home

Obama's Remarks on Economy at Grand Junction, CO Rally

Here is a portion of the text of Sen. Barack Obama's prepared remarks at his rally today in Grand Junction, CO (received by e-mail, no link.)

This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.

The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.

More...

Today offers more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store. For eight years, we’ve had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.

I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems. But I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s the same philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It’s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise; one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.

Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.

This country can’t afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market – rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I’ve called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together.

****

It’s not that I think John McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of most Americans. I just think doesn’t know. He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works. Why else would he say that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn’t something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days – just a few hours ago – that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?

Senator – what economy are you talking about?

What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family? What’s more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your head at the end of the day? What’s more fundamental than that?

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – that promise that America is the place where you can make it if you try – a promise that is the only reason that we are standing here today.

< McCain Economic Memories: The Keating Five | Palin Distorts Record, Gets Heckled at Colorado Event >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is pure Clinton, espcially Bill (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    Great stuff.

    Good and bad (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    Good: "Senator, what economy are you talking about?"

    Bad: "I don't blame Senator McCain." "It's not that I think Senator McCain doesn't care."

    Why give him credit for merely being a befuddled innocent bystander of this hot steaming mess?

    Phil Gramm, grand architect of the current non-regulatory scheme, is his economic advisor, a man McCain called "one of the smartest men in the world about economics," the presumptive nominee for Secretary Treasury.

    Parent

    It's astounding that Obama's statement offers (none / 0) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    NO POLICY REMEDIES and provides NO EVIDENCE to back up the claim that:

    "For years, I have called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market - rules that would protect American investors and consumers."

    The tanking economy could be a game changer. Especially if Obama had been HAMMERING on the economy ALL ALONG, as Bill Clinton did in '92.

    Can Obama make it all about "the economy stupid" within the next six weeks? I doubt it, because the bank failures on Wall Street won't have a sufficiently catastrophic effect on Main Street between now and then.

    The real game changer will happen if there comes a time when people have no access to CONSUMER CREDIT whatsoever. i.e. no more credit cards, no more overdraft coverage, no more automatic lines of credit when the checking account is empty - let alone personal loans and mortgages.  

    That would bring Main Street to an ear-splitting, screeching halt. That would compel a mass realization and a desperate need for an FDR style New Deal - overnight. That won't happen before the election, but it may happen later, on McCain's watch. Either way, it'll take the Democratic Party to fix it.

    Parent

    Like this... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obama-economy-speech-calls-for-tighter-regulations-governmen t-reforms/

    March of this year Obama gave a major economic speech with policy attached.  He's done that over and over in fact.  It just doesn't get headlines.  We may be able to fault him for that.  He needs to find a way to get his policies front and center and today's speech would have been a good place for that.

    But it isn't like he just started talking about this out of nowhere.

    Parent

    If Obama calls too much attention to his (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    lengthy proposals it will also call attention to his very short record.

    Obama's website provides ample evidence of that discrepancy. I expect the McCain campaign to use it into an attack ad when the time is ripe.

    Parent

    Well which is it? Comment 35 or 52? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    Looks to me like no matter what Obama does or doesn't do, you will criticize.

    Parent
    Is there any discrepancy (none / 0) (#76)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    between comment #35 and #52?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:57:23 PM EST
    It would be useful to hear it. (none / 0) (#93)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    you can read it. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    OK. I'm being sincere and (none / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    you're being flippant. Peace out.

    Parent
    From the article... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    easy bullet points...

    Obama said the next president should:

    -Expand oversight to any institution that borrows from the government.

    -Toughen capital requirements for complex financial instruments like mortgage securities.

    -Streamline regulatory agencies to end overlap and competition among regulators.

    Parent

    He should have said that ... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    today.  In that bullet point manner you outline.

    Parent
    Closing the Barn Door ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    after the cows have already gone.  Or, maybe fighting the last war...

    Those ideas plus making sure that the regulators actively enforced appropriate regs might have prevented or at least mitigated the severity of the crisis.

    Now what?  The Federal government owns Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The Federal government is extending credit with loosened standards.  The rest of the world is looking askance at what once was a financial system that was the model and may begin to question the "full faith and credit" of the US.  Huge banks are swallowing huge investment firms in order to provide some sense of stability to the markets and the rest of the world.  Talk about too big to fail.  The US Government has had to step in and backstop the financial world to prevent a larger global loss of confidence.  And none of what the government has done is cheap.  The costs rival that other off balance sheet item - the Iraq War.  

    The game has changed significant since Obama made those remarks last March.  I don't fault him for not coming up with solutions for the new game yet.  But it does make me nervous when he today he suggests that he's been talking about reforms for years.  Those reforms are a good start but don't address the new realities.

    Parent

    that's inadequate (none / 0) (#66)
    by fairleft on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:49:42 PM EST
    It's a start, but sounds very much like what McCain is proposing.

    I say we repeal Carter's deregulation of banks in 1979 (I think it was) and Clinton's repeal of glass-steagal in 1999.

    Parent

    The Fed Just Helped... (none / 0) (#69)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    Chase acquire Bear Stearns and Bank of America acquire Merrill.  I doubt that Pres. Obama will be able to undo those transactions very easily.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    I agree. However, he gave an academic lecture of our current ills. Perhaps he should hire you for his campaign. You seem to understand what needs to be done than his team.

    Parent
    MARKET CLOSES 500 POINTS DOWN (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    The New York Times
    reports that stocks dropped another couple of hundred points at the end of the trading day, with the 500 point drop the worst in seven years.

    BTW, seven years ago would be the post-9/11 drop of approximately 500 points.

    Parent

    I know there was discussion of (none / 0) (#3)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    Bill hitting the road with Obama. Have there been any more specifics on this or is it still at the "going to happen at some point" stage?

    Parent
    I read that it's not 'til October (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    as Bill Clinton is a busy guy with commitments until then.

    Obama needed to ask a lot sooner.  But better late than. . . .

    Parent

    Well one argument for delay (none / 0) (#22)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    (not that this is necessarily deliberate) is that if Clinton creates any kind of splash or "bounce" it's better to have it as part of a sprint to the finish line.

    Parent
    Sure. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    Of course, there's always the tricky question of just which minute of which hour on which day takes a campaign to its peak on the perfect day. . . .

    Parent
    What is he referring to here? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    For years, I have called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market - rules that would protect American investors and consumers.

    Anyone know?

    Thanks for posting the text of the speech.

    That caught my attention, too (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sj on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    I was getting in to the rhythm of it all, and that bit brought me up short.  

    The "for years" part seems a kind of jarring attempt to imply that he actually has a record to run on, and that made me wonder when/where he has called for rules that would protect American investors and consumers.

    That aside, if he keeps it up I might even vote for him.

    Parent

    That sounds like something (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    Bill might've said...

    Parent
    I went to his Senatorial website (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:25:43 PM EST
    to see -- since I can't get past the donation gateway on his website.  (A reason I really dislike the constant refrain, "see his website.")  And since something he has been pushing for years would be on his Senatorial website.  But under the "Issues" link, I don't find anything on this.  There's actually not any link to the economy.  There are links to tax reform and good government and such, which are related -- but nothing on something like this proposal.

    So those who are his donors and must be able to get past that gateway without donating every time may be able to tell us.  Me, I'm tapped out, haven't had a payday since last school year. . . .

    Parent

    good idea (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    here's the issue/economy link on his website
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

    At the bottom of the page it has three bullet points under Barack Obama's Record:
        *  Housing: In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.
        * Predatory Lending: In the Illinois State Senate, Obama called attention to predatory lending issues. Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans....
        * American Jobs: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US....

    Parent

    I may be missing it, as no economist (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    am I (but I got pretty good grades in it:-).  I don't see in these three points a proposal that revamps the "rules of the road."  These repave a few roads, maybe post warning signs on others -- good to do, of course.  If only Congress had done so. . . .

    But I see improvements to the economic system for the 20th century -- the one to be known in the history books as the American Century, I suspect.  I have thoughts as to whose century this one will be, but . . . these don't look to me like plans for change to a 21st-century economy.  Again, not my forte.  What am I missing?

    Parent

    Did any of Obama's 3 bills PASS? (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    Went to the website and what's most glaring is the length of Obama's economic plan relative to his record.

    Summary: "BARACK OBAMA'S PROPOSALS" has 40 ITEMS.

    On the other hand, "BARACK OBAMA'S RECORD" (in the Senate and State Legislature, combined) has 3 ITEMS. Two items were "introduced" by Obama and one was "sponsored".

    Did any of these actually become law? if so, the website needs to say so.

    Parent

    Out of curiosity (none / 0) (#38)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    Do you know if/which ones Obama was able to get enacted into law?

    Parent
    No idea ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    ... I just copy & paste.

    Parent
    You mean... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Realleft on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST
    the button that says "Skip signup - go to the website"?

    Parent
    I looked again, still don't see it (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    but will try through a different browser.

    Parent
    This is good! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    He needs to stay on this message. And, I agree-this is pure BC!!  

    It was great (none / 0) (#64)
    by rdandrea on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    (I was there)

    Parent
    Meanwhile... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Brillo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    McCain is still insisting that the economy is just fine.

    Also, Biden's remarks on the economy today were even better than Obama's in my opinion.

    where Biden's? (none / 0) (#13)
    by noholib on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    haven't had time to do my usual surfing ...
    where is the text of Biden's remarks?

    Parent
    Here's the tape (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    Where are the solutions? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    At this stage in a GE that's what you need.

    Sorry, this is not what BC would have said today if he were a candidate for president.

    IMHO, Obama missed a sterling opportunity to appear presidential.

    Politically he failed today.

    Very unfortunate.

    What would Bill Clinton do? (none / 0) (#27)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    Thinking back to various State of the Union and other speeches, he definitely always defined the problem/dilemma/situation. THEN, he pointedly (with hand waving) ticked off the steps he intended to take. It took the press awhile to discover that that type of combo had a strong appeal to the American voter.

    Parent
    Something like ... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    these statements Bill made arguing for Hillary's plan to deal with home foreclosures.

    Solutions.

    Anyone can talk about the problems.  It takes a leader to offer solutions.

    In fact, I think he would be even cleverer than that.  But it would take awhile to explain how he would have dealt with today.

    But he would have crushed McCain, and won the news cycle in a walk.

    Parent

    Bloomy (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by JBJB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:26:32 PM EST
    Agrees w/ McCain, says the fuandamentals are strong.

    "I do agree that fundamentally America has an economy that is strong," he said. "America's great strength is its diversity, its hard work, its good financial statements, its broad capital markets,its enormous natural resources" and its work ethic, he said at an afternoon press conference devoted to reassuring New Yorkers that the city's finances and its economy are intact.

    "I'd rather play America's hand than any other country," he said.  "Without problems? No."

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

    I guess the mayor of NYC is an out of touch liar too.

    They are trying to change the subject... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:34:16 PM EST
    the problem isn't America's workers.  It never has been.  No one thinks that (especially not the workers!)  The problem is a economic philosophy that systematically disadvantages those workers.

    Its a red herring on both accounts (incidentally, so is your post).

    Parent

    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by JBJB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you are referring to. Bloomberg says quite frankly that the economy is fundamentally strong.

    Parent
    This... (none / 0) (#40)
    by prose on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    America's great strength is its diversity, its hard work, its good financial statements, its broad capital markets,its enormous natural resources" and its work ethic

    Is not the point.  Those things can remain true, but the economy can be poor (at least in as much as it concerns the common man).  Perhaps we aren't going to collapse - that I'll agree with.  But none of those observations by McCain or Bloomberg point out the real problem we have - deregulation as a result of free market economics.  We have economic policy which favors the rich and creates a greater gulf between classes.  That is what Obama is saying.  He, of course, is not saying that we lack capitol, natural resources, diversity, or the desire to work hard.

    The issue is GOP economic policy.

    Parent

    That, I'm all for -- and I found (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    more quotes from him on restoring regulations, at your link above.  (Btw, you had better embed the link per site rules, or it will be deleted.)

    But if restoring regulation is central to his plan for the economy, then it's weird that it's not on his website -- with more detail that I would like to see.  This is worrisome, with all the constant calls to see his website, if then it is not up to date -- especially if, as he says, he has been saying this for years.  

    Perhaps it's under the same staff purview as his ads.  Those have got to get better -- and get these specific points across.

    Parent

    the problem (none / 0) (#73)
    by bigbay on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    is that the business leaders of the country sold off our manufacturing base to the rest of the world for short term profit and a big personal windfall.

    What we have left is McDonalds, paper shuffling, and a fearsome military that is still light years , technologically-wise, ahead of the rest of the world.

    Parent

    Democrats have to be careful (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:39:59 PM EST
    to not seem as if they are rooting from the Next Great Depression. Current financial events are genuinely terrifying. Some reassurance and hopefulness is required along with the criticisms.

    Anyone remember "We have nothing to fear except fear itself?"

    Was FDR showing leadership, or just being "clueless?"

    Parent

    Context: We have nothing to fear except fear (none / 0) (#72)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    When FDR said that he was saying that the economic crisis could be remedied if people had the courage to confront the problem and embrace his solution (the New Deal).

    His inauguration on March 4, 1933 occurred in the middle of a bank panic, hence the backdrop for his famous words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

    Roosevelt's "First 100 Days" concentrated on the first part of his strategy: immediate relief. From March 9 to June 16, 1933, he sent Congress a record number of bills, all of which passed easily.

    Imo, the current crisis requires us to acknowledge the full extent of the problem while demanding a modern day New deal.

    Parent

    I'm not claiming McCain is making the same (none / 0) (#82)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:39:11 PM EST
    arguments as FDR. Only that, in context, it is obvious that he was acknowledging and attempting to address the fear that this crisis is naturally engendering. Democrats can and should argue with his reasons for optimism about the economy, and point out the ways in which his reasoning is false -- but not in a way that appears to deny optimism is possible or makes them appear to be more interested in encouraging fear than offering solutions. McCain is wrong about many things, but this morning he got one thing right -- he acknowledged how frighteneding this crisis is.

    Parent
    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    that if we examined the historical record in full, we would discover that McCain sounds much more like the Republicans of 1932 than the Democrats.

    It's one thing to be reassuring because you actually have a plan that will fix things, and it's another to be reassuring just because you have nothing else to say.  "Don't worry, everything's going fine!" has pretty much been the Bush prescription for everything ranging from the economy to the war, but it has this unfortunate way of running headlong into reality.

    Parent

    Who cares? It's one thing to address the crisis (none / 0) (#99)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    another thing to mostly attack what your opponent says about the crisis.

    The Democrats made the mistake of reacting to what McCain said instead of reacting directly to the crisis itself.

    That means we see headlines like this (from the LA Times) for the Democrats; "Democrats flail at John McCain's comment on economic fundamentals."

    And like this for the Republicans; "Palin addresses Wall Street financial crisis."

    My point isn't that McCain's policy prescriptions are correct. It is that his political instinct -- to address the fear people are feeling -- were correct.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lousy1 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    What is he planning to do?

    What has he done?

     Does he need a activist republican legislature like BC?

    Seems like a lot of complaining and attempts to fix blame rather than a plan for improving the economy.


    He said trickle down (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    Struck terror in my youthfully remembering heart revisiting trickle down, I'm still not sure I got mine.  I think I got an essense of a trickle but I'm not sure I ever really did get trickled.

    Where (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sas on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    is your story and by-line regarding this GEM from today:

    WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

    According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obamamade his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

    "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    sounds like someone came close to violating the Logan Act!

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    Don't you agree that it is absurd that the status of forces agreement which will govern our relationship with Iraq over the next several years is being negotiated by the Bush administration, and not the administration that will actually be governing for the next several years?

    I suppose Obama could sit back, lodge no objection, and then let the Bush administration bind our hands for the next several years.  Whoever wins the election in November, it should be the responsibility of the new administration to set our foreign policy going forward, not the responsibility of the lame-duck Bush administration.

    Parent

    I'm really hoping (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    that report is not true.

    Parent
    Or not (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:45:19 PM EST
    This has been diputed by the Obama campaign today.


    Parent
    Oh my goodness (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    The original report was by Amir Taheri, a neoconservative spinner of tales who was responsible, not too long ago, for a minor media frenzy over false reports that the Iranian regime was forcing Jewish citizens to wear yellow stars just like the Nazis did.  I would not believe a word he says.

    Parent
    That's basically (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    what Obama's campaign said without going into detail.

    And wow I can't spell...

    I meant diSputed

    Parent

    I like it BUT (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    Did this:

     

    What's more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure

    Make anyone else cringe?

    Yes! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    Yes. Much like "media is" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    that I see here so much -- and elsewhere as well.  I don't correct it, but it drives me @#$%@!

    The only time that works is when saying that "'media' is a plural."  I.e., media are.

    Of course, media themselves are the worst on this.  But anyone who models their writing on the media is [note, in this sentence, the noun is the singular "anyone':-)] bound for trouble, and for many reasons.

    Parent

    is media plural? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    Or is it a "collective" and therefore singular like "crowd" or "audience". You don't say the "crowd are going wild" unless you are a tennis commentator from Australia.

    Parent
    Collective in my opinion. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    Both can be valid I think.

    It depends on whether one is refering to the media as a plaurality of all the different media or as a monolithic entity which has a singular effect.

    For example:

    The various media are all corrupted by the very nature of the mediums that they function in.

    The "mass media" is a terrifying borg like construct that corrupts all who come into contact with it.

    When people refer to the "MSM" I think they tend to think of it as the latter, i.e. as a singular entity or collective that has particular goals.

    The (main stream) media is being far to negative about Palin.

    Parent

    Yes, it is. Unless you think that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    "medium" is the plural.  Then "media" would be the singular form.  But do you say an electronic medium are TV?  No.  See Grammar Book, Any. :-)

    What confuses the vast numbers who sadly did not have to take Latin is that we have Anglicized and/or Americanized other, similar Latin terms such as stadium.  So we say "stadiums."  

    And we say "medium" for a single media form, i.e., TV is an electronic medium.  But we can't say "mediums" to refer to the plural in this case, because mediums already is taken by those among us who channel voices from the other world. . . .

    Parent

    McCain's Comments Today (none / 0) (#11)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    In part....

    "And America is in a crisis today. Unemployment is on the rise, and our financial markets are in turmoil. People are concerned about our economic future. But let me say something, the economic crisis is not the fault of the American people.

    Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest-working, the best-skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world. That's the American worker. And my opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals -- the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America, and I think they're strong. But they are being threatened today. Those fundamentals are being threatened today because of the greed and corruption that some engaged in on Wall Street, and we have got to fix it. "

    Parent

    that was the statement (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    released after his first comments when they realized how STUPID his first remark was.  They cleaned it up so that he can say "what I meant to say is that the fundamentals of the people blah blah blah".

    Nice try Mr. Rove.

    Parent

    Guess we have a new meme (none / 0) (#26)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    WORM vs WMRM

    Dueling revisions....

    Parent

    Well now, (none / 0) (#15)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    that's a whole different ball of wax than what has been reported here....

    Parent
    That... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Brillo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    Was his attempt at nullifying his earlier statements about how well things are.  Apparently someone stepped in and said this was probably not the day to be telling people the economy is sound.

    Parent
    His original statement is being distorted too (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    He said originally that Americans are "frightened" but the economy's "fundamentals are sound."

    In context it did not sound like cluelessness. It sounded like a reasonable, perhaps necessary, attempt to quell or prevent panic.

    Parent

    Uh... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Brillo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    The 'fundamentals' aren't sound.  That's sort of the point.

    That's the same kind of garbage Phil Gramm tried feeding us before, and which the McCain campaign promptly tried to distance themselves from, knowing how bad it looked.  This time there's no going back on it, it was said by McCain himself.  And moreover, it was said on today of all days.  

    Parent

    As I asked in another post, when FDR (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    said that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" was he showing leadership, or just being "clueless?"

    The events of the day are genuinely frightening. That's why leadership and reassurance is required, along with criticism.

    If Democrats don't understand that, then they aren't really "getting" the fear out there. They are, instead, just seeing this crisis as a political advantage for them -- rather than a possible tragedy for the nation.

    Parent

    I'm with you ... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    I think Obama got it wrong today.  He missed the presidential reassuring tone that would have caused him to easily win the news cycle, and get his sensible solutions on record.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    Obama gives us a lecture. McCain honors and reassures the American Worker. Guess who wins this round.

    Parent
    Too funny! (none / 0) (#63)
    by wasabi on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:44:01 PM EST
    McCain honors and reassures the American Worker!  Stop it.  You're killing me...

    Parent
    McCain is no FDR (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    But, unfortunately, neither is Obama.

    Democrats need to react forcefully to THE CRISIS.

    Not just snidely to McCain.

    Do you see the difference?

    Parent

    How could FRD's comment be (none / 0) (#78)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    indicative of him being "clueless"? Otherwise, I'm in agreement (I think).

    Parent
    He's said something on this order before (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    too -- I've heard some of that go by on CNN before.

    Must be a pol talking out of both sides of his mouth, tailoring the message to wherever he is.  Shocking, I know.:-)

    Parent

    Meant as a response to Comment #8 (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    Get me some coffee....

    Parent
    The whole (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:48:58 PM EST
    statement made me cringe. It's just an academic laundry list of our country's ills. We already know the ills. Can he tell us in 10 words or less what the medicine is?

    Parent
    Not me.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    it's under the mattress, right where I left it:)

    Bad enough I have to trust my retirement insurance to govt. bueracrats by threat of violence...no way I'm trusting my concrete retirement fund to Wall St. bueracrats and the FDIC.

    Parent

    tick, tick, tick (none / 0) (#49)
    by pluege on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    still no 'Here's what I [Obama] plan to do about it'. This is loser stuff. AMericans want someone in charge. Saying what a nice guy - ignorant fool mccain is ain't going to cut it.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#51)
    by Makarov on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    since you noted you received this via email, may I ask if it came from the Obama campaign?

    If it did, can you email them back and ask if Senator Obama supports regulating investment banks and more complicated investment vehicles (derivatives, hedge funds, etc)? Many Democrats, perhaps not elected officials, have called for just that for over 10 years. Even some more moderate and conservative economists began to see the warning signs after the bailout of Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund, in the late 90s.

    If he didn't before today... (none / 0) (#67)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    he probably does now.  There have been many different tools for keeping these big transactions going and Wall Street happy.  If there had been appropriate oversight and enforcement of existing regs, I don't think the situation would be so bad.  Hopefully Pres. Obama can stand up the CEO of Bank of America or Citigroup and say no way when he or she comes in asking for regulatory relief so the bank can do a deal or go into a line of work.

    The good news about what has happened is that now that the Federal government is in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and has extended a big helping hand in the form of a line of credit to various banks to assist them in the orderly takeover of investment companies and now AIG, the government can and should exercise much more control over the financial sector.  No laissez-faire approach when the banks are doing their own thing with our money!

    Parent

    McCain (none / 0) (#54)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    has an ad out today re: the economy

    Link

    pretty comprehensive for a 30 second ad

    Republicans are masters of the (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:36:17 PM EST
    plausible("well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust") argument.

    Democrats, on the other hand, are more often masters at making the absolute truth seem implausible.

    Why is that?

    Parent

    Am I missing something (none / 0) (#74)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    or are your comments here solely intended to defend and promote the McCain/Palin ticket?  Your criticisms are extremely lopsided.

    Parent
    I'm not sure how it is support of McCain (none / 0) (#77)
    by JAB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:21:59 PM EST
    Merely pointing out the fact that McCain already has an ad out on the economy that has some pretty comprehensive information in it, is showing support.

    Parent
    That ad (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    is OK. I wouldn't call it great or bad just so so. I guess the main advantage he seems to have is a media shop that can immediately deliver a message.

    Parent
    The AP article (none / 0) (#57)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    on this appearance features remarks that are even better:

    Obama Mocks McCain promise to bring change

    ''In 19 months he has not named one thing he would do differently from this administration on the central issue of this election,'' Obama said of McCain. ''Not one thing. And we know that if we go down that path, that the next four years will look exactly like the last eight.''

    and

    ''Can you afford to take a chance on someone who's voted against the minimum wage 19 times,'' Obama asked a crowd of thousands under a blazing sun at a rally in western Colorado at the start of a swing through contested Western states. ''When it was $4, he was against it, when it was $5 he was against it, when it was $6 he was against it.''

    and ...

    He also took a little poke at McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, raising the ''Bridge to Nowhere'' in Alaska that she initially supported and later opposed. Saying that McCain had put some lobbyists in key roles of his campaign, Obama said, ''If you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska.''

    Fighting words!

    "Bridge to sell you" (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by tree on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    Yep, that bridge that he and Biden voted for. This is not a good issue for Obama/Biden. especially when they could have voted to redirect the money to Katrina victims but instead voted to continue the Bridge to Nowhere earmark.

    Parent
    The last (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    thing Obama needs in a title is "mocks". Other than that it's more "not McCain".

    Parent
    These were headlines on my Google page (none / 0) (#96)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    today:

    "Biden hits McCain in Michigan speech"

    "Democrats flail at John McCains comment on economic fundamentals"

    "Palin addresses Wall Street financial crisis"

    Does anyone see what's wrong with this picture?  

    Parent

    Receivec via e-mail (none / 0) (#65)
    by wasabi on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    Too bad we won't hear Obama's remarks on the evening news.  I like what he said and how he said it, but it will get drowned out by more pressing news of the day.

    Layoffs (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    here they come.  And the tie to the last 8 years will start to unfold.  The economy has been artificially propped up by the stimulus and with unemployment rising every month and more to come, it is catch up time.  The banks have been riding out hope that people would start to pay down their credit lines and they are not. Now that there is no mas stimulus our service economy is about to tank.  The trickle effect of less money being spent which will eradicate more jobs, which will mean even less money spent which will mean even more layoffs.

    Obama needs to conduct more press conferences and look presidential.  One of the major sticking points with voters is that they feel more comfortable with McCain because he is a known quantity so to speak.  Press conferences (when they go well) make candidates appear to be either more or less presidential.  To counter McCain it is not simply 8 more years of the same, he must master the soundbyte the way (dare i say it) Reagan and Clinton did.  

    Clinton was a genius and I don't think O is as clever or witty as William Jefferson, nor do I think he is as folksy for lack of a better term.  

    We have had 8 years of walking in the desert with two of those prosperous which was a direct result of the housing bubble.  This administration has not addressed any of the core issues facing this country economically or socially.  

    This economy was built on sand and never gained any real traction.  Housing bubbles do not create lasting jobs as it is transactional.  Housing bubbles should run simultaneously with job creation and new technologies, not cheaper rates and credit washing.

    4 years of prosperity is waiting for the American people if only he would tell us how....

    You (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    have some good ideas in your post. I don't know that it can be done though. Obama hasn't changed anything in months and months.

    Giving a press conference where he didn't constantly shuffle notes and lecture would be a good start.

    Parent

    He did not say anything! (none / 0) (#81)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    No concrete solutions, just more empty, vague rhetoric. It sounds nice, though.

    This (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    statement sounds like another dry academic lecture to people who need to learn something about economics. Frankly, I don't think he's capable of doing anything else at this late date.

    Commenter JAB (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    has previously been banned as cmugirl. JAB is banned again. Also a chatterer and and a blogclogger.