern Rock.
Some person has adopted "Merkin Capital Partners" as his online name. Whether that person has any connection to the well-known and wealthy investor J. Ezra Merkin is unclear. If I were J. Ezra Merkin, I'd kick some rear ends to find out, because it's his good name that's being linked with comments that are racially-motivated and seeming to favor violence against Senator Obama.
Frankly, I don't think I am the one who is going to be "called out" on this matter. Whoever is posting this stuff has a little more to worry about.
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 2:02PM
" If I were J. Ezra Merkin, I'd kick some rear ends to find out,"
Slight correction suggested.
If I were J. Ezra Merkin - and this were already a totalitarian socialist peoples republic of the kind it will become once Obama is elected and us dailkos folks get in charge - I'd kick some rear ends to find out.
Wake up buddy, its a free country. You may not realize this staying on moveon and daliykos where you routinely suppress out anything that is not to your liking (like the John Edwards mistress story) but as of yet, the rest of the country is free to say whatever.
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 2:58PM
You know, I've never once been to Dailykos or Moveon.
I'm pretty in to this being a free country. But several political assasinations shaped the course of this country in the 1960s, and not for the better. A famous political assasination in 1865 set back progress for generations.
I'm a big fan of free speech. But when you kill someone, he's not saying much from that point on. People celebrate what Martin Luther King, Jr. had to say. But there was plenty left to say that never got a chance to be heard. Same with Lincoln. Have you ever wondered what national reconciliation after the Civil War would have been like if Lincoln had lived?
I don't even support Obama. But never, never in a million years would I think it's anything less than reprehensible to suggest it would be okay if Obama was assasinated. Basically, the democratic way is to decide by the ballot, not the bullet.
I think you need to get a grip. Seriously.
Posted by DrederickTatum , Aug 06, 2008 3:00PM
Austan Goolsbee is your answer. Obama's going to have a University of Chicago guy as his principle economic advisor.
Sure, Goolsbee may say some dumb things this election cycle. But its all nonsense. He'll advise Obama like the free-market, Chicago-style capitalist he is.
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 3:26PM
#53, glad to see that you believe it.
The thing is that Obama has said multiple things to multiple audiences at different point in time - mostly contradictory things. You have to give credit to the marketing team behind the man for one thing - each of those audiences believes that it is to them that Obama is speaking the truth while pandering (read lying) to others and once he is elected, he will do what he promised them.
It is sheer genius. I am yet to find a free market economist who will be able to justify opposing trade deals (we all know that 'environmental and labor' clauses are euphemisms to 'I oppose this deal'). Similarly, few can defend blanket raising of minimum wages, anti-school choice measures, raising marginal tax rates at the risk of reducing overall tax revenues etc.
And here I just spoke of a few economic issues. You can open a whole pandoras box of social and political issues on which Obama has successfully triangulated amongst different groups.
So if Bush initiated a 'faith program' in the White House then the 'progressives' are going insane claiming that the religious fundamentalists were taking over the country.
However, when Obama suggested INCREASING funding for the same programs - the religious left said 'he understands the need to integrate people of faith, he has believed in religion, this is essential' whereas the progressives said 'he is just pandering to get these people's votes as we need them. Of course he is not religious wingnut.'
Which brings us to the questions, how does either camp exactly know?
#53 above, Obama has has VERY clear Marxists connections throughout his life (starting with his mother, then later adult influences including Jeremiah Wright).
I am not saying that he is a Marxist, but apparently you are convinced that he is not just becauce he has one guy on his gigantic team of a thousand advisors. Is there something else that you know that we all dont? Did Obama sign some kind of pledge which you are aware of?
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 3:33PM
Incidentally you may want to check out the new blog on WSJ 'Shaping the Agenda' http://blogs.wsj.com/agenda/ where they get advisors from both the McCain and Obama teams to discuss some issue. Look at the 5-part discussion on trade.
The McCain advisor (Philip I. Levy) laid out the agenda and the issues crystal clear whereas the Obama advisor (Daniel K. Tarullo) simply dodged and beat around the Bush, mostly without answering anything. Read it and judge for yourself.
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 3:34PM
Oh and #53, please get a 'free market economist' of ANY repute to sign off on a 'windfall profits' tax.
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 3:52PM
I have yet to hear Mr Obama say anything that is remotely reminiscent of the "Change" he talks about. Seriously, what positive changes can one person attain? In 10 years' time, people will be kicking themselves for voting for Obama, saying "what was I thinking of?"...
Posted by guest , Aug 06, 2008 10:19PM
lots of jews on wall street?
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 12:14AM
Seriously, anyone who advocates Obama has drunk the kool-aid and is willing to overlook his obvious mendacity, his vacuousness and his cavorting with communists, hippie-terrorists black-power race-separatists and avid America-haters of every stripe.
McCain is a horrible candidate. He's old and ideologically muddled and and has his lips permanently puckered for the press' ass. He admits to knowing nothing about economics.
Here we have the two gawd-awful, horrible-lame-ass politicians. The choice of the two gawd-awful, horrible-lame-ass parties. This is the choice we're given? This is the best we can do?
Obama is callow, vacuous and hasn't paid his dues in politics. He is full of hubris and shows nothing original or inspiring. Obama is all hype.
McCain has shown character and a penchant for honesty throughout his long Senate career and his experience in Vietnam.
Democrats are deluded, stupid, mendacious and propound an anachronistic hippie socialism and ignorant morally-bankrupt pacifism which would be equally disastrous.
Republicans have proven themselves to be just as corrupt as the Democrats once they get into power and have been ineffectual since the days of Newt Gingrich. They are a spent force. Bush has rendered them inert and ineffective.
McCain is clearly the better of two bad choices. At least McCain won't take us over the cliff of more socialism. McCain vs. a Democrat-leaning Congress is probably the optimal outcome. Or at least likely to do the least damage.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 11:50AM
lots of jews on wall street.
there's your answer.
Posted by BlackSwan06 , Aug 07, 2008 12:09PM
@59 - you might want to check out how McCain cheated on and ditched wife #1 shortly after returning from his POW ordeal before commenting on his "character". She had a nasty car accident requiring 23 surgeries (happened while delivering Xmas presents) while he was held prisoner, and when he got back she wasn't the beauty queen she was when he left for Vietnam. Her reward for waiting for him was infidelity and divorce. He married Cindy less than 90 days after the ink was dry.
Or how about berating a POW's sister in a senate hearing who was trying to keep a commission alive to continue the search for who are STILL lost?
There's no WAY in this day and age (maybe things were different when he graduated from the Academy) that a kid at the bottom of the class (unless he was connected/part of a dynasty) would have gotten orders to flight school. And his record would have washed him out.
If Romney weren't Mormon, I think he would have solidly beaten McCain for the nod and this race would be much different.
Posted by strangebrew , Aug 07, 2008 1:09PM
62- If Obama wasn't a halfrican american, he wouldn't be the candidate either, and this race would be much different.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 1:25PM
What I dont understand is - Obama is half white American, half Kenyan. Niether of his parents come from any oppressed background - they were PhD holders. Philanderous people no doubt, but nonetheless as well to do as an ordinary person could be.
So where does this whole tale of 'poverty' come in from? And Why on earth did he chose to associate himself eith the African American community?
Posted by BlackSwan06 , Aug 07, 2008 1:29PM
@62 - Obama is the candidate for a number of reasons, but one of the major ones is because Hillary f-ed up her strategy and ran it like Iowa was in the bag, and it would be a done deal by Super Tuesday. She should have studied her own party rules better. And the bitter old lady thing got real old real quick.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 1:33PM
You know why Jamie Dimon, Goldman Sachs and John Mack support Obama? Because he actually does represent hope. The hope of meritocracy trumping WASP establishment in the US. John Mack is Lebanese, Dimon is Greek, and Goldman Sachs is, well, not quite WASP-ie.
None of them and their children would ever have a flicker of hope of beating a WASPy person in the elections. And if Obama wins (which he probably will, given how much money he's raised, much of it from jewish sources), he'll make it much easier for a jew to be the next pres. Just look at what happened in NYC mayor-wise.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 2:06PM
#65, actually Obama represents a political philosophy that strictly opposes and destroys 'meritocracy.'
The progressive/socialist/democratic philosophy believes in equality above everything else - even if forces. Very clearly, in a meritocracy you will NEVER have equality because people are naturally endowed with different skills and talents. Let free, the people with merit will succeed tremendously whereas those without will fall way behind.
The progressive idea is to then pull back the guy who succeed whicever way possible why pushing the loser up. That is 'nuetralizing' meritocracy, not believing in it.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 2:19PM
66, I agree with your argument re: Obama's preaching. If you look at who the guy is himself, however, you see the opposite: he's an elitist largely self-made dude. I think that's what many find so attractive about him.
His philosophy is dangerous though, but common to people who have already achieved success: why not make the entry barriers high to keep everyone else from destroying his success?
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 3:28PM
Look at the NYC mayoralty in terms of allowing a Jew to be a prominent office-holder? Where is your head? There are more Jews in NYC than in Tel Aviv, so naturally they have sway over the election results.
Dinkins didn't make it possible for Bloomberg to be elected; there were two Jewish mayors before Dinkins.
The recent NYC mayors have been Bloomberg (Jewish), Giuliani (Italian-American), Dinkins (African-American), Koch (Jewish), and Beame (Jewish). Koch was mayor before term limits, and so served four terms. Bloomberg (2 terms), Giuliani (2 terms), Dinkins (1 term), Koch (4 terms). When you consider that Jews have served in 6 out of the last 9 terms, you'll have a better perspective on the dominance of Jewish candidates in the recent past.
Jews don't dominate the U.S. population as a whole, so it would be hard to have comparable long term success in a national office. There are a suprising number of Jewish senators, though. Schumer, Lieberman, and Russell Feingold (of Wisconsin) for three.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 5:25PM
All those dudes have kids, and long-term, Obama's a better choice. Moreover, we all know Wall Street is age-ist.
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 5:55PM
If I were member of the politburo, why would I hate communism?
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 7:34PM
Hey, Merkin Capital Partners, did you see that the FBI arrested a man who made threatening remarks about Obama?
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 8:01PM
All he's got is he speaks well and he's black. Black is good. But he has no experience. No one on Wall St would hire him, but they'll vote for him????
He's never ran a business, never governed or managed anything. Never was the boss, except of whiny community organizer people - the politics of grievance.
It's weird, we're going to give him a shot at running the country and we wouldn't ever even hire him to run a small department in any bank on Wall St.
Who here would hire Obama to be the MD of any area?
Posted by guest , Aug 07, 2008 8:01PM
all of this remarks about democrat vs republican effect to the economy, well according to this kid here http://seekingalpha.com/article/80324-political-party-power-and-its-affect-on-u-s-market-return the equity market performs better if democrat presidents were elected.
f.. I thought republican would be good for the economy. I bet he's lying.. that son of a b**ch..
Posted by guest , Aug 08, 2008 1:46PM
Why Is Obama So Popular On Wall Street?
1. Because Wall Street is notorious for herd mentality.
2. Because Wall Street hasn't had any balls for 20+ years.
Posted by strangebrew , Aug 08, 2008 3:09PM
Hey, John Edwards really is a lying scumbag. Go figure. There goes that Obama cabinet position. And the US dodges another bullet.
Posted by guest , Aug 09, 2008 12:30PM
#61, granted, that was an ugly episode, but I'm sure most of us would be willing to cut the guy some slack after 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton.
What would you do if you got a second chance at life?
In any case, your point is taken, McCain is not pure and chaste and as I said before, he's a HORRIBLE candidate.
It's just that he has an actual record of accomplishment in the Navy and in politics,(regardless of whether you approve or disapprove) and a notable penchant for speaking his true feelings regardless of the political consequences.
Whereas, Obama has never run anything except his mouth.
Posted by guest , Aug 09, 2008 12:34PM
How can there even BE an argument here?
On one side, you have a Harvard lawyer, married to a Princeton lawyer.
On the other side you have a Tailhooking fighter pilot, who's married to a good-looking, younger blonde who owns a BEER distributorship.
Jet Pilot vs. Civil Rights Attorney?
Law school vs. Lager?
No contest. Miss Budweiser for First Lady !
Posted by gin , Aug 10, 2008 12:47PM
President Obama, not likely. He is the political Sean Combs. You know P. Diddy, the hood rat - oh wait he is a fake. Now, back to Uncle & Aunt Tom, not going to happen this time around. There are many qualified white, black, asian etc. men and woman. This yo yo plays a race card, when he was raised by his white mother, not his black father - who booked within two years of Michelle's baby daddy being born. Oh enough already, this guy is not happening. I love his handshake, what an act.
Posted by guest , Sep 06, 2008 2:16PM
Perhaps the Wall Street bosses have recognized that Chicago Pay-To-Play politics will be Obama's mantra. They surely hope that they will get some of those tax dollars Barack will be racking in.