Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Don't say "the economy." Ask "Whose economy?"

That said, what Krugman said:

I was astonished at the flatness of the big economy speech he gave in St. Petersburg at the beginning of this month — a speech that was billed as the start of a new campaign focus on economic issues. Mr. Obama is a great orator, yet he began that speech with a litany of statistics that were probably meaningless to most listeners.

Worse yet, he seemed to go out of his way to avoid scoring political points. “Back in the 1990s,” he declared, “your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000.” Um, not quite: Real median household income didn’t rise $6,000 during “the 1990s,” it did so during the Clinton years*, after falling under the first Bush administration. Income hasn’t fallen $1,000 in “recent years,” it’s fallen under George Bush, with all of the decline taking place before 2005.

Er, yes. Jeebus, the guy's the putative** nominee, so you'd think he'd have the grace to give credit where credit is due -- and connect with voters who believe the Clintons deserve credit. But n-o-o-o-o-o-o.

Obama surrogates have shown a similar inclination to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by two Obama advisers offered another blizzard of statistics almost burying the key point — that most Americans would pay lower taxes under the Obama tax plan than under the McCain plan.

All this makes a stark contrast with the campaign of the last Democrat to make it to the White House, who had no trouble conveying passion over matters economic.

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 1992, a year in which economic conditions somewhat resembled those today, Bill Clinton denounced his opponent as someone “caught in the grip of a failed economic theory.” Where Mr. Obama spoke cryptically in St. Petersburg about a “reckless few” who “game the system, as we’ve seen in this housing crisis” [it's not a housing crisis, it's the credit crunch, and it's systemic, just ask my cab driver] — I know what he meant, I think, but how many voters got it? — Mr. Clinton declared that “those who play by the rules and keep the faith have gotten the shaft, and those who cut corners and cut deals have been rewarded.” That’s the kind of hard-hitting populism that’s been absent from the Obama campaign so far.

Of course, Mr. Obama hasn’t given his own acceptance speech yet. Al Gore found a new populist fervor in August 2000, and surged in the polls. A comparable surge by Mr. Obama would give him a landslide victory this year.

But it’s up to him. If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

Of course, for Obama to work up any populist passion on the economy would demand that he try to win back the Clinton voters his campaign already smeared as racists and threw under the bus (after insulting the women). So that will be a problem for him.

So I doubt it will happen.

But a man can dream!

NOTE * As the Obamacans, as apparently we may now call them, are fond of telling me: "Dude, the primaries are over!" It's OK to say nice things about the Clintons now!

NOTE ** Apparently, I can't say "presumptive," because that golfs to "presumptuous" and that's apparently racist. So I've started saying putative, in the hopes of no longer giving offense.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

The GOP will point out how he trashed that very legacy in PA (comparing it to Bush I). They'll also ask, "If the Clinton days were so great why did you refuse to pick Hillary as your VP?* Hell, why did you run against her in the first place?" And they'll agree with Obama's remarks that "President Clinton's not on the ballot." Besides, how does blaming Bush and the GOP or hailing that bastardly Clinton mesh with "new" politics and "post-partisanship?"

*This could be especially pointed since HRC was shown on video proudly touting a Clinton/Obama ticket after TX/OH, a ticket Obama cooly dismissed.

Submitted by gob on

1. Obama is the putative nominee

2. "putative" suggests "putain", a French expletive meaning "whore"

3. You said Obama is a whore. You're racist and sexist.

Policy not party!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

So you're calling Obama a commie?

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Submitted by lambert on

People are now playing Obama golf spontaneously.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Cindy's picture
Submitted by Cindy on

when my son was born and I wasn't married to his father. We wanted to give him is father's last name. It turns out you can give a baby any last name you want, except that if you want to give it last name of the person listed as father on the birth certificate and the parents aren't married the fathere has to sign a "Putative Father" form.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

You're saying that Obama is a golfer, just like Dubya!

DEM's picture
Submitted by DEM on
  • putative means supposed
  • supposed means imagined
  • imagined goes to imaginary
  • imaginary means illusory, shadowy

You just called Obama a SPOOK! You are a bad, bad person.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

And we all know fairy tales are racist

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

is taking precious column space to discuss BO's lack of oratory prowess. As much as I agree with him, it's too late for anything to change. He's been sending out "word fogs" (love it) since the campaign began, maybe before that.

OT, has anyone heard any statements from Hillary recently on the Georgia/Russia conflict? Or any other topic, for that matter? A disturbing silence has fallen over the past week or so.

When can we have Hillary back?

I love this job!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

who needs issues? (except for millions of American voters of course)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0... -- "...A confident Barack Obama raised an extraordinary $7.8 million Sunday at three California fundraisers, most of it in large checks to a Democratic Party committee.

“I will win. Don’t worry about that,” he said to the crowd of about 1,300 at his third event of the evening, according to the pool report.

He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
..."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601... --

"... It's ``hard to tell the difference'' between Rubin and Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the presentation says. Trumka's critique reflects the concern among organized-labor officials that Rubin and like- minded Democrats may win the behind-the-scenes battle to shape Obama's economic thinking. ..."