Paul Krugman: The Substance Thing

Paul Krugman evaluates the policy positions of the presidential candidates and what it tells us about them:

The Substance Thing, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.

In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.

So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?

Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy..., you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.

In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.

But didn’t Rudy Giuliani just announce a health care plan? No, he vaguely described a tax cut proposal... But he offered no specifics about how the plan would work, how much it would cost or how he would pay for it.

As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect has pointed out, in the speech announcing his “plan”... Mr. Giuliani never uttered the word “uninsured.” He did, however, repeatedly denounce “socialized medicine” or some variant thereof.

The entire G.O.P. field, then, fails the substance test.

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side... Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance...

Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive ... and ... she’s offered few specifics. ... In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said ... in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”

On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: “Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president.” But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know...

And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money ... there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?

All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It’s easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.

_________________________
Previous (8/3) column: Paul Krugman: A Test for Democrats
Next <8/10) column: Paul Krugman: Very Scary Things

Comments

[James Killus]

It may be that Mrs. Clinton feels that she has already got a track record on policy--that of Mr. Clinton. It may also be that she feels that there is an "ecological niche" in the campaign for someone who is vague on policy so that voters may project their own hopes upon her (God knows, she won't be able to shake those who project their fears onto her).

In any case, the real issue for the Democratic Party is whether governance or retribution should top the agenda. I'm sure Krugman would prefer governance, but I'm not sure if governance can come before the retribution. I was of a different opinion about a decade ago, but events on the ground have made me question that judgment.

[Bruce Wilder]

I see a lot of signs that Hillary Clinton is not-so-subtly signaling that she's ready to be the candidate of the plutocracy.

She's coy about withdrawing from Iraq. She makes clear that she's not ready to ditch the GWOT rhetorical scheme with her nuke the Pakis nonsense, she evades on national health care.

None of the other Democratic candidates, other than Biden (who is hopeless), would be willing to flank her. Given the state of the country's Media, it is, sadly, a prudent course.

I suspect that there's a lot of research to indicate that Hillary Clinton would be easy to hate. Her voice, alone, is a huge disability -- some very subtle manipulation of tone (I am referring literally to audio effects) by the networks could turn her into an object of hate.

I think that the powers-that-be recognize that a Democratic President is inevitable -- they will accept Mrs. Clinton, expecting her to betray them, but also expecting to have the ability to destroy her Presidency.

It is a very sad state of affairs.

[S Brennan]

I think Mr. Krugman is being terribly unfair here, shouldn't the wife of the former President be allowed to ascend the Presidency without all the usual trials that mere mortals endure?

However Mrs. Clinton beware, the wealthy have made you their queen for a day, perhaps to take the blame? When the last of the wine has been drunken, will they spare you? I think not. One term [perhaps], no coattails, no accomplishments.

[chris]

That column was awesome.

[00]

Mrs. Clinton has staked out the middle and made no specific promises. The money flows her way. No-one likes her, but she is the likely winner. Donate and hope.

[Jim in Chicago]

Governance vs. Retribution: There is a way to avoid this conflict. A South African style Truth and Reconcilliation Commission.

The American people have no idea of what has been done in their name for the last 7 years. Those who have committed crimes or any acts against the public interest, legal or not, should be offered a time-limited chance to come forward and clear their consciences in return for complete immunity from prosecution for whatever they confess to. Those who don't come forward should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law using the information gained from those who did. The American people will be much more likely to see and accept the need for the kinds of big changes we need if they understand just how much the function of our government has been perverted by the current administration.

[wjd123]

I was watching my third Republican Presidential Debate yesterday and found myself wondering why I enjoyed their debates so much more than the Democratic debates. Since I favor the Democrats I found this a bit alarming. Yet I had to be honest with myself the Democratic debates put me to sleep. Twice I tried to watch their last You-Tube debate and fell asleep both times.

I began to feel a little panicky, unless I was atypical, were the Democrats going to lose the next presidential election because they put voters to sleep?

I like politics, and I know that I have a high tolerance for the boring. For instance later in the day I decided to watch a western I had never seen before "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." I always liked the song, and John Wayne and Jimmy Stuart were staring in it. I'm sorry to say that I found it more boring than the Democratic debates. Yet, I didn't fall asleep.

My alarm grew. What were the Democratic candidates doing to lull me into a state of unconsciousness?

That question must have been germinating in the back of my mind, for later in the day I had an epiphany. Maybe that word is too strong. I had a partial epiphany, if there is such a thing. Yes, I was quite sure that at least part of the puzzle had been revealed to me: I simply find fiction more enjoyable than non fiction. There is just so much more you can do with it, fiction that is. I particularly liked the Republican story about how we could fix our infrastructure by lowering taxes.

It was at that same moment that I found hope for the Democrats. I remembered that lowering taxes in one form or another had become the recurring Republican theme for every problem we face as a nation except building up the military--why this was the one exception no Republican has ever explained.

In time, I told myself, without a new theme even fiction gets boring. Since I'm quite certain Republicans are never going to change this theme, perhaps there is hope for the Democrats after all if fiction loving voters tire of hearing the same solution to problems being repeated again and again.

[Jim in Chicago]

I was at the YearlyKos Presidential Forum. Hillary's line about not being influenced by the gobs of cash she is raising drew more laughs than boos. What she actually did was ask (she thought rhetorically) whether anyone really thinks campaign contributions could influence her to alter her positions. I was in the back of the room screaming "I do! I do!!!"

[esb]

"Hil" seems to be a person who would be comfortable in either the Democratic or Republican party (or any party anywhere for that matter).

She reminds me of a morning in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Oakland) back in the mid 1970s. The lead attorney for the moving party was late for some reason and one of the opposition gang rose to state something like...Judge, If necessary, I am sufficiently familiar with the petitioner's case to move to his table and begin on his behalf. Lots of laughter and an eye-roller from the bench.

Anyway, Hil and Bill (and George Walker Bush as well) believe not in facts and ideas but only in themselves.

And that is the fundamental disease of modern American politics...he (or she) who tells the best lies wins.

[evagrius]

"And that is the fundamental disease of modern American politics...he (or she) who tells the best lies wins."

No. Not the best lies...the best fantasy, the best dream.

[ed]

Krugmeister says, "...he simply lied about the content of his own proposals." But how does he know this for sure? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Mr. Bush was simply too ignorant--willfully or otherwise--to understand his handlers' proposals.

[Barry]

He should be held accountable, either way. I'm responsible for things that I say, or documents that I sign. I'm quite comfortable with holding the elites to the same standards.

[robertdfeinman]

Let's be realistic. If a true "progressive" was able to win the presidency he would find his ability to get programs enacted severely limited.

What we are going to get, regardless of who wins, is an administration which only make small adjustments to the status quo. Look at the Bush administration. Leave aside all the event-driven activity and look at legislation. There is only one new policy in place - the Medicare drug benefit. Everything else is just re-prioritizing existing policies.

This may have serious effects, but they are statistically marginal. If the number of poor goes from X% to X+5% has the direction of the country really changed in any substantive way?

There are two main forces driving the US society and each has so much momentum behind it that it will be impossible to effect real change. The first is the power of the military/police sector and the second is the power of the traditional energy sector.

Look at what the Dems have done so far: a modest change in the tax package for oil companies and some small incentives for alternate energy. This isn't much and the failure to do more is only partly because Bush is in power.

The recently passed FISA law is yet another example of who is running the show. The "security" forces want a free hand and there is no practical way to stop them.

Sorry, don't get your hopes up, who ever wins the changes that will follow will be modest at best. Even FDR was thwarted much of the time and he had huge popular support.

[ken melvin]

I'm with Ed. I don't someone with an agenda, or even a particular policy. I'm very interested in their philosophy and politics. But, they have to be intelligent, very intelligent, the job demands it, and even without the psychosis, GWB is just not up to the job. I think any of the top tier Dems are up to the task. This pleases me greatly. That the Repubs are so shallow amuses me.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/lines_of_causation.php

August 6, 2007

Lines of Causation
By Matthew Yglesias

Paul Krugman does an excellent job of expressing something I was mumbling incoherently while walking around Chicago the other day:

"And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?"

This is the right point to make about candidates and their donors. Worrying about whether or not contributions are corrupting people is rarely going to provide a definitive conclusion and doesn't necessarily tell you much about the merits of a proposal, either. The issue is that we should probably assume the people giving the money have some basic level of competence. The health care industry has, over the years, become a major financial backer of Clinton's. It seems they feel that she doesn't pose a huge threat to their interests. Maybe they're making a huge mistake but, as Krugman says, given that she hasn't committed herself to anything resembling a specific universal health care plan, we have to worry that they may be right.

[anne]

The idea that the President is not smart but is simply manipulated by all those smarter than smart Republicans around the President is absurdly self-contradictory. What has been striking from the beginning is just much alike the President and Administration and Congressional Republicans, and Supreme Court majority Republicans are. This President has been a conservative Republican's dream, save for the increasing fear of how unpopular the President has become as Republican policies have proven so destructive.

[MoreMoxie]

Clinton is an able politician in a political system with massive stasis that she knows about better than most. She is correct to say lobbyists represent real people--that is actually Political Science 101. As a diligent student her whole life, she adds to her experience-based realism simple precepts drawn from knowledge of and respect for our constitutional framework. The basics are that the people have a right to petition the government. Lobbyists both are, and represent, people. The issue is to separate corrupt use of money from the ordinary processes of petitioning the government, not to demand a stop to the complications of democratic input. I find that the left is joining the Republicans in demonizing Washington, the processes of government, people with lizard-skin shoes who drink chardonnay, and the unsettling facts about sausage-making. They are screaming in alarm because Clinton spoke a simple fact--reminds me of the technique of Sen. Smathers's spreading rumors for ignoramuses that a candidate's sister was a thespian and the candidate had habitually practiced celibacy. Clinton is the candidate for the adults (with benefits for future adults), of whom I hope we have enough.

[ed]

"The idea that the President is not smart but is simply manipulated by all those smarter than smart Republicans around the President is absurdly self-contradictory."

Um, really? Why? Is is not self-reinforcing and absurdly obvious? What in your post above backs up your initial sentence?

[MoreMoxie]

Replying to Ed, who wants to know why Anne would say, "The idea that the President is not smart but is simply manipulated by all those smarter than smart Republicans around the President is absurdly self-contradictory."

I agree the post is not terribly logical, but I suppose you could think that, if the premise is a smart person wouldn't do what Bush does, then it's not logical to think smarter people would have him do it, so he must be on about the same wave-length, smart wise, as his buddies. The working premise of the not-smart Bush idea is that smart evil people find stooges that they can sell to the American people. But maybe they would want someone about like them, who thinks about the way they think,so they could be sure they would keep agreeing. Maybe that's the idea of its being "self-contradictory." Maybe Bush and his cohort are like obese people, who catch it from each other, we are told.

[wjd123]

I think that the best way to end the influence of lobbyist is to beat them at there own game. For instance I belong to Common Cause that lobbies for honest and open government. Eliminate the untoward influence of deep pockets on government decision making and lobbing organizations will become a more democratic force.

[ken melvin]

Yeah, if we could get rid of the financing problem. Equal time makes a lot of sense. Instead of the money going to TV, TV should be providing the time, gratis. Obviously, the repubs believe the liberal/progressive ideas win on merits, thus the need for the skew to money where they think they can win.

[Bruce Wilder]

All good comments.

I would really like to see the country adopt universal health care. I see the current system as so costly and destructive that I don't want to quibble over details.

Politically, that means the utter destruction of the health insurance industry and a reduction in the prospective incomes of a lot health care providers and drug and equipment makers, etc., including doctors. They make up 16%+ of the national economy. It is one of the few growth sectors of the economy, and one where people still earn high incomes. That's a lot of people and a lot of potential economic anxiety.

Mrs. Clinton is in a tough spot. If she declares herself in favor of radical reform before the election, she creates an incentive for political entrepreneurs to fund opponents. But, of course, if she doesn't declare herself, none of us can have confidence in her committment, and she may have no "mandate". All of that goes double for members of Congress elected with her, to whom she would have to turn to support reform.

Any reform, I suspect, would have to be initiated in the first 100 days euphoria, when as 'luck' would have it, the new President will be pre-occupied extracting what little remains of the Army from Iraq.

[op]

" would really like to see the country adopt universal health care"

"Mrs. Clinton is in a tough spot"

prisoner of three complexes

military
health
and
daddy

oh bruce you're much too kind

and besides
if such a sad day should befall us
"luck"
will have very little to do
with mother clinton's actions

says...

"Eliminate the untoward influence of deep pockets
on government decision making
and lobbing organizations
will become a more democratic force "

hmmmm......

"all pockets were created equal"

"one pocket
one vote
no matter how deep it is "

while your at it
please please
repeal that reagan era monstrosity

the cruelty to shallow pockets act

[op]

"some very subtle manipulation of tone (I am referring literally to audio effects) by the networks could turn her into an object of hate."

recalling
the middle nixon's
gold medal flowering

or old nixon's glistening upper lip

the fabulous hashing of teddy in late 1979

duke's snoopy the tank commander
and
of course
dean's i have a scream

what's this to be ???

[James Killus]

Comparing our current circumstances to South Africa is a nicely romantic notion but fails a number of reality checks. We have no Nelson Mandella nor a Bishop Tutu. But more to the point, South African apartheid was a stark injustice that fell of its own weight, (albeit with some outside pressure) when even the leaders believed it no longer tenable. If there had been an ongoing political insurgency trying to re-establish the old regime, especially if there were a possibility of success, then the Reconcilliation Commission would be a Judas Goat.

I understand that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, I am just tired of always having to be on vigil against exactly the same people who screwed the pooch last time around. At the very least, I'd like a change of cast, and maybe a few edits to the script.

[op]

more moxie

note the boiler plate here:

"Clinton is an able politician in a political system with massive stasis that she knows about better than most.."

" She is correct to say lobbyists represent real people..."

"As a diligent student her whole life
she adds to her experience-based realism
simple precepts drawn from knowledge
of and respect for our constitutional framework"

who seriously writes
log length timbery
stuff like that
especially in a blog comment ???

"I find that the left
is joining the Republicans
in demonizing Washington"

u "find " ???

really ???

how surprising !!!!

moxafin

u read like a....well....
like a mother clinton pod-release

try mixing it up some
next time
you attempt to massage butts

more chippy moxie
out of more moxie
will yield more stealthy results

take that back to your higher ...ops

[im1dc]

Our Professor Krugman is correct--again--Hillary is not trust worthy in regard to the Health care Issue or anything else, imo.

It seems most of you have forgotten or never knew that Hillary's best girl friend at Yale Law went to work for a Large Private Health Care Insurance Corporation after graduation as a Corporate Litigation Attorney. She was making $400K a year when Hillary put together her Health Task Force.

Hillary took, used and implemented counsel from her corporate attorney big shot girl friend which squeezed providers but allowed Health Insurers to continue to make assured profits in Hillary Care.

This all came out and became public record after the failure of Hillary Care.

I hope this walk down memory lane will cause every American to WAKE UP to Hillary's reality. It surely does not include your typical or average American.

Hillary is a living breathing 'I'm better, smarter and more worthy than you' elitist of the worst sort who will defiantly force her plans down our throats given the opportunity and power of the Presidency. Reminds me of #43 with clevage.

Whoever said above that Hillary would be comfortable in either Party is quite correct.

She is only interested in Power, not people.

Stop this train wreck.

[James Killus]

Let me note one important factor in Hillary's favor, and that is that she terrifies the Right Wing. They have convinced themselves that she is the Wicked Witch of the Left, and they are sure that she is going to take their guns, money, and send in the Black Helicopters.

I have to respect that.

One can carp all day about how she's "really" in the hip pocket of the plutocracy etc., etc., when the fact is that no one has the foggiest idea, which is what Krugman is complaining about, now that I think about it.

So im1dc tries to scare us (or himself) about HC, by saying how she was in cahoots with the Insurance Companies the first time she went up against Big Health Care, and this is supposed to make me think that she will do exactly the same thing again, presumably because what, her plan the first time was to fail big time and be publicly humiliated, so she wants to do that again? Sure, that sounds just like Hillary, doesn't it? Or maybe people have just been conditioned by the last 7 years to expect politicians who are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

I'm thinking that Clinton has already been mugged in that dark alley, and maybe learned a lesson or two that Obama and Edwards have yet to learn. Wishful thinking? Possibly. But exactly what does anyone have here other than vague hope? Obama is trying to run as a "let's turn off the culture war" guy, and I can only hope that he's lying through his teeth, because the only way to unilaterally end a war is to surrender. For the same reason, I'm hoping that Edwards' position on gay marriage is a cynical ploy. All I know is that every Democratic candidate is better than every Republican candidate simply on the merits, to say nothing about the need to dismantle the Republican Party and regrow it from stem cells. Clinton is better than a psychotic gerbil and, at the moment, that's good enough for me.

[Patricia Shannon]

see
www.dailyhowler.com
which shows how the media slants the news against progressives and Democrats.

[ken melvin]

GWB has proven the good old boy/gal, I like him/her selection process invalid. We need to chose presidents on the basis of their philosophy and intellect.

[Bruce Wilder]

Today's Lesson in rank-order:

1. Clinton-Obama-Edwards
2. Dennis Kucinich
3. Mike Gravel
4. Psychotic gerbil
5. Giuliani-Romney-McCain
6. Brownback-Tancredo

Those playing at home may try to place Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mark . . .

I think perhaps, the plans a Presidential hopeful proposes is not the best predictor for how he or she might govern. Specifics change over time. Our core beliefs are a mirror to our soul. What a person holds near and dear varies little. For me, the values of an aspirant speak volumes.

I recall just before Condoleezza Rice secured the position of Secretary of State, the Los Angeles Times published a biographical essay. It seems while serving as Provost at Stanford University, the supreme diplomat, Rice was often heard to say, "You are either with me or against me."

Recently, former donors to the Bill Clinton campaign, disclosed the Hillary camp offered these same words when asking for funds.

While I struggle with hawkish remarks Barack Obama offered days ago, I think the discussion after the debate was revealing. I invite you to share your thoughts on Clinton, Obama; To Communicate or Not to Communicate?

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[op]

killius
where's your usual guile
"Wishful thinking?"
indeed
its not idle speculation
to review the clinton years
and expect much of the same
out of this
very inflexible power shrew

nixon IN DRAG

As only a Democrat could be

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Jim in Chicago . . .

I was also at the Yearly Kos Debate. I was seated directly in front. If you were able to hear what began as a solitary applause when Dennis Kucinich spoke, that was I. The person dressed all in white, raising her fingers in a sign of peace when the crowd rose to express their excitement or distress, was almost silent when Hillary spoke of lobbyist. I could not believe how well prepared she was for that moment.

I trusted she anxiously awaited this opportunity. Sadly, apparently, she swayed many. I heard a few Edwards supporters speak well of Hillary after that moment.

I was fascinated when I accidentally heard the tale of her breakout appearance. Had the crowd not reacted as they had on Thursday when they learned she would not appear, she would not have done that session. It seems whether it be with world leaders or citizen journalists, the Clinton campaign prefers to chose when, how, why, or if she will be available for discussion.

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[DJM]

"The more things change, the more they remain insane." This article seems relevant.
excerpts from;
The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent Published on Thursday, August 2, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/02/2933/

by Alan Nasser

In 1934 a special Congressional committee was appointed to conduct an investigation of a possible planned coup intended to topple the administration of president Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a government modelled on the policies of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
.......some of the foremost members of the economic elite..........[who] were appalled at Roosevelt’s willingness after 1933 to initiate economic policies that economists and businessmen considered dangerously Leftist departures from economic orthodoxy. Only a fascist-style government, they thought, could enforce the kind of economic “discipline” that would reverse the Great Depression and restore profits.
.....[FDR] had no interest in publicizing a plot that might constitute a public-relations victory for anti-capitalist politics. He therefore refused to out the plotters, and sought no punitive measures against them. In the end, class solidarity carried the day for Roosevelt. The Congressional committee cooperated by refusing to reveal the names of many of the key plotters.

Thus, fascist tendencies gestating deep within the culture of the U.S. ruling class were effectively left to develop unhindered by mass political mobilization.

Might this grisly episode have important implications for our understanding of the current political moment? One may be inclined to think so on the basis of the fact that one of the architects of the plot was one Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Bush, along with many other big businessmen, had maintained friendly relations in 1933 and 1934 with the new German government of Chancellor Adolph Hitler, and was designated to form for his class conspirators a working relationship with that government.

Today’s Democrats’ abdication of the role of opposition party is far more consequential than Roosevelt’s decision to permit our embryonic fascists to continue to gestate. The difference between FDR and his Republican antagonists was far greater than the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats today. Today’s Democrats have internalized and identified with the interests of those whom they should be actively mobilizing the population against. The Republocrats are now all of them heir to the fascist instincts inherent in the ruling elite. Republican elites manifest this in their policies as the party in power; Democratic elites evidence their unsavory class heritage by railing ritualistically against the Republicans even as they betray their fed-up constituencies by supporting the fundamental policies of their alleged “opponents”.

[Jim in Chicago]

I was NOT comparing our situation to South Africa's, I was suggesting that the same technique they used could also be applied to the problem of ferretting out all the wrongdoing of Bush and Cheney's minions.

As for Hillary frightening the Right Wing, the problem is she also ENERGIZES the right wing in ways that Obama and Edwards (and Gore should he get into the race) don't. Not only does she stand a chance of losing, which the other major Democratic candidates don't, she KILLS us in downballot races by bringing out all the mouth breathers while depressing the progressive base which, rightly, doesn't trust her.

[James Killus]

op, reviewing the Clinton years, I can only say, we should be so lucky. But in fact, much of what the left carps about in the Clinton years was a Republican Congress, conveniently forgotten, because it was the Democratic Party that lost Congress, not Clinton, and any perusal of the current Congress will tell you why and how.

As for "ENERGIZES the right wing in ways that Obama and Edwards (and Gore should he get into the race) don't," Jim in Chicago, first, boo effing hoo. That's exactly the sort of afraid-of-your-own-damn-shadow sentiment that just got a pack of Democratic Senators and Reprentatives to go along with a six-months-at-a-time eviceration of FISA. Let me know when y'all grow some stones, you know? And just incidentally, anybody who thinks that Obama isn't going to get jungle-drummed in attack ads and Edwards isn't going to be homophobed the same way is dreaming. Anybody who thinks that you can lull the "mouth breathers" to sleep is just asking to get mugged. These are authoritarians; the only thing that will keep them away from the polls is the certainty that they are going to lose, or a Republican candidate that they refuse to support out of spite, which amounts to the same thing. They vote when they're angry; I want them scared to death.