Obama Camp Slams McCain for Economy Remarks

I think the applause on such lines is more out of relief that a leader recognizes and acknowledges the problems of the nation instead of just trying to pretend everything is going fine as President Bush and McCain tend to do.

Sent by David Stewart | 2:08 PM | 9-15-2008

David is exactly right. Folks cheered not because Obama is "triumphantly" proclaiming our problems, but rather he is honestly addressing them. McCain, by contrast, is pandering... come on John, is the economy in good shape? Are the fundamentals strong or threatened? (And what do you even mean by fundamentals? That's a fuzzy campaign terms that lets you *define* the "fundamentals" as "strong" even while the actually economy is in a mess.)

Sent by F. Seidl | 2:27 PM | 9-15-2008

David, well said. Only if we recognize and agree that there is a problem can it be fixed. That would be why everyone cheered. Some of us have been waiting for a president who is not afraid of hard truths.

Sent by carol Morris | 2:50 PM | 9-15-2008

What does a politician mean when they talk about the economy?

What is an economy?

An economy is a system by which actors within the system derive the resources they need, and want.

It seems to me that the measure of worthiness of any economic system is how well it supplies all of its actors with their needs and wants.

Now, here in America, we have an over-abundance. We actually have far too much. However this does not actually mean we have a good economy. Because you see we don't have a national economy, we a have a global one. Our economic system doesn't just dis-serve the third world, it actively abuses and exploits it. This is not a "healthy" economic system, because it does not get its actors the resources they need, and want.

So what does a politician (and the media) mean when it talks about the relative health of the economy? Only the profitability of corporations and the stock market. Which, is irrelevant as a measure of the viability of our economy.

Just some thoughts on the issue of economics.

Sent by Jody Sol | 2:56 PM | 9-15-2008

Evie, you make a good point... all too often, specifically since "Morning in America" Reagon made a sort of starry-eyed mixture of narcissism and optimism the Republican brand identity, the Democrats have been stuck in the unpleasant position of being the doomsayers and storm-crows, reminding the American people that no, not all is going well and there are problems. It was a truly brilliant move, because no one likes the bearer of bad news.

Who knows, maybe the people cheering Obama are finally proof that America is becoming a little more mature & is getting tired of empty platitudes without any real change.

Sent by Kasreyn | 3:15 PM | 9-15-2008

Absolutely, we are cheering Obama for his frankness, insight, intellect and his close connection to the threats we face daily.
We are at war and the economy is in danger, really, America. He's not kidding! Instead, we want to hear how to dress a moose. Shame on this country's selfish and childish Reaganistic view that as Americans, we are entitled to whatever it is we want. What an irresponsible dream, not to mention, an impossible one.

Sent by julie gillern | 3:51 PM | 9-15-2008

I love NPR listeners/readers. The commentary is so refreshing, rational, logical, and intelligent. No matter how bad the news gets, it's comforting to know where one can go for clarity and solidarity.

It's disturbing to me to see feedback from around the rest of the country and see that a great number of the interior states have a slim majority of people that buy into the nineteenth-century American West attitudes of frontierism, and are more concerned with the ability of a candidate to quickdraw some tough-talk, but are unimpressed with the ability of a candidate to address pertinent matters in the country and the world that can't be solved with an American drawl and clever, hometown-style rhetoric.

Sent by Andrew Banderas | 3:58 PM | 9-15-2008

I find it almost laughable, but more sad that NPR listeners (for the greater part) associate ignorance and racism to those that disagree with the Obama Nation. It was like that in the last 2 presidential elections. Even Obama himself exhibits that attitude..."people who are bitter and cling to religion and guns..."

The listeners here keep exhibiting that attitude while their candidates continue to lose elections.

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 4:13 PM | 9-15-2008

"Obama himself exhibits that attitude...'people who are bitter and cling to religion and guns...'"

To be fair the biggest political move from McCain was selecting Palin, a gun toting Christian crusader as his running mate. It does seem to have rallied the base, so Obama doesn't seem to have been far off.

Sent by David Stewart | 4:41 PM | 9-15-2008

Mike - Where in this chain of comments do you see anything about McCain supporters being racists? YOU are reading something into the comments that isn't there.

Sent by RG, Tampa, FL | 4:43 PM | 9-15-2008

If this country votes a republican in again it will get what it deserves - the republican mantra, fear, greed and slander. The rich get richer and so do the republicans on the back of the middle class.

Sent by demo | 5:40 PM | 9-15-2008

NO ONE is cheering our dead soldiers, our dead Constitution, our dead Economy OR our beyond-the-living Executive!

We're cheering on a leader who can recognize that the WORST of conditions is upon us and that he has the magnetisim to help lead us and INSPRIRE US TO LEAD ourselves out of this incredible mess that George Bush and his high-school thinking skill have gotten us into.

Cheering on our failure - GIVE ME A BREAK!!! We've been at war with terrorism now for LONGER THAN WE WERE WWI AND WWIII COMBINED - and we're now 'as unsafe and as threatened as at 9/11???" (so said Chertov last week).

What have they been doing the last seven years? Certainly 2 more Republican face-lifts in DC AINT' gonna solve the issue.

Sent by Kevin Caldwell | 5:59 PM | 9-15-2008

We are barking up the wrong tree. The real issue is that people in this country have voted twice for what has proven to be the most inmcompetent, un-american, clickish, deviant and sectarian administration this country has ever had. Three men and their sycophants and political allies- most republicans and a few democrats-have managed to destroy what our founding fathers and many leaders thereafter built. And they have done it using the opium of the masses, religion -actually pseudo-christianity-, laced with greed, power hunger, selfishness, and arrogance. And those values led this country to wage the most insane of all wars, where millions of dollars that we don't have, are wasted daily, while the rest of the country is left to fend for itself, with no direction, no oversight, no support and no government leadership. What is most sad and scary is that we still have so many people endorsing a presidential ticket composed of a religious lunatic and a stubborn, blind old man who has supported and been an integral part of the perverse and catastrophic administration of Rumsfelt-Cheney-Bush. (The Devil will make sure he spells their names right when they face him). The rest, as to who said what, when and for what purpose is totally irrelevant and immaterial.

Sent by Judy and Leonel Urdaneta. | 8:20 PM | 9-15-2008

Mike Cloghessy: NPR listerners are a pretty diverse lot. I think the independent, the moderate republican, the moderate democrat and the main street conservative listerners would take umbrage at your remarks. Your remarks remind me of repub and talk radio echo chamber talking points.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 9:26 PM | 9-15-2008

What if he struggled more than a week just to memorize stuff like "economy is fundamentally strong", we all know that he tried real hard to memorize that Iran is not Sunni, and failed. No surprise that he is completely clueless of the events of the week?

What if he thinks Secretary Paulson just bailed out two of his friends whose names are Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, the same way he thinks the offensive line of Packers is the defensive line of Steelers. So what's wrong with helping friends?

What if he remembers that Lehman Brothers have something to do with sport, the same way he remembers how many houses he has. So what the big deal if the Brothers go under?

What if it's beyond his capability to say things coherently? What if he is just simply out of touch.

But we need a leader who is not out of touch; we need a leader who shows his intelligence through his speeches. Senator McCain is not this leader.

Sent by Kim | 10:12 PM | 9-15-2008

RG...Wait until the election is over...If Obama loses, then America will by and large be labeled racist. Forget the fact that Obama is the least experienced presidential candidate we have had in over 100 years. And if you think he is for "CHANGE" why did he pick a running mate that has been in Washington longer than McCain?

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 1:16 AM | 9-16-2008

Mike, you're off the mark about the racism charge, and I think you're only repeating it to push people's buttons, as no one else on this board seems to think this is a predominantly a racial issue.

You're right about the ignorance, though. If we choose another Republican administration after the damage caused by the current administration, we will have earned the label ignorant.

Sent by Josh Wilson | 9:31 AM | 9-16-2008

Mike Cloghessy- I beg to differ. If Obama loses, then America will by and large be labeled dumb.

Sent by Jess | 9:57 AM | 9-16-2008

Why is no one talking about the NY Post article yesterday alledging that Obama tried to delay troop withdrawls until after the election? This according to the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Why is there nothing on the NPR website about this? Both campaigns have even commented on it. You can bet if John McCain were involved in something like this, it would be all over this website.

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 10:32 AM | 9-16-2008

Mike - we're already labeled racists. It's not a phony label, either. US still has major issues with race, Obama as candidate or not.
You have to be kidding about the "experience" issue. Has any candidate or president been less experienced than GWB?!? Are you kidding me? And don't pretend that GWB had experience by being governor of Texas. Like every other career his dad and dad's friends handed him - he was still just the boss's son, an empty suit and empty head sitting behind a big desk.
Also, if you reject Obama's call for change because of his VP pick, how can you support McCain's claim to be the candidate of/for change?

Sent by RG, Tampa, FL | 11:31 AM | 9-16-2008

RG...this election will NOT be about race but inexperience. Of course the media will turn that around and claim wholesale racism. Doesn't racism work both ways? It is just as racist to vote for someone because they are black as it is to vote against someone because they are black. BTW, GW still had more experience than Obama.

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 12:21 PM | 9-16-2008

When you say economy what are you measuring? There are many metrics. Which do you choose to make your point? Are there areas of improvement? Absolutely. Are there areas of resilience? Most certainly. I see America as unbelievably sound in the sense of withstanding many severe blows to the economy all during this administration, not all due to policy decisions from Bush and Co. The Internet bubble was not his making, neither are Fannie and Freddy nor 9/11. Yes the deregulation of the financials by Gramm is a negative. I'll suggest that if the fundamentals weren't sound then all these events would be the equivalent of a scorched earth. I'll pay attention to what particular adjustments each candidate is suggesting to improve the negative fudamental components.

Sent by robert | 6:45 PM | 9-16-2008

Hey Mike Cloghessy: Tell the female Palin voters that they're sexist. Or is that not part of your republican right wing talk radio talking points?
I do give you credit for using your whole name, if that is your name. Oh, and Obama got into schools and jobs on merit. Bush got into schools and businesses because of his parents and then performed poorly. An affirmative action rich kid. They call it "legacy" and "good" family.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 8:30 PM | 9-16-2008

Mike Fleissner...Did Barack Obama get through Occidental, Columbia and Harvard without any financial aid either through the university or from his family, or loans? None of which is merit based btw. Fact Check says he had 2 summer jobs. We are talking about 8 years worth of school. Perhaps you can provide the answer. If not then he is in the same boat as GW.

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 12:45 AM | 9-17-2008

Yeah right. Bush had loans. Just about everyone gets family or other aid. The point is that Obama got into good schools on merit. Bush got into good schools on legacies. Obama was an excellent student, becoming editor of the Harvard Law Review on merit, like many Supreme Court justices. Bush, by his own admission was a lousy student. When Bush screwed up at business, he got rescued by family and family cronies. They are not in the same boat.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 10:00 AM | 9-17-2008

Mike Fleissner....and nothing of Obama's achievements had anything to do with affirmative action? On his race? How did he afford Harvard? Was it strictly and only merit based scholarships, or did need-based financial aid enter the picture.

You assume experience in academia equals real world experience. You assume success in academics with success in all aspects of life. Where does Bill Gates (and his type) fit into your equation?

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 11:42 AM | 9-17-2008

MC: I suppose it's your assumption that Omama benefitted from affirmative action. It seems to me that republicans, democrats, independents, liberals, conservatives all believe that academic achievement is something to encourage. That's my assumption. Are we encouraging our children to work hard and study in school so that we can call them elitist if they succeed? And of course people succeed without a Harvard education and regularly without a college education at all. That's a typical right wing talk radio argument, to knock down a straw man argument that wasn't made.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 1:54 PM | 9-17-2008

MF: BTW Obama's dad went to graduate school at Harvard after he abandoned his family. It is not a strawman that I knock down. The attitude is palpable...the supporters of Obama look down their nose at anyone who disagrees or does not support Obama. Look at what has been written about Palin....they mock the fact that she graduated from a state school and mock her speech patterns. They even mock Alaska. And while McCain campaigns in Ohio, Obama goes to Hollywood and listens to Babs serenade his ego.

Sent by mptc | 3:34 PM | 9-17-2008

Sorry I don't buy it. Obama has tried to make the campaign about issues. I see most of the personal attacks and mockery coming from the right and I think it is a shame that McCain has reduced himself in this campaign. The most savage, untrue and unfair mockery has been coming out of talk radio for years. Michael Savage ridiculing autistic kids and their parents is just one example.
Hollywood and Alaska are fair game. Hollywood is self important but the Alaskan state of rugged individuals has been taking ridiculous amounts of federal pork since statehood. Palin was definitely in on the game. She was for the bridge to nowhere until she was against it.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 5:05 PM | 9-17-2008

Being for something and then changing your mind is not an issue. Look at Kerry and Kennedy and the "Big Dig". And they haven't given up on that. Obama was against offshore drilling and then (when he stuck his finger up into the political wind) decided it could be part of a compromise. As far as federal pork, that is a governor, congressman and senator's job. Would you elect a representative that did nothing and got nothing for your state or your district? No highway funds, no airport funds, no federal money of any kind? Be honest now.

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 6:16 PM | 9-17-2008

She's claiming to be a reformer and then lying about her record. The whole "earmark" thing is somewhat cynical. The idea behind earmarks is that a local congressman might know about the needs of the district better than a federal bureacrat on how to spend funds that are already appropriated. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Certainly there is the danger of cronysism and waste. But McCain has conflated earmarks with pork. Answer your own question. You would support McCain even though he does nothing for his district?

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 9:55 AM | 9-18-2008

Sure blame McCain for the economy. Of course it's his fault that the banks extended mortgages to people who othwise could not afford to keep it after the subsidised introductory period wore off. Of course everyone feels bad when people loose their homes. The problem comes when people think that the government should carry them again. I believe everyone deserves one chance only.
Furthermore, check this clash videos I found yesterday about the US Presidential candidates have talked taxes. Well, it's entitled Obama v. McCain on Taxes. Watch these statements - then vote in http://clashorama.com/index.php?id=194

Sent by Linda Winter | 3:51 PM | 9-18-2008

M.F. You did not answer the question...would you vote for a representative that did nothing and brought nothing to your state (senator) or district (representative)? If changing your mind is lying then we are all guilty. Ask Kerry and Kennedy if they still back the "Big Dig" and get back to me.

Sent by mptc | 4:54 PM | 9-18-2008

Palin is not saying she changed her mind. She says she opposed it from the start, which is a lie. Changing your mind is a good thing sometimes when confronted with facts. Too bad Bush wasn't capable of it. Of course representatives work for their districts. I never said anything to the contrary, but McCain and Palin are pretending to be big reformers when their record doesn't support the claim.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 9:30 PM | 9-18-2008

M.F. and Biden and Obama's (slim) record speak to change? They are already in Washington. What make you think they are going to change anything? BTW, show me the quote where she said she was against the bridge from the very beginning?

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 6:26 PM | 9-19-2008

She said over and over that she told Congress. Thanks but no thanks for the bridge to nowhere. Which is not true. Find it anywhere. I will not try to convince talk radio fans of anything. I will simply expose their tired nonsense.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 8:47 PM | 9-20-2008

Mike...and Obama campaigned on bringing the troops home immediately. Now after a NY Post article he admits to talking with Iraqi officials about wanting to delay troop withdrawals until after a new administration takes over. You remember his meeting with Iraqi officials earlier this summer when he was overseas running for President of the World? So he lied.

Obama said William Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood and accused the Republicans of guilt by association. According to a WSJ piece Obama not only knew Ayers he worked with him closely. It was "guilt by participation". So again Obama lied.

Should I keep going?

Sent by Mike Cloghessy | 3:27 PM | 9-24-2008