This is a pro-regulatory stance. Obama is placing blame squarely on "practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices". That's the opposite of a free-market approach; a free-market approach would allow such practices.

Remember that Bill Clinton (not Congress under Bill -- Bill, by executive order) set the state for Enron by allowing accounting rules to be set up that allowed for things like Enron. Remember that deregulation is not solely a Bush-era phenomena, that Clinton set into motion quite a bit of deregulation.

The support that Obama is getting from that side of the table is based on an understanding that our system has become entirely too unbounded. We've dabbled with disasterous underregulation; we don't need to dabble with disasterous overregulation (not that I'm saying that Hillary Clinton is a vote in that direction).

However, Obama is in fact much better positioned to create new regulations and stabilize the system, because he is beholden to far fewer big-money donors and interests than is Clinton. His economic plan draws so much support from labor organizations because it focuses on improving labor conditions, wages, salaries, and trade agreements in labor-centric ways, and because he focuses on reregulation in ways that are actually likely to improve economic conditions.