Obama Gives A Barnburner Speech On The Economy

I got the chance to watch Obama's speech on the economy in Golden, Colorado (on TV of course.) Great speech. Great delivery. As close to being like Bill Clinton on the economy as I have seen him. The Barack Obama I saw today will win this election easily. I hope to get a video up for you to see it yourself. Some of the text on the flip.

This is an Open Thread.

From TPM:

Over the last few days, we have seen clearly what's at stake in this election. The news from Wall Street has shaken the American people's faith in our economy. The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that have generated tremendous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This 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.

Since this turmoil began over a year ago, the housing market has collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America's five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11. We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet Senator McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

A few hours later, his campaign sent him back out to clean up his remarks, and he tried to explain himself again this morning by saying that what he meant was that American workers are strong. But we know that Senator McCain meant what he said the first time, because he has said it over and over again throughout this campaign - no fewer than 16 times, according to one independent count.

Now I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we're facing, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. Because the truth is, what Senator McCain said yesterday fits with the same economic philosophy that he's had for 26 years. It's the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It's the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It's a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.

We've had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples' life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything from gas to groceries to health care has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors is slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up.

So let's be clear: what we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It's time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It's time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.

If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we've responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain's approach was the same as the Bush Administration's: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil.

In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.

Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it's time to realize that we are in this together - that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street - and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he'd love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, "but" - he said - "I don't know one."

In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress. Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion for the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers.

This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. Just a few weeks earlier, Senator McCain made it clear where he stands: "I'm always for less regulation," he said, and referred to himself as "fundamentally a deregulator."

This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming, and declare - as Senator McCain did earlier this year - that we've made great progress economically under George Bush. That is how you can reach the conclusion - as late as yesterday - that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Well, we have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great -that America is a place where you can make it if you try.

Americans have always pursued our dreams within a free market that has been the engine of our progress. It's a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and rewarded the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon of science, and technology, and discovery. But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle - that America prospers when all Americans can prosper. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest.

Too often, over the last quarter century, we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. And this has not happened by accident. It's because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. We failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.

Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform - to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we've excused an ethic of greed, corner-cutting and inside dealing that threatens the long-term stability of our economic system.

It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?

And it has happened again during this decade, in part because of how we deregulated the financial services sector. After we repealed outmoded rules instead of updating them, we were left overseeing 21st century innovation with 20th century regulations. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people and failed to raise warning flags that could have protected investors and the pensions American workers count on.

This was not the invisible hand of the market at work. These cycles of bubble and bust were symptoms of the ideology that my opponent is running to continue. John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of deregulation in the financial sector is Phil Gramm - the same man who helped write John McCain's economic plan; the same man who said that we're going through a 'mental recession'; and the same man who called the United States of America a "nation of whiners." So it's hard to understand how Senator McCain is going to get us out of this crisis by doing the same things with the same old players.

Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn't offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn't for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it.

What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system. When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price. When regulators are chosen for their disdain for regulation and we gut their ability to enforce the law, then the interests of the American people are not protected. It's an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street, and it's time to turn the page.

Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here's the thing - this isn't 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it, John McCain won't, and that's the choice for the American people in this election.

History shows us that there is no substitute for presidential leadership in a time of economic crisis. FDR and Harry Truman didn't put their heads in the sand, or hand accountability over to a Commission. Bill Clinton didn't put off hard choices. They led, and that's what I will do. My priority as President will be the stability of the American economy and the prosperity of the American people. And I will make sure that our response focuses on middle class Americans - not the companies that created the problem.

To get out of this crisis - and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again - we must take immediate measures to create jobs and continue to address the housing crisis; we must build a 21st century regulatory framework, and we must pursue a bold opportunity agenda that creates new jobs and grows the American economy.

To jumpstart job creation, I have proposed a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan that would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our schools, and helping our states and localities avoid damaging budget cuts.

I worked with leaders in Congress to create a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will help stabilize the housing market and allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford. Going forward, we need to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we know them with a structure that is focused on helping people buy homes - not engaging in market speculation. We can't have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its "heads" investors win, and "tails" taxpayers lose. That's going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we've seen for far too long in Washington.

To prevent fraud in the mortgage market, I've proposed tough penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will ensure consumers fully understand mortgage offers and whether they'll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I will ease the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner's tax credit. This will add up to a 10 percent break off the mortgage interest rate for 10 million households. That's another $500 each year for many middle class families.

Unlike Senator McCain, I will change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes. Right now, if you're a family that owns one house, bankruptcy judges are actually barred from helping you keep a roof over your head by writing down the value of your mortgage. If you own seven homes, the judge is free to write down any or all of the debt on your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh homes. Now that may be of comfort to Senator McCain, but that's the kind of out-of-touch Washington loophole that makes no sense. When I'm President, we'll make our laws work for working people.

But as we've seen the last few days, the crisis in our financial markets now reaches well beyond the housing market. That's why it's time to do what I called for last September and again this past March - and it is only more overdue today.

Our capital markets cannot succeed without the public's trust. It's time to get serious about regulatory oversight, and that's what I will do as President. That starts with the core principles for reform that I discussed at Cooper Union.

First, if you're a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, it is providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that financial institutions with access to that credit are not taking excessive risks.

Second, we must reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions. We must strengthen capital requirements, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities and other derivatives at the center of our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And we must establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must address the same problems abroad so that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road.

Third, we need to streamline our regulatory agencies. Our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape. Different institutions compete in multiple markets - Washington should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and reduce costs.

Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.

Fifth, we must crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. The last six months have shown that this remains a serious problem in many markets and becomes especially problematic during moments of great financial turmoil. We cannot embrace the administration's vision of turning over the protection of investors to the industries themselves. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.

Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. Too often, we end up where we are today: dealing with threats to the financial system that weren't anticipated by regulators. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It's time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full-blown crisis.

These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation. Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don't understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It's time to realign incentives and CEO compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders.

Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us - not the special interests that have set the agenda in Washington for eight years, and the lobbyists who run John McCain's campaign.

I've spent my career taking on lobbyists and their money, and I've won. If you wanted a special favor in Illinois, there was actually a law that let you give campaign cash to politicians for their own personal use. In the State House, they called it business-as-usual. I called it legalized bribery, and while it didn't make me the most popular guy in Springfield, I put an end to it.

When I got to Washington, we saw some of the worst corruption since Watergate. I led the fight for reform in my party, and let me tell you - not everyone in my party was too happy about it. When I proposed forcing lobbyists to disclose who they're raising money from and who in Congress they're funneling it to, I had a few choice words directed my way on the floor of the Senate. But we got it done, and we banned gifts from lobbyists, and free rides on their fancy jets. And I am the only candidate who can say that Washington lobbyists do not fund my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President of the United States. That's how we're going to end the outrage of special interests tipping the scales.

The most important thing we must do is restore opportunity for all Americans. To get our economy growing, we need to recapture that fundamental American promise. That if you work hard, you can pay the bills. That if you get sick, you won't go bankrupt. That your kids can get a good education, and that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to future generations.

That's the change the American people need. While Senator McCain likes to talk about change these days, his economic program offers nothing but more of the same. The American people need more than change as a slogan- we need change that makes a real difference in your life.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups - that's how we'll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn't want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does - because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

I will create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

This is the change we need - the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost - though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we'll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.

But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.

I don't want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don't want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children's future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.

This time - this election - is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough! We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we've battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success. That's why our economy hasn't just been the world's greatest wealth generator - it's bound America together, it's created jobs, and it's made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.

Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change - if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you - we will win Colorado, we will win this election, and we will change America together.

< McCain's Bold New Economic Plan | Lipstick On A Tanning Bed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Awesome (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    The "fundamentals" ad is as effective as it is obvious, I think. I'm glad it's on the air.

    Empty Rhetoric (2.00 / 2) (#119)
    by chopper on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:29:17 PM EST
    I don't put much faith in anything Obama says because he frequently reverses his positions,  goes with the money, and has been known to 'extremely exaggerate'.

    And, particularly, I don't trust him on  economics because he put down President Clinton's GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN HISTORY.


    as opposed to McCain? n/t (none / 0) (#153)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    I haven't seen the ad yet (none / 0) (#8)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    I certainly hope that his meeting with Pres. Clinton had an impact on how Sen. Obama is delivering his message. This is going to be a long term financial crisis that will not stabilize until the housing crisis stabilized which is going to take months, if not a year or more. I'm not sure what needs to be done to stabilize the current crisis but one thing about which I am certain, McCain/Palin is not the answer.

    You are sadly mistaken. (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    Obama has no economic plan or, if he has one, he's not letting anyone know.  McCain is far ahead of him on this issue.

    I know that from reading the comments section here at Talk Left.

    Therefore, Obama could not possibly have been given a barnburner economic policy speech in Colorado yesterday.

    Today (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    The speech was today.

    OK (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    He can't possibly be giving that speech today, then.  I refuse to allow my inability to read interfere with my snarkiness.  Please correct your post.

    He gave a barnburner yesterday too (4.33 / 3) (#14)
    by rdandrea on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:49:32 AM EST
    The entire speech is here.

    It's better than just the excerpts.


    Did not see yesterday's (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    If you are getting your Obama news.... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    from the comments at Talkleft, you must think he is Rosemary's baby:)

    Can't fool me--I smell snark. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    Like his health care plan. Read Bob Herbert (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    in the NYT this morning.  First, everyone who has an employer based group plan will now be taxed for the first time on the cost of that plan to the employer. See taxes rise. See plans be cancelled.

    Second, according to Herbert and new to me, he will wipe out all the individual state requirements that you must cover breast cancer exams, annual pelvics and other preventive actions as part of a policy, and will instead impose a single national standard, which will not be determined by what states think is in their residents' best interests, based on the economy of the state, and what is running through its hospitals, but on what the lobbyists seek to impose.

    The most critical portion of what Obama said above, to me, is the part which will prohibit health insurors from excluding all those who are already ill or on some sort of maintenance, so that the sickest will also be the uninsured, flooding hospitals' emergency rooms rather than getting regular care and proper prescription coverage. Instead, as I understand it, he will allow all of these (which includes me) the opportunity to get the same coverage Congressional members have. McC says the health insurance free market will take care of this, but what the health insurance free market has done is excluded all of these people whom it can duck covering.

    For all of you who wanted a specific plan, you now got a specific plan. Now let's see how much of this McC can try to co-opt, since he has none and has the legion of the voluntary guilty on his advisors' and campaign staff. This ought to be interesting.


    More McCain Lies That Obama Must Expose (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    and it is HUGE.  McCain says he has a plan to "make healthcare more affordable" AND that he McCain is constantly repeating the untruth that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, while he will cut taxes, and yet McCain's "healthcare"  plan consists of giving taxpayers "tax credits" to make healthcare "more affordable. What he doesn't mention, however, is that he would also make employees who get insurance through their employers pay income taxes on the value of their employers' contributions. Isn't that a tax increase?

    Because he never mentions the tax increase -- as he didn't this morning on the Today Show -- he never mentions whether the tax credits would be at least equal to the additional taxes that would have to be paid.  

    But let's assume for the moment that they are. Wouldn't that just be a wash?  How would that make healthcare more affordable?  It would only be more affordable with tax credits if the taxpayers do not obtain insurance through their employers, and therefore do not have to pay the newly imposed taxes -- or, if they stop getting insurance through their employers.  But that means that they'd have to take their "tax credits" and use them to buy individual plans, which are more costly, have higher deductibles, and tend to have more exclusions because they are not in a "pool" of insureds including both healthy people and people who need a lot of healthcare.  

    How does this plan make healthcare more affordable for the average person? It only helps people who earn enough money to make a tax credit meaningful AND are not part of an employer plan.  For anyone currently part of an employer plan, McCain's proposal giveth and taketh away -- either you pay taxes on the value of the employer's contribution, which is a tax increase, or you take yourself out of the plan, in which case your "tax credits" are worth far less in terms of buying equivalent insurance.

    This is something that Obama should hit hard, both in terms of giving the lie to McCain's promise that he will not raise taxes on the middle class, and the inadequacy of his healthcare plan.  In fact, the McCain plan will hit the middle class hardest, because fewer rich people have employer based plans, and if they do, the additional tax they'd have to pay on the value of the program would be a minimal percentage of their total income.

    For example, I am a partner in a big law firm. As partner, I am part of our group plan, but I pay the full value of the premiums, whereas associates, secretaries and administrative staff have a large portion of the premium paid by the firm.  McCain's plan would have no impact on me from a tax viewpoint, but would impose additional taxes on people who make a fraction of what I mean. That's not right.

    In short, McCain's plan (1) involves a tax increase, (2) is regressive, and (3) will not be a significant help to most people in buying comprehensive healthcare.  The average tax credit mentioned -- $1000 - $1250 per annum -- is a very very small part of the annual premium for a good plan.


    No poonaner left behind? (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM EST
    Second, according to Herbert and new to me, he will wipe out all the individual state requirements that you must cover breast cancer exams, annual pelvics and other preventive actions as part of a policy, and will instead impose a single national standard, which will not be determined by what states think is in their residents' best interests, based on the economy of the state, and what is running through its hospitals, but on what the lobbyists seek to impose.

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by chrisvee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    after reading the TL thread about the economy, I googled Obama and economy. The top articles were about Obama mocking McCain and blaming the GOP for the economy. They referenced that Obama would release details of his plans later today (I presume that's the CO speech that BTD discusses).  The morning shows were pretty much the same in terms of info.

    However, it was pretty easy to find references to McCain wanting to convene a commission and his rantings about Wall Street corruption.

    So if I were an undecided voter with minimal time to figure out what's going on, I'd get the idea that Obama is blaming the other party (typical partisanship that leads to gridlock) but doesn't have any ideas (words, just words) but that McCain is after the real enemy (pretty much everyone hates 'Wall Street' as an embodiment of unrestrained greed) and has some ideas how to do it (lower taxes, more regulation even though he isn't normally predisposed to it, and a commission to evaluate the issue).

    Now, that's not how I think about things but I have more leisure time to at least try to spend some time getting to what's really happening.  But how much time does the average voter have to spend understanding multiple complex issues?

    Instead of jumping on TLers who don't agree with received opinion about Obama, maybe we should stop a minute and realize it's an opportunity to understand why Obama isn't walking away with the race in a year that should be landslide Dem and how he might improve his message to actually reach the voters he needs to put him over the top.

    If he gave a barnburner of a speech, I hope we hear the right soundbites on the evening news and see the right stories on the major news websites because frankly, the right information needs to be accessible to a much larger audience.  His media darling status doesn't seem to be helping him get details disseminated.

    Now presumably I'll be mocked as stupid or unsophisticated or a Republican or something but I've gotten pretty thick-skinned about that.


    Replying to :replying to Actually (none / 0) (#155)
    by kjb4706 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    Obama's speech was live on most cable news stations. Surely the entire speech will be available on video soon if not already.  It is well worth watching the whole speech.  I have been a reluctant Obama supporter since Hillary dropped out of the race.  (He clinches the deal for me every time I think about John Paul Stevens).  But I was impressed with the concrete plans Obama has for dealing with this crisis. He drew huge distinctions between himself and McCain

    Its funny how... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    some of the people giving this post a 5 rating missed the obvious snark.

    How can you be sure? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:14:11 PM EST
    Because if you look at who rated it... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    its like playing a game of what doesnt belong.

    I'm not proud. . . (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    I'll take it where I can get it!

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#186)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    Your above comment and Thanin's observation gave me the best laugh I've had in days.

    Health care can fix the economy (none / 0) (#25)
    by Exeter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST

    It would also be wise to talk about how health care is a drain on the economy and how universal health care would get the economy rolling-- especially for our nation's largest employer:  small businesses. It would hit the two biggest birds with one stone.

    health care (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    will always be a costly mess as long as the medical industry is in the business of creating needs, just like any other business.  psychosomatic medicine must be a part of any real health care "reform", imho, or reform is meaningless.  if medicine refuses to aknowledge and understand the brain's role in disease and pain syndromes, that is if it refuses to accept that we are emotional creatures and our emotions play a quite large role in illness AND treatment, then we will still be considering health care as nothing more than treating people like cars with broken parts.  we're not machines, we're complex emotional creatures.  but medicine is still stuck in the dark agest, for the most part.  three examples: fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel, and lower back pain, all of which cost this nation billions to "treat", while the medical community hasn't a clue what causes them, because the refuse to face the obvious answer.  think about it, the human spine evolved over millions of years to be as strong as it must be, and we're supposed to believe in the last thirty years it's just fallen apart on a huge scale.  ridiculous.  same with carpal tunnel -- how did all those people pounding on manual typewriters and doing REAL repetitive stress work manage to survive for all those decades?  and fibromyalgia, please, it is such an obviously emotinally bases disorder (which creates REAL pain, mind you, not imaginary) but pain clinics are too profitable to actually attempt to get to the cause of it, rather than treating symptoms for big money.

    the health care debate is still FAR from where it needs to be.  Miles away.  Thousands of miles.


    Which is not to say... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    ...that we don't need natonal health care.  we do.  just that, with the current medical paradigms, it won't be the big fix we think it will.  it cannot, since there will still be a medical industry creating needs.

    Anti-Obama translation of headline. . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    "Obama guilty of arson in Colorado farm fire."

    I'm shocked ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    he gave a four point plan.

    Obama hates four point plans.

    Someone finally got through to him on why they work.

    Answering the question: (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    "exactly what are you going to do for me?" has ALWAYS been key to winning Pennsylvania. I would imagine it's important elsewhere too.

    Exactly the point Bill used to make (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hairspray on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    1. Do not make it about you (well he did a little at the end)
    2. Outline the problem briefly: people know what the problem is (Old Obama did this ad infinitum)
    3. Tell the people exactly what you will do to fix it
    4. Show people how it will affect THEIR lives

    Finally a Clinton speech (both HRC & BC) that will resonate, believe me.

    I count six points. n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    50% better. . . (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    than your average four point plan!

    "Four Point Plan" is ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    just a term used to describe this type of rhetorical device, because they're usually four points.  

    But they can be any number.


    I've always understood four (none / 0) (#97)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    points to be the ultimate in maximum audience absorbtion.  More is harder to remember - four is something of a magic number - of course given the complexity of the discussion about the American economy - six is a pretty respectable number - even though I don't really remember any of the points he made and I watched and read the speech.  

    Probably because all the points have to do with oversight and regulation rather than the pocket book issues that are giving me personally more and more angst.  I welcome the regulation of course and long-term my retirement investments might just have a chance of being there if we do start to fix the financial regulations - that is good - but I am actually really stressed out about things like the price of electricity and toilet paper right now.  That's the speech I want to see Obama give - I want him to give the "toilet paper" speech - have you seen the price of toilet paper lately?!?  

    And, and, and I bought my regular brand for about 40% more than it cost just over a year ago the other day and the rolls are shorter - I thought they looked odd and compared them to one of the rolls I had from before and the old rolls are just as thick but taller.  So not only has the price of this staple skyrocketed - they've cleverly figured out a way to make consumers think they are getting the same amount as before when they are not.  

    When my grandparents died I found about fifty cookie tins of soap chips in their attic - those little pieces of soap that are left at the very end of the bar - my mother said that that was a hold over habit from my Grandmother's experience during the Depression - I really don't want to experience what it is like not to be able to afford soap - but I feel like I might...


    The major issue (none / 0) (#109)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    in terms of the price of consumer goods seems to be fuel costs.  It's not like we have inflation right now.  But the cost of transporting the lumber to the paper mill and the toilet paper to your store gets built into the cost of the product.  That's why everything is costing more.

    Decreasing fuel costs is, as far as I can tell, a long-term issue.  There's a very limited range of options that we have to fix it in the short term.  I happen to like Obama's energy plan a lot, but I recognize that it's not going to change things overnight.  But when you see how much gas prices went up this weekend just because of a hurricane in the Gulf, you realize that our current system of dependence on oil is not the answer.

    Another solution is not to use so much goshdarned toilet paper.  Sheesh!  I'm starting to hope that my next child is a boy instead of a girl, for this reason alone.


    I think we could (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    put a dent in the fuel issue fairly quickly by incentivizing people to adopt solar and wind - and re-regulating the electricity providers.  Not all of the pressure on families comes from oil fuel - the price of electricity in some areas near me have gone up 300% - that's a huge burden - and those kinds of price hikes were the very kinds of shocking assaults on cash flow that our old regulations once protected our citizens, businesses and by extension our economy from.  Using electricity in our modern economy is not "optional" and therefore should not be subject to purists' supply and demand economic models.  If we had adhered to that philosophy in the past, there would be whole swaths of this country that would not even have electricity or phone service for that matter.

    I think there are things that we could do now.  I obviously don't expect Obama to promise me cheaper toilet paper - but I'd like some assurance that he sees how out of whack the price increases on staple items are to stagnant wages, high unemployment and an overall slow down in the economy - I am using as little electricity and toilet paper as I can right now - I don't drive unless it is absolutely necessary - but when I go to the store it seems that everyday something else is 50 cents or a dollar more than it was a week or a month ago.  I'm relatively comfortable compared to most Americans - I can only imagine what families with less than I have are going through to survive these days.

    I'll also note that I think Obama should move the conversation off of taxes and onto jobs because tax breaks don't help people when they don't have jobs - the jobs are key.  I would like to see him describe the jobs that people could do in a green economy and illustrate for the out of work auto worker or construction worker how that green economy is a perfect fit for their skills and talents - I'd like him to describe the new world in some detail and show people that relief from that sort of economic boom will likely bring about relief far faster than drilling ever would - if drilling ever could...


    In my experience, (none / 0) (#139)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:03:28 PM EST
    young boys view a brand new roll of toilet paper as a challenge, and they often rise to that challenge.

    seconded (none / 0) (#142)
    by addy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    They can't resist. Dogs are the same way.

    Good speech (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    Very smart, specific proposals, from my Wall Street perspective.  I guess he could have just said "go look at my website," but I like this approach better.

    Who knows who wrote his website (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    I just know he didn't.  But he said this in front of people and cameras and stuff, that is way way different.

    With his teleprompter? (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST

    But he said it (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    He said it using his mind, his tongue, his energy....he said it.  Now he's accountable, now he's a much better risk to make a loan to because he has put something up.

    I got the "go look at the website" (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    line today in a discussion about the economic messaging from the campaign.  Do people really think that Americans spend their evenings reading Barack Obama's website on home computers that most of them don't even have?

    Reading this plan at his website (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    on my laptop while doing dishes is not healthy for me or my laptop or my dishes :)

    It is still easier to listen to the radio (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    while driving and watch/listen to TV while doing dishes - trying to surf the net whilst doing a lot of other things is hard - especially when you don't even have a computer - and you know what?? - I think it always will be.  

    If you wanna see it.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    that is where it is.

    Can't we ask the electorate to put in the least amount of effort?  Are we a bunch of spoiled children who need to be spoon-fed?

    Actually...don't answer that:)


    Expecting a politician to stand up (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    in front of an audience and say what he or she thinks doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask of them.  Requiring that they have decent communications skills in their position doesn't seem like too much of a burden on them either - given the nature of their job - it would be different if they were running to become the dog catcher - we'd expect them to have communications skills better suited to animals than to people - but as they seek to represent people and talking is an important element of how people interact everyday - asking them to talk from time to time seems completely fair.

    A lot of people don't even have access to computers and some don't read at all or very well...  I believe that all of those people are entitled to as much attention from a politician as the elite classes with the time and the equipment that allows them to surf the internet looking for political policy statements.

    When I was first starting out in NYC, I couldn't afford to buy a newspaper some days - I loved newspapers - but I couldn't always afford to buy one - sometimes I walked to and from work rather than taking the subway to save money or afford a paper.  Some people just don't have the means to access information any other way than through radio or tv and I believe they still deserve to be addressed by politicians.


    Damn.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    I thought I was broke, I can always find 50 cents for a paper.

    BTW...all the daily papers are available to read for free at your local library, as well as free internet access, as well as all those great books!  It's not elitist to be informed, even the homeless can do it.  

    If you want anything resembling the straight dope, I recommend staying away from the television...unless it is PBS.


    Oh that was twenty years ago (none / 0) (#165)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    when the paper was 35 cents lol - still remember that well and being able to spell d-e-s-t-i-t-u-t-e at the end of every month.

    But I do watch TV and I watch the worst of it - because my training is in PR and Marketing and even more than back in the days when I was just starting out - the sad truth is that CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other news programs are very influential in our political process.  I am not worried about Democratic candidates like Obama being able to win over Democrats who watch PBS or listen to NPR - I'm worried about Obama being able to win over Dems, Indies and Republicans who watch trash teevee and read the National Enquirer.  That's why I pay close attention to what filters through those outlets during election season.  I actually make something of a deliberate attempt to avoid the more reliable and serious outlets like PBS and NPR to get a better perspective on what a more average person is experiencing.  I couldn't do it during our convention - I had to watch CSPAN because the pundit class was far too irritating me and I was interested in what the Democrats were going to say - but I did pay attention to which speeches the cable and network people did and did not cover because that is a more accurate picture of what most Americans who watched were allowed to see.


    I watch 'em too.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    not to get informed..err, misinformed....but strictly for the unintentional comedy.  To the reasonably semi-informed, O'Reilly/Hannity/Olbermann are laugh out loud funny!

    I agree with what you say...which is why we end up with the government we deserve, a sh*tty one, everytime:)


    Stay away from all but PBS? (none / 0) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    and miss all the self promoting bloviated punditry available on all the other stations?

    Come to think of it, that's an excellent idea.


    I'm told (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    that about 75% of Americans have a home computer!

    25% of Americans is a lot (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    of voters especially in a race that is running neck and neck.

    And you can't get to it because (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    someone is on Myspace.  And when you do get it you are going to check your email.  Another problem with bloggers is is that they have no concept of how little time nonbloggers/the general population sets aside for the computer.  Our kids are fat as snot anymore due to too much tech and not enough sweat.  Candidates need to work for their living and demonstrate to the next generation how it's done, not act like spoiled fatcats.

    well you might (none / 0) (#147)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    get a whole lot more hits for your proposals on the web if you put it on a porn site.

    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    It's a great speech ... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:37:50 PM EST
    and it's the right strategy.

    But it is Obama doing what Obama does best:  The long, set speech.

    In order to guarantee victory, he needs to bottle this type of content and be able to offer it concisely in ads, interviews, and debates.

    Here's my prediction. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    Regardless of who gets elected in Nov, in the short term the economy will be rough and we will see a lot of regulation legislated.

    In time, amid ups and down, the economy will rebound and some of the legislation will be deemed excessive and will be repealed or lessened.

    The economy will continue to grow and and legislators will continue to lessen regulation in order to keep the party going.

    Then, for whatever reason, the bottom will drop out of the economy and we'll start the economic and regulatory cycles all over again.

    I guess the question is does the economy go through these cycles because of regulation or despite it?

    Good Prediction... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    Look at Congressional response to Enron - Sarbanes-Oxley - designed to provide more transparency and to more accountability to the Board of Directors and CEO.  How's that working so far?

    Congress comes up with legislation in order to look like they are doing something.  Until the special interest groups loosen their grip on Washington we will continue to have legislation and regulations that are complex, hard to enforce and don't always address the real issues.


    there's always (none / 0) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    a whole bunch of people who are smarter than congress critters figuring out the loopholes in anything they enact.

    That is part of the game... (none / 0) (#149)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    And another part of the game is seeing if you can convince the regulator to put in language that will enable the loopholes.

    What I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    If McCain's remedy for the economy is to set up a commission and his crie de coeur is REFORM, ferreting out CORRUPTION on Wall Street etc, DEREGULATION AND FREE MARKET, how do you achieve REFORM without REGULATION?  

    I assume if McCain had his way this commission would look for the root causes and suggest remedial measures to control the current economy but also protect us in the future from this kind of volatility and instability.  I just do not see how you effectuate remedial measures  while deregulating.  Do you make them aspirational with no teeth and then just hope the banks and  companies do the honorable thing??      

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by s5 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    He mentioned the S&L crisis in the 80s, and he talked about it last night on Bloomberg too. I wonder if he's setting up to rehash Keating Five.

    Can someone help me? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    I also read (I can't remember where) that when the bank was seized, Penny Pritzker and her family owed the government almost half a billion dollars.

    I also read (I can't remember where) that Obama masticates his food and then swallows it.  And I heard he has a sister in Greenwich Village who's a thespian.  And that he's a muslim terrorist infiltrator who will appoint Osama bin Laden as Secretary of Health and Human Services!

    Not that I want to spread rumors or anything, but has anyone else "heard" any unsubstantiated information about Obama?

    Jeez Louise. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    It seems like there's a minor industry forming of people linking right-wing opinion pieces and trying to claim they represent journalism.  In this particular case, even though it's a right-wing opinion blog associated with the right-wing Sun Times I'm surprised they let such an unedited piece (just in terms of typos and duplicated paragraphs) on their site.

    The piece you linked:

    1. Does not substantiate in any way your claim that Pritzker is under consideration for any job at all in an Obama Administration, let alone head of Treasury.


    2. Is debunked in the first comment.


    Okay, so just to be clear. . . (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    I figured it was relevant.

    You're no longer claiming you read "somewhere" that Pritzker is under consideration to head the Treasury Department, is that correct?

    The Chicago Sun-Times is indeed a right wing newspaper.  Their news coverage may be fine, by their opinion material is almost all virulently conservative.  You linked to one of their political blogs, not to news.

    I did not call you any names.  If you feel I did, please feel free to report me (pointing, of course, to your original comment).

    And finally, the debunking of baseless rumors is never worthless.


    Actually (none / 0) (#199)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    the Sun-Times editorial page publicly announced about a year ago that they were going back to their liberal roots.

    Like Fox? (none / 0) (#204)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM EST
    Fair and balanced?

    You need only look at the piece linked to know that it's an anti-Obama opinion piece that does not, in fact, report what the commenter claims to have read.


    Well (none / 0) (#196)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    the qualification to be finance chair is the ability to raise a lot of money for the campaign.  That really doesn't have a lot to do with getting appointed Secretary of the Treasury.

    If you want (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by David in NY on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:33:03 PM EST
    an honest account of this business, you could have linked to the Business Week article in 9/2001 about it.  Seems the Pritzker's and a guy named Dworman, a buddy of the elder Pritzker generation, took over a failed S&L in about '89 named it Superior and had equal shares in it.  Penny was head of that bank only until 1994, well before its failure.  In general, thereafter Dworman and his people ran the bank, badly as it turned out, although the Pritzker's could be, and were, faulted for failure to oversee his operations.  Problem may have stemmed from Dworman being part of the older generation.  Anyway, Pritzker's paid $460 million in damages or penalties and a RICO lawsuit brought against them was dismissed outright, dismissal upheld on appeal.  

    I have read nothing that suggested that Penny Pritzker was in line for any role in the Obama administration.


    the (3.00 / 1) (#211)
    by sas on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:06:11 PM EST
    speech was very critical of mccain

    I keep waiting for obama to say what he will actually do instead

    then again i did not watch the entire speech

    News just in, McCain invented the Blackberry (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    according to Douglas Holtz Eakin, McCain economics advisor.

    I guess we will see if this gets the same play as Al Gore inventing the internet did 8 years ago.  A new test as to whether the media have really fallen out of love with John McCain.

    Impossible (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    We've already been told he doesn't know how to use a computer or email  ;)

    Travelling back to 1999 (none / 0) (#71)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    McCain in 1999

    The one thing that sustained me through those hellish years was the thought that some day I would come home and invent the Internet,'' Mr. McCain continued, straight-faced, in one of the evening's several tauntings of Mr. Gore's assertion that he created the Internet.

    No, no, no (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    McCain didn't invent the Blackberry, he invented blackberries.

    Did I mention he's old?


    I agree, this is the speech he must give every day (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM EST
    in every place.

    Of course, the usual "it's all bad for Obama" people here might disagree.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    Well, I got fired up and ready to go watching it.

    And I am not prone to that type of reaction.


    Finally! Yes it has been bad for (none / 0) (#47)
    by hairspray on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    Obama because he was unwilling to do what he just did, talk to people on their level.  Now maybe he will put some spine in his campaign and win this election.

    I read the Briggs Myers thing (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    at Slate really well.  It is likely he will always respond like this when there is a sort of crisis and McCain will be up at the crack dawn creating the Huckleberry out bailing wire and spit.  I'm not knocking bailing wire and spit completely, because truthfully we used to use that to make temporary pens when we had too many sows with piglets, so does John ;)

    This morning (none / 0) (#93)
    by IzikLA on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:03:03 PM EST
    I saw approximately 15 seconds of this speech before this post and I said the exact same thing to myself -- THIS is exactly how he wins and I am glad to see that he is fired up about this.  

    Don't know if.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    the economic hard times have anything to do with it, but a deputy tax receiver in my county got busted for allegedly selling a little reefer.  Link

    May be the first time I feel sorry for the taxman:)

    Deja Vu (none / 0) (#9)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    Some of the speech reminded me of this.

    Heh heh.

    Whew! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    Good place to do that too!

    If you want to win in CO that is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    Can't wait to see it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Ben Smith has Obama's quote on the lets do a commission stunt" from McCain
    Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here's the thing - this isn't 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it, John McCain won't, and that's the choice for the American people in this election.
    Oh and I hear McCain invented Blackberries.

    Is that going to be (none / 0) (#22)
    by indy in sc on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    the new Al Gore invented the internet?

    With the left, maybe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lahdee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:10:38 PM EST
    I certainly will not miss the change to mock him, but I don't see MSM giving it much play.

    Juxtaposed with McCain's (none / 0) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    speech - part of which I saw right before Obama's - it was still lacking the kind of anger and passion that I really think would send Obama right over the 50% mark if he went there on this issue.

    Agreed, but not anger -- (none / 0) (#131)
    by David in NY on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    passion would be great.  I'm looking for, say, Hubert Humphrey in the last two weeks of the campaign in '68, when he tore into Nixon and almost pulled it out.  Obama's got more time, but he's got to look like he really, really cares.  

    Full transcript... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    ...can be found here at TPM.

    Which you apparently found... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Addison on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    ...at the same time I did.

    Just posted it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    Just a terrific speech. Best I have seen him.

    I haven't even seen it yet (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    Just read it, and I feel inspired just by that.

    Definitely one of the more full-throated... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Addison on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    ...discussions of economic ideology from a proactive Democratic POV I've heard in a while. And I'm pretty surprised by the vigor with which he's going after GOP free market theories, not just limiting himself to vague Shrum populism talking points.

    Obviously this is a problem with most speeches, but as good as it is it's still quite a long "discussion" speech that will get exposure only if the media decides to turn it into a "watershed" or "important" moment like they did with his race speech. It needs a bit of distillation, I think, before the message effective nationally. I imagine they're on it.


    I liked the totality of it (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    I like the red meat, I liked the description of the problem, I liked the policy proposals.

    I liked the delivery.

    Watching the speech is different from reading it.

    Did you watch it? Best I have seen him on the economy and certainly approaching Clintonesque levels.


    Nope, I'll see it later tonight when I get home. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Addison on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    Video... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Addison on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    ...of (what appears to be) the stump version of the Golden, CO speech.



    That's the Grand Junction speech (none / 0) (#86)
    by rdandrea on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST

    I read lots of good sound bite stuff (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    I stopped counting after I hit three great ones.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Addison on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    ...good soundbite stuff in a discussion speech. My feeling is they need to distilled the soundbites out of it over the next few weeks. It'll be no problem because, as you noted, the substance is already there.

    Can't wait to see (none / 0) (#29)
    by indy in sc on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    the video.  Must have been good for you to be this excited.

    Oil's down to $92. (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:02:28 PM EST

    That's good.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    but gas went up .40 a gallon over the weekend by me.

    Temporary thing because of Ike, I assume.  Seeing what they are dealing with down in Texas, I wil refrain from b*tching, that would be bad form.  


    Nah, bad form (none / 0) (#34)
    by indy in sc on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    was when the gas stations in my neighborhood went up $.35 2 days before the storm even hit.  

    gas stations in my area (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    went from 3.69 to 4.75 before getting a new delivery of gas in. A few went to $6 and $7. I've often wondered why gas stations are allowed to increase the price of current supply in anticipation of having to pay a higher price for the NEXT shipment. They received subpoenas from the state's attorney general on Monday to show proof of what they paid for their supply since we now have an anti price gouging law here in NC and you aren't legally allowed to increase your profit margin because of a disaster.

    That should be interesting, (none / 0) (#132)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    please let us know what the AG finds.

    My understanding of the gas biz is that, say, the Chevron Corp, awards a Chevron retail franchise to JQ Public and JQ is required to buy all his gas from Chevron Corp, and the Chevron Corp charges each franchisee the maximum amount it thinks it can get away with.

    So it'll be interesting to see if the oil co's jacked up their wholesale price to the retailers, or if the retailers tried to price gouge.

    fwiw, when I was looking into buying a big oil retail franchise, most existing gas retailers that I saw were making around 5-15 cents/gal.


    they did say (none / 0) (#137)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    that the gas stations owners are certainly able to point the AG to the distributor as their defense if they can show that the distributor raised their price to them. Then the AG will go after the distributor.

    This should be interesting... (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:06:57 PM EST
    there was also discussion (none / 0) (#146)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    about how the different gas stations get their gas. Small independant stations have to buy their gas on the spot market and are more susceptible to price changes. Larger retailers usually have contracts for a certain price. And, becauuse the pieline from Texas feeds this area, the distributors were being rationed and then rationing their customers. The bigger customers with big contracts were getting the gas first. The ones that make me furious are the ones who change their price BEFORE receiving the new more expensice shipment.

    Right on. (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    What makes me furious is when oil goes up 30%, gas prices go up 30% or more, and when oil prices drop 30% gas prices only drop around 10%.

    Of course, that may just be my impression...


    Touche.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    I find it hard to blame the gas station owners though, they make so little on gas as it is...they need to be very proactive lest they end up holding the whole bag. Meanwhile, Exxon and the boys go swimming in the moneybin like Scrooge McDuck.  

    Look at the speech. Speculators in his (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    sights. Oil speculators, and also the ones who went into the business of shorting firms like Lehmann and then went public over and over with their criticisms so the bet might pay off, regardless of the soundness of the company. New regulations coming.

    Great speech (none / 0) (#23)
    by david mizner on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    With one caveat: Obama has largely abandoned the issue of trade with the exception of token references to tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

    No mention of NAFTA, CAFTA, or other trade deals. This is a huge political blunder, given the unpopularity of corporate "free" trade, especially in the industrial Midwest, and given the fact that he's running against a fanatical free trader.

    It shows that the Rubinites on his team are defeated the progressives.

    The smart guys won on the issue (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM EST
    you mean.

    hehehehe (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    Only for the moment (none / 0) (#40)
    by david mizner on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    does the "smart-set" have the upper hand.

    When it comes down to crunch time--with Obama needing to win Ohio, Michigan, and Penn--he'll run against NAFTA, as he and Hillary did during the primary. As Dems tend to do when they need to win, because economic populism is overwhelmingly popular.

    Oh, and earlier you and Bowers were wondering what's wrong with the netroots--you just demonstrated part of the problem: it's not progressive on economic issues.


    Heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    Well, you may be right and I won't object to a little political demogoguery where necessary.

    Tent, even you know... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    ...we cannot be in the business of importing everything and creating nothing.  

    From THE HISTORY OF MONEY by Jack Weatherford

    Rome produced little, and once it had looted the lands around it, the empire developed a growing imbalance of trade as it continued to import goods from Asia.  Unable to offer quality manufactured goods in return for these imported goods, Rome had to pay in gold and silver.  This created a drain of bullion, causing the emperor Tiberius to complain that "our wealth is transferred to foreign and even hostile nations."  In AD 77, Pliny the Elder complained that as much as 550 million sesterces a year went to India to pay for luxuries.  

    By far the highest expense of the Roman Empire arose from the financing of its huge and widely dispersed army."

    Sounds frighteningly familiar, no?

    As long as the corporate paradigm is pay as few people as you can as little as you can, then nothing will change, no matter how many agreements are implemented.  It is NOT a good thing, environmentally especially, to encourage things that could otherwise be made locally to be made thousands of miles away.    

    Please explain to me why any supposedly representative government should sign any agreement that sends hundreds of thousands of its citizens' jobs to another country?  The phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats" is nice, but has nothing to do with the current global economic paradigms.  It is simply trickle down economics repackaged with a fancy, more appealing box.  Trickles are still trickles, whether they move up or down.

    Local sustainability is the answer.


    Don't be so sure. Didn't you pick up his remark (none / 0) (#58)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    yesterday about the wickedness of sending jobs to CANADA?

    Hooah! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    See, this is how I can become unpi$$ed about that sexism stuff.  Just give me a candidate I can vote for.  I still have the Roe v. Wade issue with him though that could still cause me to lose some of this excitement.

    Change (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    from politico.  Seems the O campaign and America agree that McCain really isn't about change. Great timing on this speech and I cannot wait to see it.  IN this gallup poll below it cites the economy as BO's second show of support behind change.....

    12:24 p.m.: Game-time: Poll of the day
    By Alexander Burns

    Is this election still a contest between change and experience? You might not think so, given how aggressively McCain-Palin's been pushing its "maverick" slogan, but according to a new Gallup poll a plurality of McCain's support comes from voters who value the length of his career.

    Twenty-seven percent of McCain's support comes from voters who cite experience among their top concerns and eighteen percent comes from those most worried about national security. Just three percent favor him because of his rhetoric on change.

    Obama's results are also familiar numbers: a plurality, 37 percent, favor him because they "want change," with the second-most-cited reason for support being "his economic plan."

    Is the video (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM EST

    Small and doesn't look like you can embed it, but there it is.

    Or maybe this is yesterday. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    That's yesterday (none / 0) (#69)
    by rdandrea on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    Same link I posted above.

    I'll nose around the Denver media for today's speech at Colo School of Mines.


    Yesterday (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    But probably much the same speech I saw today.

    Watching it (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    Think his delivery today was better.

    Sounds like Obama has switched up (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    his speechwriting team.  This speech contains some great, great lines.  I liked this section:

    This was not the invisible hand of the market at work. These cycles of bubble and bust were symptoms of the ideology that my opponent is running to continue. John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers.

    It is the frequency of subtle turns of phrase like that ("running to continue") that make an attack so effective.  The entire framing rips McCain a new one.

    I hope this gets a lot of coverage tonight.

    Good. but... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    ...would it kill Obama to say something like, "How many times are we going to let the Republicans drive the economy into a ditch before we take the steering wheel out of their hands?  It's time they understood that voters aren't their crash test dummies--you're the ones in charge."

    Interesting that's the part I like least (none / 0) (#84)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    I liked the outline of Obama's approach to regultion and why he thinks his ideas are good.  I don't think there is enough evidence that bubble/bust cycles are caused by any particular ideology.  Good politics though.

    Please Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by kmblue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    shorter, sharper, stronger.

    Thank you.

    Because there is no (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    oversimplification for our economic woes, this is the speech he has to give today if you want the facts and the solutions.  His points are sound and solid and that is where this will get sharper, shorter, and stronger.  Try debating this speech in whole or parts.  That is what McCain faces now.

    Yes, yes, and yes (none / 0) (#135)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:57:58 PM EST
    I could not agree more strongly.

    The more directly an issue affects voters, the more important it is to squeeze it down into a hard, sharp rock and then pound the opponent with it.

    E.g. "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"


    Point of information (none / 0) (#140)
    by kmblue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    NY Times reports the speech was 40 minutes long.

    Good speech (none / 0) (#75)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    Nice analysis and specific solutions.  There is just one thing I would like to hear more about.

    Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost.

    What are the costs are that he is asking the country to bear?  I don't know that we can fund everything in the plan just by increasing the taxes on the wealthy (particularly if economic growth stalls).  The fact is that our share of the world economic pie is liable to get smaller.  That need not be a bad thing but it wil require adjustments in attitudes and expectations.

    I realize that such a discussion might not be good politics.

    My thoughts exactly... (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    Costs we must bear.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    does he really need to spell that out?

    Start consuming less and borrowing less.


    I think Obama was talking about (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    bearing the costs of increased spending by the Fed gvt - ie, borrowing more to do it and then bearing the costs of paying that increased debt down.

    And I think if we consume less, and thereby lessen the economy and the Fed tax base, then the country would have to borrow even more to support the increased Fed spending.

    Then again, I might be wrong on what he was saying...


    I see... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    I didn't think he was talking about increased taxes, I thought he was talking about personal sacrifice.  In the global economy, we should expect a decreased quality of life type of thing.

    Here's the entire quote: (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:14:37 PM EST
    This is the change we need - the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

    Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost - though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way.

    It immediately followed his promises to cut taxes, provide universal health care, tap natural nrg reserves, invest 150B in new nrg technologies, invest in re-tooling the auto industry, and overhaul our ed system starting with higher paid teachers.

    iow, increase fed gov spending.

    As he said: "I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost." Cost in a fed gov fiscal way, not a "personal sacrifice/decreased quality of life" kind of way.

    He'll need to figure out some way to pay for that increased spending, these days increased borrowing seems like the most politically expedient way of doing it.


    Poll sum up (none / 0) (#76)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:46:15 PM EST
    Probably redundant but the poll sum up is:

    Dkos and Hotline: Obama +4
    Gallup and Ras: McCain +1

    I think the McCain bounce is over (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    Obama needs to find a way to grab the former McCain leaners RIGHT NOW.

    It seems like the economy is how.


    Yup. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    1. The bounce is over.
    2. Economy is a "true event" that overides standard news cycle.
    3. Democratic brand still strong on the economy
    4. Obama's speech a great sign that he gets it.
    5. win? please?

    Correct ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    dropping or dipping into the undecided pool isn't good enough.  Obama has to pull the McCain leaners.

    I'm hopeful, but still bearish on Obama's ability to do this.

    We could well be in this undecided pool dance until election day.  Which wouldn't be a good thing for Obama.


    I want to see 51% (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    Because if Obama is up only 48/45 on election day, I would say that there's a good chance he'll lose in the end.

    Huh? n/t (none / 0) (#102)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    I don't trust the undecideds (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    to break anywhere close to evenly.

    I think you're (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    right. And he could possibly need 55% if there's a 5% bradley effect in those polls as some are saying.

    The Bradley Effect... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    Has basically been discounted as a factor in this and every other recent race by every single serious pollster/statistician I've read.  Suggesting a 5% drop at the polls due to it is just incredible.  

    Well, (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    you should take it up with the Dems. They are the ones that have been stating this in places like the Guardian UK.

    'The Dems' (none / 0) (#172)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Are who exactly?  

    I told you (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    what newspaper it was in.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    So what, you read one Democrat (Or was it two?  Maybe three?) quoted as saying something in a UK newspaper, and now you're going to go off claiming Obama may loose 5% of his polling numbers when people go to vote in November due to the Bradley effect...  And then you're going to attribute it to 'The Dems' as if this was some generally understood notion by my party.  

    One (or even three) politicians who may have been quoted in The Guardian have a whole lot less of an understanding of this issue than the scores of statisticians and pollsters that have basically been dismissing the Bradley effect as little more than a myth for twenty some odd years.  Nevermind all those that have looked at the primary results and shown it to not be in effect.  

    But of course, ignore that all, and keep right on telling us how concerned you are about The Bradley Effect.


    Doug Wilder (none / 0) (#179)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    Referencing his own race 19 years ago

    Assuming this is the article referred to...


    Yup ... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    that's really where we need to be.

    I doubt any poll numbers (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    will look like today's after this speech is consumed and digested.

    One speech. . . (none / 0) (#89)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    not enough to shift the poll numbers.  He needs to keep up this message, get it on TV, and defend against McCain's attempts to co opt it.

    Plus, the positive movement in the polls largely predates yesterday's economic meltdown.


    I think this speech contains the shift (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    And I'm not crazy about this candidate, but I have no doubt that he is going to keep on doing this on these issues and it is what needs to be done.

    All movement in the right direction. n/t (none / 0) (#87)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    Forgot one (none / 0) (#94)
    by ks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:03:03 PM EST
    Battleground came out today: MCain +4

    Old poll already (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    Only polled through the 11th.

    I have no idea why these folks hld their polls.

    It is out of date by the time they release it.


    That is strange... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    Good speech (none / 0) (#88)
    by ks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    It seems like the speech from yesterday but if BTD is right the delivery was much better and Obama sold it well.

    So how about we all encourage the media to... (none / 0) (#91)
    by wasabi on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    So how about we all encourage the media to provide air time for an "economy" speech by both McCain and Obama.

    a distillation (none / 0) (#92)
    by OldCity on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    is this...

    Deregulation in Banking and failure to regulate the sale of new financial instruments led to this crisis.

    What I find fascinating is that so many smart people (and, let's face it, lots of Republicans are smart, even though they disagree with us) continue to preach the gospel of trickle down.  They continue to insist that it works, despite all evidence to the contrary.  If you really think about it, they're far more like objectivists than conservatives.  

    I don't know who it was on Hannity's show that called him a fool for denying that the economy was in trouble, but boy, I'd to see more of that sort of behavior on those shows.        

    slogan...regulate now (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    or bail out later.

    Your choice. Vote Democratic.


    A good start... (none / 0) (#99)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    I did like his six points on the Wall Street/Housing Market issue.  And he even mentioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Of course the devil is in the details.  Will Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae be spun off as completely private enterprises?  If so, how will the government insure that their current mission be fulfilled - i.e. providing funds to lenders for housing?  And the notion that any entity that borrows from the Fed should be regulated by the Fed is obviously good but does this leave any institution out?  Are all players in Capital Market transactions included?  What he seems to be calling for is massive federal regulation of institutions.  And that is probably sensible but still will be unpalatable to many.  

    And while I think it makes a lot of sense to make sure that we have regulations that are appropriate in light of new and more complex financial instruments I wonder how he will address the problem of an Executive branch that chooses not to enforce the regulations that are already in existence?  And while more transparency and accountability are worthwhile, they don't mean a thing if the consumer (or regulator) doesn't understand what it is that they are seeing and if they do understand, there is nothing that they can do with their knowledge.  (By the way, SOX was supposed to bring more transparency and accountability, too.)

    But I do like the speech because it really does highlight the divergence between the Republican and the Democratic view of the role of government.  

    SOX is a disaster (none / 0) (#124)
    by OldCity on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    because it's not sensible.  Overreaction, or, more precisely, the treatment of outliers as trend is always bad.

    The current administration has eviscerated most regulatory agencies.  That's been to the detriment of the public good and to the unnatural enrichment of a very few.  Capital markets and regulation shouldn't be considered discrete.  You can reulate and provide consumer and investor protections without eliminating risk as a market function.  But, there should be tests; the mortgage backed security market provides ample illustration of the ramifications of allowing widespread commerce in untested and potentially not viable instruments.  


    SOX created a cottage industry... (none / 0) (#154)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    for SOX compliance consultants.  Not all of it was bad, it just seemed to add a lot of paperwork for little effect.

    I agree with your comments.  All the regulations in the world don't do much if there is no will to enforce them or to enforce them selectively.   And even if there is a will to enforce, the regulators have to have the capabilities to enforce.  I don't think that commercial lenders or even brokerage houses could have gotten so  out of control if the regulators like the SEC, the Fed and the Comptroller of the Currency had decided early on that some of the innovative products couldn't count as capital for example.  Financial regulators have a number of tools that they can use to put a halt to risky activities.  Adding more tools is ok but doesn't address the lack of will to use them (or the lack of understanding as to when to use them).  


    Bill probably wrote it for him (none / 0) (#104)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    Sorry, BTD, I don't care about what he has to say.  I don't believe he can pull any of it off and I'm not interested in replacing one corrupt party with another.  
    Hey! Didja hear?  Obama has a 3 point lead in NJ and a 5 point lead in NY.  

    New York and New Jersey. . . (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    are connected by a great bridge.  And now you can own shares in this bridge your very self!  Yes, I am authorized, for a limited time only offer shares in the George Washington Bridge!  A 25% share in the bridge is only $5,000 -- and, if you act now, I'm offering five for the price of four!

    heh (none / 0) (#115)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    Hey John McCain, Goldbery has some great (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    advice for you: start buying time in the New York market.

    Seriously, I want you on the local news every day. Spend $5M a week. We're counting on you to keep New York and New Jersey close!!!!!!


    McCain spending in NY (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    is like Obama spending money in Georgia . . . oh wait . . .

    I can't wait to see the final accounting for that (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    It was a disgusting waste of money that I simply can't fathom.

    And I thought I was cynical :) (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    I don't trust any politician anymore but saying things does carry an accountability factor.  Given the accountability that John McCain is willing to handover or the accountability that Obama is willing to handover today on the economy, I'm going with Obama.  He still has problems with women though in my opine and he had better start acting like a Democrat on "women's issues" instead of Republican lite or I may still not be able to find the energy to pull a lever for him in November.

    You may not agree with Goldberry, but (none / 0) (#141)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    Don't put it out of the realm of possibility that McCain could win here.  You forget, this is the city that gave you Rudy Guiliani, and if you remember, there was a black man running against him.  In addition, as has been noted on other threads, the rest of NY State is not as liberal as NYC.  I haven't seen any polls other than links to the ones posted here over the last few days.  We can probably count on the eggs hatching here in NY, but we still have to watch them.

    --just sayin....


    It may be closer than other years.... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    but if Obama doens't win NY I will eat my boxers.

    Take it to the bank...if the bank is still open:)


    bravo! (none / 0) (#113)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    Excellent stuff, cant wait to see it myself.

    Said in fewer words and less formally (none / 0) (#114)
    by esmense on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    this would have been the right counter-argument to make to the argument McCain for himself, and his approach to this crisis, yesterday:

    "John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it."

    In the above quote Obama is directly countering McCains claim that he can and will "reform" the financial markets AND directly addressing the most basic premise of his opponent's campaign -- that he is a "reformer."

    This Obama speech, like most of his speeches, is very good. But, in the daily back and forth of the campaign (that has the most impact on the most voters and will, along with the debates, be much more important to who wins the election than any speech), the Obama camp often fails to identifying the most important points in McCain's arguments to attack. They fail to recognize the difference between an attack (using McCain's out of context "fundamentals" quote to label him clueless, for instance) that mostly warms the hearts of partisans and an effective counter-argument that undermines or, hopefully, destroys the plausible appeals and most important arguments an opponent is making to the voters at large.

    Given my ideology, I think Obama has better arguments than McCain. That's why it worries me so much that, of the two candidates, he often seems to be the one who makes his arguments least effectively (although, of course, most eloquently).

    Saw a little of the speech between conference (none / 0) (#120)
    by vicndabx on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    calls, and I agree, this was waaaay better than what i've seen thus far.  This is the type of fire we need to see on issues, before he gets attacked.  Barnburners start fires, and someone may get burned, but he can't worry about pleasing everyone, i.e. all things to all people.  I hope this is the start of a trend.

    before he gets attacked (none / 0) (#125)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    is right. He tends to wait until everyone complains for a day or so before he comes out and gives the "speech" that calms down the complaints for a while. Maybe he will stick with it this time and get some media attention. Or, maybe the talking heads will all be talking about blackberries tonight instead.

    Glad Obama gave the speech (none / 0) (#121)
    by stefystef on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    it is spectacular like all his speeches yawn

    But the real question is, other than left-wing bloggers and wonks, is anyone actually listening?  And more important, will that translate into votes?  I'm looking at the polls, and while I don't give them too much credence, but Obama should be doing much better all things considered.

    When times get bad, people get scared.  And when people get scared, they go to what they know, even if it's bad.  The unknown is too scary for some people.

    I'm just saying...

    It's only (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    taken over a year but he's finally using some accomplishments and some goals here in this speech. This one is much better than the rest. Is this the reason they are now using the teleprompter for stump speeches?

    Holy Cow! (none / 0) (#159)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    Extremely grudging praise from Ga6thDem? Truly the tide has turned. Landslide in November for sure.

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    always given credit when it was due.

    However, after watching the video I have to tell you that it really lessens the message of the speech. Maybe you can watch the whole thing but I listened for a minute or two and it came off as another lecture. And Obama's head flipping from side to side was really distracting. Of course, this is better than the "confused professor shuffling papers act" that he's been doing.


    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    Hell hasn't frozen over, after all.

    thank goodness (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    I wasn't the only one who couldn't sit through the whole thing.  In politics, especially in a barn burning speech, a little can go a long, long way.  After the first 15 - 20 minutes, attention begins to wane as minds start to wander.

    Sent a link for the video to a friend of mine to watch -- she's on-the-fence and is one of those voters who could easily vote McCain -- and, after awhile, she responded with a Thank You followed by a request for a summary because "she has a life to get to, for Christ's sake!" and couldn't listen to the whole thing (two small children, mother-in-law staying with them and a home office which is more office than home with a phone ringing off the hook ... like most Americans)

    Again, he needs to shorten his message and fall out of love with the sound of his own voice.



    Video (none / 0) (#156)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    Part 1

    Part 2

    Note that the person who posted it erroneously called it a "press conference"; this is the speech.

    Sort of as scary as some of his (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    legal advisors :)  

    Want to name names? (none / 0) (#180)
    by David in NY on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    I know some of his legal colleagues if not "advisors," and they are sound, accomplished people.  What's your problem?

    He's very mushy on the abortion issue (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    saying he's pro-choice but anti-abortion, and then when you combine that with this we have a problem here.  One thing that I love about BTD is that he is not impressed with credentials because I'm not either.

    so was Kerry (none / 0) (#201)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    so was Bill Clinton when it came to campaigning.

    See (none / 0) (#203)
    by David in NY on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    I don't see that your link is such a problem.  It says:

    But after more than three decades, a decision to overrule Roe v. Wade, and to throw an established domain of human liberty into turmoil, would be anything but conservative. It is relevant here that many people, including McCain running mate Sarah Palin, believe that abortion is unacceptable even in cases of rape and incest, and there is little doubt that if Roe is overruled, some states will enact that belief into law.

                          *  *  *
    They [McCain & Palin] seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions. For example, they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action, to invalidate environmental regulations, to increase presidential power, and to reduce the separation of church and state. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains.

    This piece is surely on the legalistic side, but it recognizes that overturning Roe v. Wade would create "turmoil," even if it doesn't go into the terrible impact that would have on the lives of women and their families, and the importance of women being able to control their own bodies.  But it's written by a law professor, who was talking about legal doctrine, not social consequences.  I don't think it's so bad at all.


    Politically Pro Choice / Personally Anti Abortion (none / 0) (#206)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM EST
    is pretty common among politicians.

    I'll bet there are a fair number of voters who support Roe v. Wade who would so describe themselves.

    Mario Cuomo, as New York's governor, was a famous version of this kind of divided loyalties position--personally accepting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church but professionally a superlative champion for women's rights.

    I can see why Sunstein's essay could be seen as troubling for the concessions it makes on legal points about Roe, and I'm no lawyer so I can't speak to the strength of his case. But his ultimate point about precedents and the enduring tradition of the decision seems like advocacy to me:

    "Roe v. Wade has been established law for 35 years; the right to choose is now a part of our culture. A decision to overrule it would not only disrupt and polarize the nation; it would also threaten countless doctors, and pregnant women and girls, with jail sentences and criminal fines. As Ginsburg has also urged, Roe v. Wade is now best seen, not only as a case about privacy, but also as involving sex equality."


    Hmm (none / 0) (#163)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    I have not heard that rumor at all, it strikes me as very unlikely.

    The most commonly-rumored pick for a President Obama would be Tim Geithner, president of the New York Fed.  He would be a very well-qualified pick.  Other possibilities might be Larry Summers, Laura Tyson, maybe even Jon Corzine...

    hm (none / 0) (#174)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    McCain erosion continues. Gallup has him up by just 1.

    Reminds me a lot of his 2004 convention speech (none / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    It did well for him then, I hope it has the same effect on a wider audience now.

    Does Obama's speech (none / 0) (#197)
    by Prof G on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    now firmly cast the economic debate as Democratic "take care of the middle class" philosophy vs. Republican "free market" philosophy?  The emphasis on small-bore programmatic details strikes me as a throw-back to Bill Clinton.  Certainly, there are important advantages to this approach.  But it also departs from the (rather protean) "four more years of Bush" theme.  People associate Bush with (1) incompetence, (2) arrogant stubbornness and (3) high-handed departures from sensible conservatism, especially fiscal responsibility.  I have seen very little criticism of Bush on the basis of his attachment to free-market economic philosophy (which has been rather weak).  On this score Obama's political rhetoric seems logically tenuous.

    Above all, Obama's approach can be viewed as an attempt to appeal to middle-class independents by providing a menu of new programs.  

    Another point - I strongly agree with comments that Obama's speech placed much too much emphasis on criticizing McCain.  Aside from drowning out the better parts of the speech, the criticisms alternated between the vague and the esoteric, and they made Obama sound more negative than he needed to.


    "a throw-back to Bill Clinton" (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 03:39:47 PM EST
    Please DO throw me into that briar patch!

    I liked (none / 0) (#207)
    by chrisvee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    the speech a lot. It seems very focused and forceful. However, I'm never going to be a fan of his delivery so I found it more effective to read it. And I still think the speech is too long.  But I'm assuming it can be effectively edited into suitable soundbites and smaller segments that can be made more accessible to people.

    I never underestimate the value of having some speak directly to people rather than refer them to a website to read. Not everyone learns the same way and a politician has to learn to appeal to everyone.

    I would rather he used a match than a blow torch. (none / 0) (#208)
    by votus on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's delivery was far more colloquial.  Obama gives too much speech.  By contrast, McCain's few inanities get a better reception. Look at the headlines:  "Obama scoffs"--is that what this barn burner of a speech has developed, a scoff?  I don't see much here that is close to candidate Bill Clinton, who could shuck and jive with the same material or worse and still win a crowd.

    I fear Senator Obama's campaign is merely burning daylight.

    Best speech so far (none / 0) (#209)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    It's accessible, with lots of sound bites, and focuses on the audience (all of us voters), not himself.

    He still needs to edit out the big words because they get in the way of a clear, memorable message.

    But the content and the delivery are "there."

    More, more, more!

    This is the way to win.

    RE: is this the one where he brought his (none / 0) (#210)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
     his telepromtor to the rodeo? No one questions that obama can read a speech from a telepromtor and do a great job but get him talking and it drives you nuts with all the uh and uh and uh and if he says hold on there you are not giving me a chance I am going to scream.

    As someone once said it isn't what they say it is what they actaully do that is the measure of the man and there is still nothing in his 47 years that he has actually accomplished. So I understand why you want to believe but it makes no sense.