Does Team Obama have a clue? (Update: Is Bush doing something right?)

(Note: I finally solved the issue with Blogger, so I'm reprinting this post with some new material at the end.)

We don't exactly have equal treatment of gaffes, do we? Every time the left press catches McCain in an embarrassment -- the Spain thing, for example -- they harp on it incessantly. But when Obama makes an even worse error, the progs pretend it never occurred.

Case in point: The Lightbringer's reaction to the bailout of AIG. The government's intervention amounts to the nationalization of the company, although we must never use that phrase.

At first, Obama seemed to oppose the na...the bailout, probably under advice from Chicago-schooler Austan Goolsbee. Actually, his first statement managed to be both critical and non-committal. Read it for yourself and see what you make of it.

As for Joe Biden, his initial thoughts were clear enough:

No, I don't think they should be bailed out by the federal government.

Well. Excuuuuuse me for thinking that this might be Obama's position as well.

But then it occurred to these genuises that strong government action was the only thing keeping the entire financial system from shredding into confetti. Without the bailout, today's Wall Street rally would not have occurred. That's when Obi decided that he supported the nationa...er, the bailout. Well, not "support":

He just didn't oppose it, I was told.

McCain, going by first impressions, lashed out at Obama for not supporting the nationalization-that-dare-not-say-its-name. The point seemed reasonable enough. Here's Obi's response...

"And today he accused me of not supporting what the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank did with AIG despite no evidence whatsoever that that’s what I had said."

Biden's statement wasn't "evidence"?

This confusing series of events prompted Jonathan Martin to ask...

Where, I wonder, is the line between not opposing and, ya know, supporting?

Looks to me as though Obama bought time by offering words that sounded bold but were actually non-committal. Amazingly, the prog pundits are okay with this.

The financial crisis is the issue of the moment. Obama now has an opportunity to demonstrate vision and boldness. Instead, he has spread himself all over the map like an overturned bucket of warm gelatin.

Josh Marshall thinks that we're supposed to cheer Obama's squishiness. We're supposed to consider McCain at fault for not keeping up with Obama's shifting positions. And we're supposed to give a damn about whether John McCain forgot the name of the guy running Spain right now.

The headline on TPM: Obama Hits McCain As Economic Flip-Flopper.

There's truth in that charge. On Tuesday, McCain said that he didn't want taxpayers on the hook; on Wednesday, he said that he decided that the bailout might be a necessary evil. In other words, he changed his mind. At least he let people know what he was thinking without trying to double-talk his way out of taking a stand.

But the "flip flop" charge is pretty galling when it comes from a candidate who would not issue a clear statement until he held up his own flipper in the air to feel which way the wind was blowing. Now Obama talks as though he favors the bailout strongly (as opposed to his previous position of "non-opposition"). He offers this criticism of McCain:

On Tuesday, he said the government should stand by and allow one of the nation's largest insurers to collapse, putting the well-being of millions of Americans at risk. But by Wednesday, he changed his mind.

Okay, this passage seems to be pro-bailout -- but look closely at these words. Nowhere does Obama actually say whether or not he supports the bailout. This gives him flipping room if the winds should change direction once more.

Let's talk flip-flopping, shall we? Obi has a history. I cite but two examples:

1. In 2007, Obama slammed Hillary with campaign literature that said "I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have." But in 2004 he issued this statement: "The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA."

2. In 2007, he slammed the Iraq surge as a terrible idea. Earlier this month, he said that the surge had "succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” And he removed all anti-surge rhetoric from his website.

We've always been at war with Eastasia. We've never been at war with Westasia.

Returning our attention to the current financial crisis, I must ask: Does Team Obama have a clue? Let's go back to Joe Biden's interview:

No, I don't think they [AIG] should be bailed out by the federal government. I'll tell you what we should do. We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what's caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John wants to continue.

Say what?

Look, I have never supported tax cuts to the affluent. I think that we now have to reach deep into the wallets of the wealthy, because our red-ink nation needs cash and that's where the money is. I also suspect that only a Republican can pull off this trick, just as only a Nixon could go to China.

But Biden was supposed to be addressing the AIG bailout, which was all about the mortgage crisis. (AIG insures all of those wacky financial instruments based on mortgages.) For Biden to talk about tax policy in that context is akin to saying "This car needs a paint job" after a tire blows out.

Yes, it's true: When ideology collided with reality, McCain changed his thinking. But let's face it -- the Democrats still don't know what to think.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that both McCain and Obama have a problem here. They both must separate themselves from Bush -- after all, Dubya got us into this financial mess in the first place. So the natural instinct of both candidates is to denounce whatever the present administration is doing.

But -- and I know that this thought will strike many of you as heretical -- what if Bush is finally, finally doing something right?

What if, after seven-and-a-half years' worth of unending upfucks, Dubya finally got a clue or two about how to do his damned job? What if he started listening to the more sensible people in his administration? What if he is finally allowing practical necessity to trump ideology?

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not giving Bush any great kudos here. He's the fool who ruined the economy. But the AIG nationalization was the right thing to do. And there are signs that he will do other right things, such as putting new regulations in place, asking for loan renegotiations and (perhaps) instituting a moratorium on foreclosures.

He got us into this pickle, and history will condemn him for it. But his administration has made a few recent moves which are curiously uninfected by his characteristic stupidity. That puts Obama and McCain in an awkward place.