Obama Kickstarts GE With Fiery Populist Message

Hot damn. Obama seized the initiative today, delivering a barnstormer of an economic speech in Raleigh, NC as he kicks off a two week tour on the economy.

We all knew the economy would be a big deal this election, and it only makes sense for Democrats to push this as their major theme this year. Not only are Bush's policies to blame, John McCain has demonstrated weakness on this issue and, amazingly, hasn't outlined a compelling vision of his own in the past three months. But still, I wasn't prepared for how forcefully Obama was able to articulate this issue in his speech today.

Obama framed the economic situation in a way that was both populist and centrist:

We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history. This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.

George Bush called it the Ownership Society, but it's little more than a worn dogma that says we should give more to those at the top and hope that their good fortune trickles down to the hardworking many. For eight long years, our President sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs - trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative.

And for all of George Bush's professed faith in free markets, the markets have hardly been free - not when the gates of Washington are thrown open to high-priced lobbyists who rig the rules of the road and riddle our tax code with special interest favors and corporate loopholes. As a result of such special-interest driven policies and lax regulation, we haven't seen prosperity trickling down to Main Street. Instead, a housing crisis that could leave up to two million homeowners facing foreclosure has shaken confidence in the entire economy.

Obama then pivoted to hit McCain hard, painting him as a flip flopper, spelling out the choice between spending to rebuild America or rebuild Iraq, and tying McCain's policies to Exxon giveaways.

John McCain once said that he couldn't vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn't afford them. Well, nothing's changed about the war, but something's certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.

Think about that. At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous.

John Edwards was in the crowd, and Obama mentioned that he was "teaming up" with Elizabeth Edwards on health care. Most encouraging, though, was the outrage and emotion Obama brought to this issue, as well as how aggressively the Obama campaign is moving to lay claim to this ground. This was a pitch-perfect speech and a must-watch. I'll post the video when it's up.



Display:


That could be way more populist (none / 0)

by shifting the conversation away from they idea of 'free markets' in general.  All he is being critical of is the way Bush handled the 'free market', he is not criticizing the neoliberalism... can we please throw Goolsby et al under the bus?  Soon?


by linc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST

what would you have him advocate? (none / 0)

a command economy?


by JJE on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do Americans always (none / 0)

insist that the free market is the only way to go?  Its not.  Try a little embedded economics- with regulation over things that cannot possibly operate properly and fairly in a free market system.  FDR did it, I like what he did.


by linc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That could be way more populist (none / 0)

My perspective on this issue is a bit different, because I live in a country that is not free-market enough. Kleptocratic governmental bureaucracies aren't that much better than kleptomaniac corporations.

It's my belief that you can fight against corruption and for societal justice in both completely "free markets" and in socialdemocracies. If we check the Human Development index you see Norway at 2nd place, and Australia at 3rd. -- and yet in the Index of Economic Freedom we see that Norway is considered only a "moderately free" market, while Australia is labeled a completely free one.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

but this country has a great history of merging market economics skillfully with regulation- we need to get back to that and stop with all of this free market bs- its what got us and the world into a great deal of the environmental and social problems that we now face.


by linc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

err... I'll retract my later snark comment (none / 0)

I do agree. regulation is the only thing that preserves a free market!


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

preserves (none / 0)

a fair market.  The free market is a concept that rarely works unless you are bartering down at the local farmers market.  Free markets do not work for utilities or major services or healthcare or infrastructure or even food stuffs really (why the massive farm bills?).


by linc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That could be way more populist (none / 0)

So instead Obama should follow the clintons, and support their deregulation of the banking industries? The very policies which have created the mortgage crisis?


by venician on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those policies did not create any crisis (none / 0)

nice try though.  It was cheap money that created the mortgage crisis, completely a GWB and Greenspan invention.  


by linc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those policies did not create any crisis (none / 0)

no linc, it was cheap money being let to people who could not afford to borrow it and weren't vetted to even find out if they could. Had regualtions been in place banks would have been prevented from lending money to ANYONE who asked.


by venician on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill clinton's deregulation was aweful (none / 0)

but was almost solely specific to financial services industry consolidation- it also sucked the life out of the community reinvestment act programs, which was an awful move, but it probably had a net negative affect on on banks lending to people who couldn't afford to pay.  Credit standards are rule based and have largely been up to lenders to decide.    The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed on Bill Clinton.  The monopolistic consolidation of the financial services industry?  Sure.


by linc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you LIKE advanced liberalism? (none / 0)

seriously.


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I HOPE he can be more original (none / 0)

this this


by Lakrosse on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST

Re: I HOPE he can be more original (2.00 / 3)

So basically you found a speech 24 years ago that has a similar rhetoric.

And I'm guessing you could just as well have found a speech 50 years ago from Truman or someone that you could use to trash Cuomo for unoriginality.

And you could probably find another speech from 75 years ago, that you could use to trash Truman with, for the same reason.

On and on, all the way back to the epic of Gilgamesh, which after all in its opening verses also invites people to take a look at places they've not been:
"Go close to the Eanna Temple, the residence of Ishtar,
such as no later king or man ever equaled!
Go up on the wall of Uruk and walk around,
examine its foundation, inspect its brickwork thoroughly.
Is not (even the core of) the brick structure made of kiln-fired brick,
and did not the Seven Sages themselves lay out its plans?

Your point? That you can't respond to Obama, and therefore you accuse him (and every other politician) of stealing from the Epic of Gilgamesh, as if this was not about politics but about creative writing?

Yeah, you fail bigtime.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I HOPE he can be more original (2.00 / 1)

Psh, Gilgamesh stole all that from Enkidu.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.