I am a political junkie and you are barking up the wrong tree. In January all the major (Republican though not Ron Paul perhaps) presidential candidates were laughing off any possibility of a strong down turn for the economy in the presidential debates and were mocking democrats for spreading doom and gloom. Then the flipping idiot Phil Gramm tells us we have a mental recession and we are a bunch of whiners. Until that remark exploded into McCain's face he said nobody knows more about the economy than Phil Gramm Fast forward to present day and we find out we are on the verge of a total economic collapse. So who is more out of touch here?
If the Dems controlled the White House, they'd have said the same thing about the economy. How old are you? How many elections have you observed? This stuff always happens. The point of this is how neither party (with a few exceptions) has a clue. Ron Paul is one of those exceptions. Obama has sold out to Fannie, labor unions and many others. Plus his level of economic literacy is shockingly bad. If he isn't reading a canned speech, this is quite obvious. He's nothing but a far-left populist who can't even manage a housing project in Chicago's southside without disastrous results. But again, the point of this isn't to push either party. You missed the point entirely.
I call bull. The last democratic president before Clinton was Carter. He went on national tv and told the truth about economy and other things and was perceived as weak subsequently (the "mailaise" speech) Clinton did not have to give any Malaise speeches because he presided over an economy that went through a techonlogical boom. Fact of the matter is, during presidential debates Republicans were pointing out how strong and resilient US economy is and that democrats are irresponsible for suggesting otherwise. It was not state of the union kind of thing where the first words always are "our union is strong" It is an outright lie to suggest that democrats are no better than republicans on economy. One of the very first things king george did when he got selected by the superme court was give tax to the wealthiest top 1 percent which immediately destroyed any (projected) surpluses. The initial justification for those BS taxcuts was not an issue of economic stimulus but that of "it is not fair for government to hold on to YOUR money" it was conveniently changed to economic stimulus after the downturn started and another set of tax cuts was implemented. Had Al Gore been president do you REALLY believe we would be in Iraq right now? Honestly. Do you think there is no difference in world view between someone who talked about global warming long before it became fashionable and a (failed) texas oilman? Douchebag Rush Limbaugh has the audacity to blame democrats for the economic downturn. Right, Lehman's bankruptcy is Nancy Pelosi's fault. I say now what I said earlier I believe Obama is smarter than McCain and that to me is what clinches it for Obama(won't matter anyway McCain will be president).
I suppose your evidence is that he has taken a lot of political contributions from them. Well that's damn poor evidence. Whatever his understanding of markets, and from his recent statements calling for close oversight of the bailout, it would seem that his understanding far eclipses that of McCain, who seems to me on the verge of senility. My lord, just consider McCain's selection of, now discredited, Phil Gramm as his chief economic adviser, a man who figured prominently in the genesis of the problems we now face. McCain's idiotic, and purely political, selection of Palin, who could well become our President, is further evidence of McCain's weak thinking. Do you really think Palin has more understanding of the markets than Obama? I made the mistake of thinking that McCain might be passable as a president. How wrong i was! He has now shown himself to be incapable of leading this country in any direction but down.