Don't know about 1977, but I definitely remember the S&L crisis of the 80s and 90s.

First, at some point in time, the Fed is going to have to act to stop the freefall of the dollar and climbing inflation. That will exacerbate the mortgage crisis in the short term and either trigger or deepen a recession, which is why it hasn't been done already. Still, it has to happen or we risk falling back into the runaway inflation days of the late 70's. The last thirty years has shown remarkable growth in the understanding of the Federal Reserve as to how to use money supply and lending rates to make recessions shallower and to extend periods of expansion. Reagan, Clinton, and GW have all benefited from that understanding. Bush the elder had worse luck, with the end of the second expansion of the Reagan Administration landing squarely in his reelection cycle. Still, no one has licked the business cycle just yet. Recession is due, and it's coming. Periodically, spending has to contract as consumers become overextended. This usually triggers a recession. Better for the next president to have it at the end of this Administration and beginning of theirs than to have Bush the Elder's timing. Basically, it looks like it might be the same sort of timing both Clinton and GW Bush had. Such is life for a president. He/She has little to no direct control over the economy, but is elected or rejected based on how the voters feel about their wallets.

Second, the dual problem of people overbuying houses using foolishly structured loans, and lending institutions taking poor long term financial risks has to play itself out - unless we're ready to foot the bill for a massive bailout. Real estate bubbles have long been a fact of life in California, and now other areas of rapid growth and high speculation are also feeling the risk associated with that environment. We're just welcoming Florida, parts of Texas, parts of Arizona and so forth to the party. The current mortgage crisis, like the S&L Crisis, Black Monday, and the Tech Bubble, strikes me as an atypical occurrence. We'll weather the storm, probably pass a few well intentioned (and possibly even well conceived) laws, and move on. The localized real estate bubbles are more likely to remain permanent risks within those affected regions.

The one thing that does worry me longer term are the rising food costs. As China and India continue to grow more affluent and especially as their demand for animal based proteins continues to grow, global food demand will also likely continue to grow. Fuel costs, with an already limited supply of fossil fuels combining with the aforementioned economic expansion in China and India, are also likely to continue to climb. With transportation costs being a significant component of total food costs, this will only add to the rate of growth of food prices. Additionally, rising fuel costs will continue to make ethanol more and more attractive, adding still more pressure on food production and, consequently, food prices, at least until market equilibrium is established between food and fuel demands for land use. I don't see any way to completely prevent the continued upward pressures of food prices, but it certainly does make sense to start to roll back farm subsidies to encourage more land to be put back into production. In contrast to this logic, the current agriculture bill making its way through the Congress would increase those subsidies. Does that really make sense to anyone of either party?

Which "statesman" (or woman) among the three candidates can advance economic ideas that will at least restore hope that we aren't looking at a 2-3 year recession?

I don't think at this point it matters which one; (link...)