Does Barack Obama need more passion in talking economics?

Barack Obama and his aides will dispute that he isn't paying enough attention to the issue that long ago eclipsed Iraq as uppermost on voters' minds -- the economy.

The Obama folks can note that just today, he convened a session with voters in Albuquerque where, as framed by an advance campaign memo, he discussed equal pay and promoted his plan "to provide economic security for America’s working women."

Later, at a town hall meeting in the same city, The Times' Seema Mehta reports from the trail that Obama pressed his critique that working-class and middle-class Americans have suffered under President Bush’s administration -- while the wealthy have prospered -- and that the election of John McCain would merely continue that trend.

All well and good. But New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (who's also an economics professor at Princeton University) today gave voice to a rising worry among many hard-core Democrats who find it hard to believe their party's presumptive presidential nominee is not benefiting more from pervasive money and job worries in households throughout America.

Obama's problem, Krugman writes provocatively, "isn’t lack of specifics — it’s lack of passion. When it comes to the economy, Mr. Obama’s campaign seems oddly lethargic."

Indeed, we were struck by Obama's failure to hammer home talking points on the economy during his Saturday quizzing by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church. It would not have been easy -- Warren's focus was not on bread-and-butter matters.

But there were opportunities, as when the evangelical pastor asked him to explain why he wants to be president. Obama summed up by stressing his "ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial [and] regional lines to get people to work on some common-sense solutions to critical issues."

That was an effective message early in this oh-so-lengthy campaign; it was, in many ways, the core of Obama's appeal. But for many -- especially those feeling economically pinched -- it's probably become a stale note.

It was a famed "laser-like" focus on the economy that enabled the 1992 Democratic nominee whose resume was lacking on the foreign affairs front to capture the White House. So where is Bill Clinton, now that Obama and his strategists really could use some guidance on how to more effectively convey that they feel people's pocketbook pain?

Perhaps still sulking, even as he prepares for a spotlighted speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver next week. “Clearly his wounds are deeper than I thought,” one-time White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta says of his former boss in a Times of London article over the weekend.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Bloomberg News

Comments

[George Ghetia]

Sen. Obama needs Sen. Clinton -- at least to win my vote. By the way, I liked the Senator's answer to the "human rights" question. There are no easy answers, so I'm not troubled by listening to the argument and making up my own mind. Sen McCain's black and white, out of the chute answer to the same question made me want to puke.

[None of the Above 08]

Before adding passion to any speech on economics, BOTH candidates need to read an Econ 101 book.

Neither has shown any real understanding of economics.

Maybe they could hire Ron Paul for a few lessons? Or Mitt Romney?

Both of those men seem to understand how economics and markets work.

The American voters could learn something as well.

[Joe Economist]

People lack passion for a topic when they aren't interested in the topic, and Obama isn't interested because he knows he has nothing real to talk about.

[Not so bitter Pennsylvanian]

Obama has been talking about the Economy, its just the media seems to be focusing more on this idiotic back and forth. McCain's celebrity ad seems to be more important then, Obama talking to people in Ohio about new energy policies.

[wbgonne]

I really can't understand such sentiment. This election is about the future of the nation. We are now set on a course counterproductive militarism courses in foreign affairs. We are at the mercy of several hostile foreign powers because foreign oil is our economic lifeblood. We have neglected our infrastructure to the point that the country is almost literally falling apart. Our regulatory agencies are gutted and impotent. Because of our economically catastrophic reliance on foreign oil and our literally catastrophic blunder into Iraq, the country is immeasurably weaker: the dollar is so paltry Europeans come here for shopping sprees; Russia spits in our faces as Putin sits with our blithe president at the Olympics while his troops invade our democratic pet; we have the longest war in American history billed to a credit card; the people who attacked us on 9/11 are still free and alive and presumably planning to attack us again. Et cetera.

And John McCain supports all of those Bush policies.

And yet, you will not vote for Obama unless he selects Hilllary Clinton as his vice-president.

Does that really make any sense?

[rosalynneus]

Obama does not have any solutions to our nation's problems. He only has good public speaking skills and a lot of ambition and pride. He just wants to be the First President of the United States but won't do anythinh good for our nation. He is a very risky choice and we will pay the consequences if he gets elected. He is unpredictable!

[RadianChalant]

Clinton supporters....Barack Obama has a hard time accepting Hillary Clinton as his VP, mainly because of Bill Clinton. Bill was a President and will get in Barack's way. He did some serious harm to Hillary's campaign. Bill got angry, talked like a crazy person at times and even had his own agenda, working against Hillary. Bill wanted the spotlight. If Barack choses Hillary, which would be the best solution for the Democrats, there is Bill. In the White House, Bill Clinton will step on Barack's toes. Nothing will get done. Maybe Barack can include Hillary in his cabinet, that way Bill will have less influence. Okay......Barack for President.

[San Diego]

John McCain served more time as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam than Barack Obama has spent in the Senate. Did you notice in the Saddleback interview that Obama stated he would not have supported Justice Clarence Thomas because he did not have enough experience?! What a hypocrite! Obama is not fit to hold the Highest Office in the World - it's above his paygrade!

[Keith]

Obama just needs to get his economic message out. On the issues Obama is dominate over McCain which is why McCain is whining about things like popularity in order to distract from them.

[Wendy]

I'm supporting Obama because I want change. McCain supports Bush on every economic policy and we've all seen how hurtful those have been. Obama will renegotiate NAFTA in order to make it better benefit America. Obama will cut taxes for the bottom 99% of Americans instead of just the top 1% and corporations sending our jobs oversees.
Obama's health care plan cuts waste full spending by negoitating medicare drug costs reducing government spending by 30 Billion, it also reduces costs by 80 Billion by moving us onto a system with electronic record keeping. Obama's health care plan increases coverage, makes it more affordable and it saves us money. Compared to the Bush-McCain healthcare which increases taxes on us and increases costs. Who wouldn't want Obama?

[dave]

'it is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you.' - dick cheney

how is it that in a country of 300 million people you can't find two people - or at least one man or woman, who meets at least the minimal requirements for the office of president - to respect and abide by the constitution? and how is it that so many people actually prefer to waste their vote and punish themselves by electing to office people who they cannot overlook without lying to themselves, will lie them in the face with a smug brazen grin whenever they open their mouths? when lying, cheating, stealing, treason and corruption are the standards a majority of the people hold up to and applaud for, the candidates for the highest office, and deride all those qualified, honest and sincere, something is seriously wrong.
and it is a lame excuse to later blame censorship and propaganda by the corrupt corporate media - the people are still free to research on their own all information freely available, and make responsible decisions based on their best knowledge and conscience, not compromised by media and peer pressure, and regardless of war propaganda, and propaganda war etc.; not to do so is self depricating and ethically corrupt, and not worthy of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. the civil liberties the people do not value, they will no longer enjoy.

'it is easy to have liberty taken away from you, when you take it for granted.'
- RON PAUL (constitutional republican candidate for president)