Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Obama fails to gain any traction over McCain
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion Columnists
By rights, John McCain should be getting hammered on economics.
After all, McCain proposes continuing the policies of a president who's had a truly dismal economic record — job growth under the current administration has been the slowest in 60 years, even slower than job growth under the first President Bush. And the public blames the White House, giving Bush spectacularly low ratings on his handling of the economy.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that, according to associates, McCain still "dials up" Phil Gramm, the former senator who resigned as co-chairman of the campaign after calling America a "nation of whiners" and dismissing the country's economic woes as nothing more than a "mental recession." And Gramm is still considered a top pick for Treasury secretary.
So McCain would seem to offer a target a mile wide: a die-hard supporter of failed economic policies who takes his advice from people completely out of touch with the lives of working Americans.
But while polls continue to show that the public, by a large margin, trusts Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy, recent polling shows that Barack Obama has at best a small edge over McCain on the issue — four points in a recent Time magazine poll, and he is one point behind, according to Rasmussen Reports, which does automated polling. And Obama's failure to achieve a decisive edge on economic policy is central to his failure to open up a big lead in overall polling.
Why isn't the Obama campaign getting more traction on economic issues?
It's not the Republican offensive on offshore drilling. It's true that many Americans have apparently been misled by bogus claims about gas price relief. But as I've already pointed out, Democrats in general retain a large edge on economic issues.
Nor is there any valid basis for the complaints, highlighted in Sunday's Times, that Obama isn't offering enough policy specifics. Delve into the Obama campaign Web site and you'll find plenty of policy detail. And the campaign's ads reel off lots of specific policy proposals — too many, if you ask me.
No, the problem isn't lack of specifics — it's lack of passion. When it comes to the economy, Obama's campaign seems oddly lethargic.
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. 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.
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 Obama spoke cryptically in St. Petersburg about a "reckless few" who "game the system, as we've seen in this housing crisis" — I know what he meant, I think, but how many voters got it? — 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, 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 Obama would give him a landslide victory this year.
But it's up to him. If Obama can't find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.
— Paul Krugman writes for The New York Times.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 21, 2008 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think being President is above Obama's "pay grade".
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 21, 2008 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mc Cain admitted economics was his weak point. Obama hasn't used the issue to his advantage because he doesn't know economics either. Just another example of Obama being a lightweight with his 144 days in the Senate. Whoopee!
Posted by shaver_one on August 21, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, of course, we should elect someone who wants to continue the failed economic policies of the Bush/Cheney Regime. Afterall, McClone IS a member of the Keating Five.
I don't think so.
Posted by Formosa on August 21, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Krugman is an ideologue. His economic analysis is dated and uninfluential... except to those who share his Keynesian/Ideological beliefs.
One point breifly flashed over. The Clinton years. Not one party was in power. All democratic or all republican government will be another futile, corrupt attempt to please special interests.
Posted by nannyfo1 on August 21, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's telling that he points out how low Bush's approval ratings are without stating that congress' ratings are half that. There is plenty of blame to go around.
If I didn't already have enough reasons to not vote for Obama, his campaign would do the trick. Kerry/Edwards was the worst run campaign in the history of US politics... until this one. How on Earth could a media darling like Obama not bury an uninspiring candidate like McCain. Not only has Obama not opened up a large lead, he is now officially losing. As of this week he is losing by 5 points nationally.
I am not voting for McCain either, but at least the guy is not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 21, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All right, nanny!
shaver--as usual I don't understand your logic?
and then there's jw--a total waste.
Posted by Illyssa1 on August 21, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama is a liar..He doesnt know what he's doing..
people need to realize we are at war.. rather than being selfish about their taxes.
I dont think Obama would be able to handle the war we are in right now.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 21, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I seriously have my doubts about any of the candidates. We all know about Obama and McCain's shortcomings but even the third party candidates are a disgusting lot. Nader is a devout Communist and a shyster, the 60's Michael Moore; Cynthia McKinney is a lunatic who attacks police officers and hired the New Black Panthers for security; Bob Barr is an ACLU adviser, oh great let's advise America's bastion of Communism since 1919; Chuck Baldwin bumped his head when he support that fruitcake, Ron Paul, the bastion of 911 conspiracy freaks.
This election has been going on for nearly 2 years and although I don't expect a candidate to be perfect, I do expect more than what we've been given.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 21, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Barack Obama disgusts me more every day. He is a liar and a coward who supports killing babies born alive after a botched abortion. Abortions are disgusting enough but to support murdering children, which he does and a vote AGAINST the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, is a vote to murder children, plain and simple.
Posted by Scapegoat on August 21, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ask any immigrant to America from Eastern Europe their thoughts on Socialism. THEY HATE IT
Ask them their thoughts on Obama.
THEY HATE THE IDEA
Get it? Socialism/Obama S-U-C-K
Posted by Scapegoat on August 21, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama supports abortion rights. Thus Obama supports murdering babies jw, you lie! Grow a pea brain jw!
Posted by retired_chief on August 21, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
c'mon jw-you can't lay down after that.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 21, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw must also support murdering babies to lie like he does but what do you expect from a scumbag leg humper like jw. jw, you are just another leftist loser who spews crap on the internet and lies about being in the military. You don't have the guts to spew your filth in public so you regurgitate daily on the star's comments page.
Editor, I can change my ID and IP address faster than you can sensor me so you might as well leave this up here because I'm getting pretty sick of this idiot.
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 22, 2008 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nelson -- I'll second that. I'm sick of him too. He doesn't post to add anything intelligent. Just continues to play his stupid game. It's obvious he has no constructive intent -- ever....
Posted by nannyfo1 on August 22, 2008 at 1:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You guys really have got to give j-dub a break. When you brought up baby killing, abortion certainly meets that description, he couldn't find anything other than "right-wing nut job" in the copy-n-paste file that cassandra sent him. Apparently he felt that throwing out "Faux News" or "koolaid" was not appropriate in this context. One he had exhausted those three options, there just wasn't much left.
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 22, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nanny --- it's lucky for jw that he was born before Roe v Wade was in effect. Otherwise he wouldn't be here.
Posted by nannyfo1 on August 22, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
High-society, i will get on board with the "killing innocent Iraqi's" movement if that same movement will get on board against killing innocent babies. The most inflated number that I have heard out of Iraq is that, in 6 years, 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Even though that number is horribly inflated, let's assume it's true. That how many babies we abort every six months in an off year. Let me know which one you think is worse.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 22, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What innocent Iraqis? you mean the over 500,000 innocent Iraqis killed by Saddam? People thrown off buildings, tortured, thrown in wood chippers, gassed? Or do you refer to the fictitious "Lancette Report" which was bought and paid for by George Soros?
Posted by nelsonknows on August 22, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lancet not Lancett
Posted by dingo_designs on August 22, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
high_society;
I've been to Iraq twice in frontline combat in 2003 and 2005 with the 101st Airborne. After the initial invasion we elininated the enemy and that enemy wasn't native. We recovered boxes and boxes of documents and passports from every muslim country on the planet from those people we eliminated and I didn't witness a single proven Iraqi that attacked us. There were plenty of recovered I.E.D. made in Syria and Iran though. Maybe you should take a little trip and witness for yourself what's going on in Iraq because in my experience the people love us and are learning baseball and basketball and many Iraqis are watching ESPN for sports scores of their favorite American teams.
Posted by dingo_designs on August 22, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wasn't this article about the election? Hasn't this election gone on long enough? There are some things I like about McCain and some I don't but there's nothing I like about Obama other than we have the same color skin and that's no reason to votte for someone.
Posted by nannyfo1 on August 23, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
High_society, I am definitely not pro-war. I would hope that you are not pro-abortion. Certainly we can't be pro-abortion and anti-war at the same time, now can we?
Posted by nannyfo1 on August 25, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And you should read mine. I didn't say you were pro-abortion, just stated that I hoped you weren't. It is always tragic when someone believes that killing a baby is ok.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.