Reply #19: I think she meant, McCain said that the

[ErinBerin84]

fundamentals were strong during the Bush presidency, six months ago...as Gibbs said, when the question was action vs inaction. McCain supported a lot of Bush's economic policies, so that could be seen as "inaction" vs trying something different. Even when Romer says the fundamentals, at least she indicates that there is still a big mess, which McCain seemed kind of confused about at the time, but that it would evetually get better. Obama and his economic advisors are speaking off of the "now that the stimulus has passed, prospects are looking up that the economy will improve in time" perspective. Whatever. It's semantics, but I got the difference. Guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

Here is the thing. If McCain had said ALL along, during the campaign, that by fundamentals he meant "workers, technology, etc", then it might be different. But he didn't really clarify until he HAD to, when the mess was too apparent to dismiss, and THEN he claimed that he had meant that by fundamentals all along. I never believed that that was what he meant. Especially with Gramm as an advisor. Oh well, I don't really care that the McCains feel vindicated on their imaginary victories. We pawned them, they can take anything that makes them feel better about that at this point. We still won.