Paul Krugman: Lessons of 1992

There are lessons to be learned from Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and what happened after he was elected:

Lessons of 1992, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign... Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale...

Whatever hopes people ... had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried...

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?

Meanwhile,... Mr. Clinton ... did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

This turned out to be a disaster... Mr. Clinton didn’t deliver legislation to Congress until Nov. 20, 1993 — by which time the momentum from his electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time to organize against him.

The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run (something we’ve learned to appreciate...), but — as Mr. Obama correctly says — there was no change in the country’s fundamental trajectory.

So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats? First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s ... are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations...

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter. I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates —...an essential element of any workable plan...— doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable..., by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.

My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues ... and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

Comments

[turquoise]

There is a difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton claimed that he did not inhale. Obama is courageous enough to say that he did.

Voters like honesty.

Bill Clinton did not have the charisma that Obama seems to have.

History does not always repeat itself.

[calmo]

Absolutely turq, the press and media are putty in Obama's hands.
Clinton was just a flash in the pants and it is a miracle that the media did not Dean him before he became president.
I B disturbed by the tentative nature of this charisma cited here:Bill Clinton did not have the charisma that Obama seems to have. Such a courageous one as Obama surely has it and that old skirt chaser, well...those women just have such bad taste, yes?

[John]

The problem in 1992 was that Clinton won the election, and he wasn't supposed to win. That led the Republican Machine to march lock-step in rigid formation, and the media to echo whatever attacks on Clinton without verifying in any way.

If the Democratic nominee wins this Fall, he will be subject to all the worse, especially due to greater corporate media control. However, I have strong doubts that the Democratic candidate will win. Senators Obama and Clinton were the media front-runners for the good part of a year now. I get the feeling that they have been set up for a huge fall in the Fall.

They are both Senators, as was Senator Kerry. He got mocked for flip-flopping and being "nuanced" -- virtues in the traditional compromise setting of the Senate. When was the last time that a sitting Senator was elected President? Kennedy in 1960.

Of course, if the Republicans nominate Senator McCain (and either Obama or Clinton are nominated) that record will be broken -- by McCain if the media has its way.

[Ed Strong]

The South Carolina contest intensified the media preference for Obama over Clinton which was evident after his victory January 3 in the Iowa caucuses.

There was gloating from right-wing media pundits over the setback for the Clintons, and near-breathless adulation for Obama from more liberal commentators.

Thank goodness Paul Krugman hasn't been "deluded." His is almost a lone voice against the mainstream media's falling-in-love with Obama.

The lovefest stretches from progressive to reactionary. When both Maureen Dowd and Andrew Sullivan climb into the Obama bed, one can't help but be suspicious. What's going on here? Mass media hysteria?

[Bruce Wilder]

turq: "Voters like honesty."

I doubt that very much.

PK: "What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues . . ."

Excuse me, while I vomit. That's the kind of empty, meaningless political piety, which has made useless goo-goos out of Democrats for far too long. Democrats agree with the majority of the American People on almost all the issues; we don't need to talk about the issues. What Democrats need to talk about is what a bunch of greedy, corrupt lying bastard corporate whores, the Republicans are. In the politest terms, of course, because a civil discourse is oh so important.

Let's get real, here. The imponderables outweigh most other considerations, where the choice of President is concerned. I doubt that many of Mr. Bush's supporters wanted American hegemony fatally undermined. All the crap Bush spewed about a humble foreign policy, and compassionate conservatism did not hinder him in the least.

The simple truth is both Obama and Clinton, experienced and savvy politicians have been running to the Right of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and they have been doing so, because it is the low-risk strategy for actually getting elected.

Campaigns matter to governance, because, if you get elected, you get to govern. Beyond that, they mean very little. Campaign promises mean something, only if they help you get elected.

If a Democrat could get elected on a straight-forward progressive platform, someone would be running successfully on such a platform. Krugman does not regret that such is not the case any more than I do; the difference between Krugman is that I am not so naive as to blame the candidates for the shortcomings of the voters.

Obama has been able to increase voter turnout. For that reason alone, I would vote for him. Hell, I would vote for just because he doesn't say "nukular".

And, please, will somebody tell PK to shut up about mandates. No one cares.

I understand about insurance and adverse selection and I don't care. Most people do not have a clue about adverse selection, and they certainly do not care.

"Mandates" are not something, I would want to have to sell to the American people. It sounds terrible: the problem is you don't have health insurance, and the government's solution is to require you to buy it (with money you don't have, with time and information you don't have). And, if you don't buy health insurance, they will . . . what? punish you. So now you don't have health insurance, and the gov't is coming after you. It is a nightmare vision, and explaining all the byzantine programs to "help" with the cost doesn't help.

The truth is, if the Democratic Party and progressive politics was not in such bad shape, we would be proposing single-payor. We're only talking about mandates, because no one thinks we can get past the insurance lobby. This is the best we can do, and it is a sorry compromise with business interests.

If a salesman with Obama's skills feels he has to drop "mandates", fine with me.

If either Clinton and Obama get elected and propose a national health insurance scheme, quite frankly, I do not expect the plan to be all that coherent. All I really ask of their plan is two things: 1.) get it enacted, so the existing system can be destroyed (along with its lobby), and
2.) design it to fail forward, so that subsequent reforms take us toward single-payor.

Two things I can see really making a difference in 2009. One would be 62 Democratic Senators, led by Obama or Clinton as Majority Leader. The other would be comprehensive Media Reform. I don't hear any Democrat getting serious about either goal.

[ral]

Krugman states the the democrat candidate must talk about an agenda. Like it or not, the only candidate out there with an agenda is Ron Paul. All we've heard from the other candidates are generalities and trash talk.

It amazes me that Krugman is defending the Clintons, and writing about the importance of health care, at a time when our whole economy is headed for implosion. If Clinton had backed Arthur Leavitt in the mid 1990s, when Leavitt tried to decouple the corporate accoutants from the corporate auditors, we might not be in the present economic mess we are in. Instead, Clinton turned a blind eye as Phil Grahm and Joe Lieberman cut Leavitt's nuts off.

[hari]

Paul is right to be cautious about O'Bama and his charisma also because I don't believe he's politically capable of withstanding the onslaught of GOP attack ads... which will surely follow...

Today Sen.Kennedy is going to annoint O'Bama with his niece Carolyn - JFKs charisma! - in Beltway. I suspect other's will follow also from within the Senate to endorse him and not HRC.

This development will not only succeed in complicating the voting preference on Feb 5th, it may even become a tsunami in favour of Obama ...because his relative strength and charisma was demonstrated in SC.

For us who saw Adalai Stevenson suggest that Ike was too old and may even die in the WH, if elected, are now reminded of the proverbial curse Demos seem to have with their ability to mess up the democratic challenge to GOP.

Bill Clinton, in my considered judgement, has made it possible NOW to really derail HRC candidacy in the eyes of Feb 5th electorate - simply by stepping down from his high pedestal - finger pointing (reminds one of ML!).

Images make an impression - in an election - and this time it may be critical to GOP retaining the WH

[anne]

Policy matters, policy matters a whole lot, and I am tired of knowing that we have an Administrtation that has been wildly successful in forming and enacting radical conservative policy and ensuring that such policy will continue through the coming Presidency.

I listen to Barack Obama attack Social Security, present a health care insurance plan that will make universal health care insurance impossible to gain, pledge to increase the number of American soldiers by 100,000 at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, pledge to ring the Middle East with American soldiers while threatening Pakistan even as George Bush has been pushing to send American soldiers to Pakistan. However, I am told to be happy because we are finally all united.

[anne]

"Instead, Clinton turned a blind eye as Phil Graham and Joe Lieberman cut Levitt's ---- ---."

This is of course a lie and a sexist lie, because what is important is always to use sexist language in lying. Of course, horrid sexist language must always be used to show just who we are and how we think.

Bill Clinton always and completely supported Securities and Exchange chief, Arthur Levitt.

[gustav]

The only issue I have with Krugman's article is that he seems to be blaming the two campaigns for the negative tone of the race.

True, I suppose, as far as it goes, but I think far more blame should go to the media for feverishly ginning up controversy in this regard. Honestly, both campaigns have mostly tried to talk about issues, but the press just isn't interested. You could see the frustration on the questioners faces sunday morning as the candidates made their pitches--yes, yes, enough about healthcare, we wanna talk about race-baiting.

[save_the_rustbelts]

What I'm hearing from Clinton supporters in the last few days is the concern that if Bill cannot control himself he will sink Hillary's campaign.

Was Bill craftily setting the stage for future primaries or was he out of control? I'm not certain. Whaddaya think?

[bakho]

I think PK is correct that health care reform will have to hit the ground running. In 1993, the Dems allowed the GOP to sidetrack health care and bring up wedge issues like gays-in-military. If health care is to go forward, it will have to be job one and everything else held hostage until it passes.

Either Clinton, Edwards or Obama would be far better than Bush.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/why-doesnt-bush-get-economic-credit/

January 28, 2008

Why Doesn’t Bush Get Economic Credit?
By Paul Krugman

Today’s Tiimes asserts as fact: *

"Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq."

OK, I don’t want to make too big a deal of this, but although many people say this, it’s a theory, not a fact. And the evidence suggests that this theory is wrong.

On one side, the Bush economy, even during its good years, wasn’t all that great. I’ve given readers a lot of charts on this; here’s another, the rate of growth of nonfarm payroll employment.

[Chart]

Looking at this, which presidents, exactly, would the Bush economic climate be the envy of? Bush I, yes — but he had the stupid economy. Not Clinton, surely; and not Reagan. Even at its best, the Bush economy failed to deliver employment growth comparable to that under earlier presidents. And the Bush economy spent very little time at its best.

I can’t give you a nifty chart for the other piece of evidence, but I’ve looked at consumer confidence data from the last time we had a deeply unpopular war: the Vietnam years. And guess what: when the economy was strong, e.g. in 1968, consumers were confident even though everything else was falling apart. In fact, there was a period when nearly as many people thought the country was on the wrong track as do today. yet consumer confidence remained high. This suggests that yes, people are smart enough to tell the difference between a lousy foreign policy and a lousy economy — they don’t assert that the economy is worse than it is just because they’re unhappy about other things.

So please: don’t state as a fact that Iraq kept Bush from getting credit for a great economy. All the evidence says that it just ain’t so.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/washington/28bush.html

[bakho]

The SS reform debate has disappeared for the moment. Good. SS reform, if pushed ahead of health care could easily derail any progress toward health care reform. SS reform could split the Democratic Party far worse than NAFTA did. I can not imagine an additional 100000 troops because that would be economically unsustainable. What would we do with them? Then again, I could not imagine that Bush tax cuts could be enacted and sustained for 8 years, but they were.

[bakho]

The SS reform debate has disappeared for the moment. Good. SS reform, if pushed ahead of health care could easily derail any progress toward health care reform. SS reform could split the Democratic Party far worse than NAFTA did. I can not imagine an additional 100000 troops because that would be economically unsustainable. What would we do with them? Then again, I could not imagine that Bush tax cuts could be enacted and sustained for 8 years, but they were.

[anne]

There is however a problem that relates directly to Iraq and to a relatively weak economy since the initial budget of George Bush in 2002. We have reversed a budget surplus to a budget deficit, lowered taxes and massively increased military spending at the expense of social spending but the economy has been relatively weak all through. What should have been a highly expansionary fiscal policy, especially with low long term interest rates, has not been so, and the reason has to be that military spending has in no way strengthened the economy as social spending would have.

Similarly, this will continue to be the case in future. Unless we can undo the destructive wasting of hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, I have no expectations that there will be critical social program expansions.

[kharris]

Bruce makes me sad, though I find it hard to disagree with most of his points. However, on the point that campaign promises don't matter, I think the dynamic may be more complex. Certainly the awful, bureaucratic tangle that Hillary was talked into supporting by her egg-head advisors was wrong. We already have far simpler models in Medicare and VA benefits. But there was also the problem that the insurance industry got the better of Clinton in the PR war. That was a good trick, because there is plenty of evidence that people don't much care for the system we have. Something was wrong with Clinton's approach to selling health insurance reform. If it wasn't the lack of spade work during the campaign, as Bruce suggests, then what was it?

As to the "Bill runs wild" story, I think it mistakes one part of Clinton's personality for another. We are talking about a guy who was masterful in politics in his own career. It was his private life that was sometimes out of control. The press and Clinton detractors are transplanting defects from one part of his like into another. Do we really think the record shows that Bill is a loose cannon when it comes to politics? Do we really think that Hillary has so little control over him that he is working without a script? Negative campaigning works, generally speaking. Both Clinton's know that well. The question is, how best to use that knowledge. Let's see if Bill manages to pull a rabbit out of a hat in early February.

Turquoise,

Charisma is in the eye of the beholder, I think. You may not remember Clinton as charismatic, but that is just what lots of his supporters remember. The man left office with a tremendously high approval rating, even though many of his policy initiative had been thwarted by a hostile Congress, even though he had been impeached in the House, even though the press gleefully published and then dourly tut-tutted over every lie a highly organized and well-funded effort to discredit him could think up. What, other than charisma, do you think the guy had that made him so popular?

I think calmo has a better take. Our contrasting impressions of the two, now, are as much the result of Clinton having been bashed by the press for years, which Obama is still fresh on the shelf. Clinton had a touch with the common man, but the press has disdain for the common man, and for Clinton. The press likes Obama, for now, but the much of the public found Clinton to their liking through the end of his 8 years.

[save_the_rustbelt]

A few weeks ago Ezra Klein had a really good dissection of the Clinton heath plan and the political mistakes sunk the plan (overall he thought the plan itself was a good one).

Intersting dissection by a thoughtful liberal.

[anne]

What is important to understand is that Republicans had nothing to do with stopping the movement to a universal health care plan when Bill Clinton was President, because Republicans really, really want a universal health care plan, a single-payer plan actually, and if only there had been a Republican President there would have been universal health care already.

Republicans who have repeatedly made it impossible to protect the health of 3.8 million needy chiildren, only want a universal health care plan and if there were a Republican President, well, you know, the problem was Bill Clinton.

[anne]

Thought liberals, as opposed to liberals who are morons, but the thoughtful liberals know that were it not for Bill Clinton we would all be wallowing in a French sort of health care program. Even now, even this day, thoughtful liberals know that were there a Republican President that President would not be getting ready to veto health care protection for American Indians because Republicans care as much for the health of Indians as for the health of needy children. Thoughtful liberals know such things.

[Denis Drew]

Mandates are not a necessary part of Medicare-for-all. The only rationale I ever see for not going to Medicare-for-all is the opposition of insurance companies -- I can't believe our "leaders" are so-o-o vulnerable to being bought off, if they don't want to be.

Obama would be -- personally -- much less vulnerable to Republican ability to manufacture fake issues, etc., because he is not the PARANOID that Clinton is (was) -- in the serious pathological sense of the word. Anybody who makes a ridiculous statement that he smoked but did not inhale (because he is so-o-o unable to bear up under criticism) is a significant paranoid (a la Nixon and LBJ -- if not as bad as they) and has more trouble dealing with trash attacks because being more vulnerable to other's frames of reference he is less able to re-focus disccussion to his own frame.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/compassionate-conservatism/

January 28, 2008

Compassionate Conservatism
By Paul Krugman

Oy. * Why are political writers still unaware that Bush’s phrase “compassionate conservatism” wasn’t an acceptance of the Great Society, but rather a dog-whistle to the religious right? It comes from Marvin Olasky’s "The Tragedy of American Compassion." From the Publisher’s Weekly review:

"Compassion means tough love in which those who give must demand self-help from those who receive … Olasky adds a proviso that the giver too must be personally involved. He holds up the example of 19th-century charity workers, whose religious beliefs made them compassionate and willing to deal intimately with the poor … Olasky does not blame the system for poverty. He faults the poor, along with social workers back to Jane Addams and the founders of the settlement house movement."

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28weisberg.html

[anne]

"Obama would be -- personally -- much less vulnerable to Republican ability to manufacture fake issues, etc., because he is not the PARANOID that ------- is (was) -- in the serious pathological sense of the word.

This is hateful hate-filled lying slander, with no other prupose than to slander and lie hatefully.

[anne]

Requiring insurance, as has been repeatedly explained, is a necessary part of moving to universal health care. By healthier people deciding to go without health insurance, and buying insurance only when needed, there will be immediately increased insurance costs and these costs will be shifted to those who are insured. The point of insurance that is reasonably priced is to be able to spread the costs as broadly as possible.

[ken melvin]

The dems have had a third opponent since Ronnie, perhaps before, and this is beyond the beltway’s self appointed powers to anoint, so any winning dem will have to win in spite of the press. When you see the fatigue on the faces of Clinton, Obama and Edwards, think on George the Lesser and his handpicked audience and luxurious accommodations for the press.

The general campaign will not be about issues, never, not if the repubs and the press have their way. It will be about the character of the dem candidate. This has been so at least since McGovern. Whether Clinton or Obama, it will vicious because the repubs don’t have anyone of caliber, and they’ve not run on the real issues at hand since Nixon, if then.

In re working together, better luck smoking opium. We need an LBJ or George Mitchell in the Senate and a Tip or Sam in the House.

[ken melvin]

In re SC: Indeed interesting. South Carolina, Alabama, ... have no significance other delegate count SC gave Obama Mo; it also cast the specter of a black candidate. Bill's getting on some nerves, especially those of the jabbering class. Even the progressive blogs are avoiding the voting for Obama by repubs. Course no one's mentioning the dems voting for Mitt.

[ddt]

I think that mandated health-care insurance is insane. At that point, why not just socialize it? I'm sure the inefficiencies of government management would cost less than the profits creamed off by the insurance companies (especially once purchasing is mandatory), and thier complicity in allowing an obscene spiralling of healthcare costs (more expensive healthcare = higher premiums = more profit). I don't get it. Compared to other G8 countries, the American private-insurance system is absurdly inefficient. If ever there were a case of a no-brainer, it would be socializing healthcare.

[hari]

I suggest the comments so far are either balatantly avoiding the truth or fatally ill-informed about the type of support Obama is now lining up with Kennedy's and other's on the left of the party. In politics, dear friends, image counts a whole LOT more than substance in great American democracy.

The HRC surrogates can of course pull a victory on Feb 5th but their chances are not better than 50-50 at this point in time - tendency downwards!

Paul mission today is to prepare the supporters for a failed mission - if I see thru his logic.

[Yellow Dog]

The Clintons are doing Obama a big favor by campaigning hard against him. He has no experience w/ a tough campaign because he sailed into his Senate seat w/o credible opposition. If he can't stand up to the softballs being thrown by the Clintons (using his OWN words in most cases, e.g., his absurd praise for Reagan), then he surely can't survive as the Democratic nominee in November. PK is right. They will eat him for lunch!

I also agree that Obama's rhetoric is largely empty and that on those few occasions when the media and voters demand detail, his positions are substantially weaker than those of both Clinton and Edwards. Democrats have a serious shot at the Presidency this time. Why do we feel pressured to give it away to the other side?

[realist]

anne said

wasting billions on iraq

surely this should be

war,the industrial milatiry complex

[anne]

There will be no single-payer health insurance program for years at least. Even if Congress were to move to single-payer insurance, the actual movement away from private companies would take years to cushion administrative and personnel transitions. Allowing for a combination of private insurance and extended Medicare insurance, however, could be workable as long as every person was included. Medicare could offer a competitive insurance alternative that would contain the prices of private insurers.

[robertdfeinman]

Notice how the discussion has turned to one of the personalities, trust, experience, truthfulness,etc. of the candidates.

If the wonks here can so easily fall into the fan club mode why expect the less engaged to do otherwise?

We cannot know what a person will do when faced with an unprecedented challenge, we can only infer it from past behavior and our evaluation of their character. So all races become a version of a beauty pageant. It only depends upon your definition of "beauty".

Our strong president system of government makes glorifying the office holder a necessity for many. There is little understanding that there are other forces that are beyond the control of a single person, these include institutional inertia, congress, other countries and long-term trends involving population and resource supplies.

When the president fails to set the world spinning in the opposite direction we look for a fault in the individual rather than recognizing the limits of the office.

[ral]

"Bill Clinton always and completely supported Securities and Exchange Chief, Arthur Levitt"

No, Anne, "that is a lie, and a sexist lie", told by someone with jingoistic sexist support for the only female candidate.

Here is the truth, as told by Joseph Stiglitz:

"Pressure was put on Congress and the Administration. The Administration and the Congress put pressure on the FASB, and reform was killed. Arthur Leavitt, who was Chairman at the time of the Securities and Exchange Commission, views that as the most significant mistake of his career."

The head of the Administration Sitglitz references was Bill Clinton. Do you call that support for Leavitt? I stand by my post.

Looking at the volocity of posts by you, it appears that you find it important to control the dialogue. Please out yourself, and admit your support for Hillary, whether she is right or wrong.

[Barry]

"Bill Clinton did not have the charisma that Obama seems to have.

History does not always repeat itself."

Posted by: turquoise

Bullsh*t. Clinton was very charismatic, with approval ratings which put Ronald 'Morning in America' Reagan to shame. What happened was that the GOP hated his guts, and realized that they had excellent blocking power, with no responsibility. Meanwhile the MSM ranged from deliberately and dishonestly opposing him (WSJ, and every other right-wing rag, + the entire AM radio spectrum) to deliberately and dishonestly supporting those who opposed him (the NYT, and it's policy that allegations of pre-presidential misconduct be investigated).

[save_the_rustbelt]

Anne:

If you think Ezra Klein is incompetent, stupid or a liar tell him about it.

If you think the Clinton did a great job of managing the healthcare proposals that if fine say so.

Otherwise your comments have no value.

(And by the way, Hillary-care included those evil private insurance companies - gasp.)

[anne]

Realist offers a critical reminder:

George Bush has for months been moving to a formal agreement with Iraqi's government that will commit America to remaining in Iraq indefinitely; remaining in Iraq through the coming Presidency, no matter the President. The Administration has been expressly clear that the agreement will not be set before Congress for approval. I do not understand what this may mean, but the coming President is at least going to confront budget limits because of present Administration movements that will be a seriously constraining problem.

[calmo]

Well fall down and drop dead, twice if kharris (somewhat charismatic) has not opinedI think calmo has a better take. Dare I try to verify the authenticity of this post?...or possibly review the error of my ways to be located in my first post?
Why consult my advisers...who I now suspect may be just "egg-heads" (who knew?) [Why didn't they inform me?].

turq is instructive, as instructive as GWB (all capitals, no "w") [I'm so reformable!] (all hat no cattle) [See?] about the importance of the media and the height of this little fence (blogging esp at Misty) in containing that buffalo.
Truly, Bruce Wilder makes me sad and zlugs even sadder. The culmination of the Bush Administration is the trashing of the idea of public policy...will we see this rubbed in our faces: the Colbertization of CNN, because public policy development is only for losers who need handouts from their superior, fitter counterparties (formerly citizens...done in by sadness).

[anne]

"Instead, Clinton turned a blind eye as Phil Graham and Joe Lieberman cut Levitt's ---- ---."

This is a definitively ugly sexist comment, followed by a sexist comment.

Bill Clinton always and completely supported Securities and Exchange chief, Arthur Levitt. Levitt was nominated by the President and has never criticized Clinton for interference with SEC affairs of for lack of support. The SEC is as the Federal Reserve an autonomous government agency.

[anne]

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is, by the way, a private, non-profit institution whose members discuss and develop accounting standards.

[Paul]

Clinton should have take a lesson from the Chavez book. Diverted all revenues to the citizens. Imprisoning opposition figures. Special prosecution of the Bush I administration. Trying Reagan for war crimes in South America. Crackdowns on white collar crime and the dismantling of Fox News and imprisonment of Murdock. He did not and now we're in an unwinnable quagmire costing trillions. Thanks Bill. Oh, and Barack, you'd better get some concentration camps built right after the election and fill them up, or you'll find the same thing happens to you.

[Jay]

Paul,

Would we have gotten the milk lines with all of that?

[Cynthia]

Because it's far more damaging to be accused of racism than sexism, the GOP (and the MSM) are less likely to engage in Obama bashing than Hillary bashing. So in this respect, Obama has a clear advantage over Hillary!

[ral]

Anne, you are so self-rightiously PC. Is this politically correct?

"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."

Maybe your answer should be, "I can't recall. I don't remember."

How did Hillary turn $1,000 into $100,000 almost overnight?

And now these narcissists are lying about Obama. Hillary has become Rove in drag (Oh, no, was that sexist?).

How could you possibly want eight more years of this pathological couple? Are you old enough to have seen "Who's afraid of Virginia Wolf"? Isn't eight years of dub-ya more than enough?

[anne]

There are strange people who deal in prejudice for the sake of prejudice, for the sake of fostering prejudice. The more prejudice, the better evidently; the more prejudiced imagery, the better. The need is to show disdain for others. But, really the point of continual prejudice is intimidation.

[donna]

I don't care which national health care program we model ours after, but we better do it soon. It's just groundhog day all over again until we do. Same with a real alternative energy program -- until we get off the oil teat we're pretty much screwed. And for goodness sakes, get us some decent mass transit in this country and stop the sprawlconomy!

Then maybe we can decided what we actually still can produce and get it out there.

These are the issues that face this country. If we could accept those things and actually discuss them, instead of someone's haircut or who is bashing who the worst and wah wah, we might have a chance at serious poltical debate in this country again.

Wake up, America.

[Cyrille]

Joh,: "When was the last time that a sitting Senator was elected President? "

Kerry, in 2004.
OK, he did not make it to the White House, but that's not due to the actual election. Rather to the massive fraud that has become so standard.

[Cynthia]

Donna, I second your comments 100%!

[NLS]

Obama is not Bill Clinton.

Obama called the war as bullshit from the beginning. If that's not good judgment, I've never seen it.

Why do people forget about that?

[ddt]

"until we get off the oil ---- we're pretty much screwed."

Vicious lying sexism!

[Callahan]

If Obama ain't our man, then who is?

I'm hoping that Caroline is right.

[anne]

Agreed, Donna and Cynthia.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "I listen to Barack Obama . . . pledge to increase the number of American soldiers by 100,000 at a cost of tens of billions of dollars"

bakho: "I can not imagine an additional 100000 troops because that would be economically unsustainable."

I think you should listen more carefully. I think Obama is very clever. Increasing the number of uninformed personnel could be a means of substantially cutting Pentagon spending. Republican policy has been to transfer a lot of logistical work and even "security work" into private hands (hands, which are also Republican donors), inflating military costs. We are actually at a point, where more uniforms able to take back some of this work would reduce Pentagon budgets. And, politically, it is unassailable.

This is where knowledge of public policy really matters -- knowing the relation of the bumpersticker to the practical reality, and using that knowledge to get agreement on the bumpersticker (bigger Army) while also winning on good public policy (more efficient Pentagon).

Personally, I think raising the cap on FICA taxes actually strengthens Social Security, both financially and in terms of political program (Repubicans constantly press toward making SS need-based, and the now-low FICA cap was a step in that direction, a way to undermine SS).

calmo: "The culmination of the Bush Administration is the trashing of the idea of public policy...will we see this rubbed in our faces: the Colbertization of CNN"

I guess I am too literal. I thought the Bush Administration was the culmination of a 40-year Republican movement to trash the idea of public policy and Colbert was satirizing FOX talking heads, while CNN was preoccupied with the national importance of a blonde woman lost in Aruba. When Gingrich came in on the tsunami of enthusiasm with Ira Magaziner's consumate public policy wonkery, and abolished the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, I thought that a foretelling in the Great Plot. Oh, well.

Denis Drew: "Obama would be -- personally -- much less vulnerable . . . Anybody who makes a ridiculous statement that he smoked but did not inhale (because he is so-o-o unable to bear up under criticism) . . . has more trouble dealing with trash attacks because being more vulnerable to other's frames of reference he is less able to re-focus disccussion to his own frame."

I think this is true. Bill Clinton's personality did make him vulnerable, and the compulsive "didn't inhale" line is a good example of how his great political acumen never quite mastered his own neurotic compulsion; lying to a Grand Jury about a blowjob was just the same personality quirk in another context. Worse, really, was the political forebearance that kept Whitewater simmering for six long years, and that forebearance may of a psychological piece with the compulsion to lie, when it is not necessary.

Hillary doesn't share his personality, and I doubt that she could be attacked successfully in the way that Bill could. Republicans, on the other hand, will attack with the same enthusiasm the n--- or the b---. As anne says, it is always about the joy of demeaning.

rdf: "There is little understanding that there are other forces that are beyond the control of a single person, these include institutional inertia, congress, other countries and long-term trends involving population and resource supplies.

"When the president fails to set the world spinning in the opposite direction we look for a fault in the individual rather than recognizing the limits of the office."

We've just witnessed an idiot President set the world spinning in an opposite and unfortunate direction -- what are we to make of that? That presidenting is hard work?

The Office of President is, potentially, very, very powerful. And, the skills necessary operate the machinery of government from that office are mysterious, but not unrelated to character and personality and charisma.

A frank assessment of George W. Bush's character in 2000 would have been all the information a voter really needed. Who, other than Justice Scalia, thought it was a good idea to put a lazy, ignorant, low-achieving, inarticulate narcissist into the White House?

There are certainly imponderables at work, when choosing among such admirable figures as Barack and Hillary and John Edwards. (Or, Governor Richardson or Senator Dodd, for that matter -- I don't think Senator Biden's character recommended him, nor, truth-to-tell, Dennis's.)

It is not the necessary preoccupation with character that has gotten the country's electoral process into trouble. It is the substitution of resentment for admiration.

The Republicans, since Nixon, have relied upon and mastered the politics of resentment, with no effective antidote from the Democrats. It is resentment that trashes the genuine war hero, and embraces the draft-dodging coward. It is resentment that makes genuine achievement a handicap ("invented the internet"). It is resentment that loves a fake. (Bush the Rancher -- the guy you'd like to have a beer with -- like drinking with an alcoholic is oh so much fun!)

[robertdfeinman]

BW:
I take your point about resentment. I just posted a diary on dailykos where I claimed that dislike of one Dem candidate over another was only enabling the GOP. A few people got my point, but many saw the proper names in the diary and then preceded to latch on to these and prove my point.

However, has the past seven years been the Bush presidency or the "Bush" presidency? There have been claims of other presidents being out to lunch (Eisenhower was a favorite), but I don't think we've seen such a naked example since before the great depression.

Did Bush enable the policies or did the neo-con permanent government pick a figurehead? As a figurehead he serves the purpose I alluded to, voters get to project their hopes, expectations or whatever onto him. This enabled the GOP to win elections and then to do whatever they intended without any regard for the choice of the public (including his supporters). Now the conservatives are claiming they were duped. Whose fault is that?

Bush didn't put DeLay and Gingrich in office. He didn't stack the judiciary. That people still give this figurehead credit for things is, I think, an example of what I'm talking about. He's not superman, or a super villain just someone whose general feelings are in tune with those running the show. He couldn't have done it without the infrastructure having been already in place.

Notice that Clinton is now being blamed for not having done enough, even though he faced this same infrastructure. Hero worship turns to resentment whenever it is revealed that pols are people.

[Fred]

Bruce hit the nail on the head as far as health care reform goes. Build a system that is designed to fail, but to fail forwards towards single-payor.

I would suggest something along the lines of the following. The current system for those who currently have insurance, and a new system of essentially free state-run clinics and hospitals for those without insurance, paid for with federal to state revenue sharing. The system must be set up to emphasize cost-effective health care and to let people die if there operation is too expensive (liver transplants). The fact that some are left to die for lack of money should be widely publicized. Bring the TV cameras in to interview the young girl dying for lack of money for a liver transplant and also a government bureaucrat who explains in no nonsense terms that this is how things are, there just isn't enough money to go around. This is very important because it will passify the middle class to see that the traditional hierarchies are not being threatened and that poor people really do have it worse than the middle class.

Eventually, adverse selection will undermine this two-tier system. Healthy people to pay for minor problems out of pocket, so as to avoid the inevitable waiting lines in the state-run system, but rely on the state-run system as a backup for major problems, and take their chances with things the state-run system doesn't cover (liver transplants). Eventually, as more and more healthy people leave the privately run insurance plans, these will collapse. As more healthy people relying on the state run system, there will be more and more pressure on the government to fund the state run system better.

[NLS]

I think we're going to hear about "Surge #2" tonight.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "The SEC is as the Federal Reserve an autonomous government agency."

Sadly, no. The SEC does not have anywhere near the same degree of autonomy as the Federal Reserve. The SEC is just one of the several non-cabinet executive regulatory agencies.

All five members of the SEC are Presidential appointees; their "independence" rests on having staggered five-year terms and a requirement, by law, that only three can be of one Party. At present, there are four commissioners and it would be a challenge to identify the nominal Democrat. It is Annette L. Nazareth, wife of former Fed Gov. Roger Ferguson, and she leaves the Commission on Thursday. Two of the Republicans on the Commission are unmistakeably partisan political figures. And, the White House is stalling on appointing Democrats to fill the two Democratic vacancies.

That's what an independent regulatory agency is, in Bush World.

[hari]

Bruce W ...and company -

I just finished watching the Kennedy magic with Barack at American University and you can foreget ALL your nuanced or unnuanced assertions above, as they say when the market takes a turn, this primary tusnami on Feb 5th is really going to be NOT about HRC but how Kennedy and Barack assemble the new majority to undo the Clinton dream of another 4 or 8 years in WH.

It's time for Change...and only ten days left.

[RW]

"I think Obama is very clever. Increasing the number of uninformed (sic) personnel could be a means of substantially cutting Pentagon spending."

Bruce, I assumed "uniformed" was intended and agree but your comment otherwise requires a fair amount of filling in regarding Obama's intent: In the absence of some claim to personal knowledge or 'inside information' Senator Obama's comments could just as easily be interpreted as politically sly, vague or even venal (as in limiting his policy options for the sake of winning).

What is the crux of your analysis in this; what evidence are you looking at?

[macquechoux]

"I don't care which national health care program we model ours after, but we better do it soon."

Oh, come on, now! Which would you rather have the UK or Singapore? Something tells me you won't want either one.

[anne]

Bruce is correct about the SEC, which however is supposed to and capable of operating autonomously subject to Presidential nominations and Congressional approval and budget allocations.

[anne]

"I don't care which national health care program we model ours after, but we better do it soon."

France
Sweden
Norway
Germany
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
Ireland
Spain
Netherlands

beginning with....

[calmo]

NLS puts a dent in my day with that "2nd Surge"...have you no mercy?
But I am hopelessly distracted by Cyn: Because it's far more damaging to be accused of racism than sexism, the GOP (and the MSM) are less likely to engage in Obama bashing than Hillary bashing. So in this respect, Obama has a clear advantage over Hillary! My assessment of the media appears to be magnitudes out of whack with yours.
Generally, do black (compare female) participation rates, representation rates not only in public office but economic strata including incarceration rates, square with the media's handling/management of racism and sexism...or would you, in the interests of consistency (so dear to my heart...and rdf's), kick this idea that Obama's color is going to save him, out the wide open door? (Not so wide open with those legions of women who are fed up with...those men.)
He is the Repub's great hope in avoiding an all out slaughter in Nov by...that woman.

[hari]

Calmo -

You've off your rocker or you don't know what this election will be all about eventually - CHANGE!

[calmo]

Killer typo rendering by RW of Bruce Wilder's italicized "uninformed"...I need all these little bits to curl my toes, you?
I can see hari was swept away by Change...geeze I gotta lose weight. (..but in 5 days? fuggedit)

[mik]

Dear Comrade PC-Enforcer Anne declares...

"Instead, Clinton turned a blind eye as Phil Graham and Joe Lieberman cut Levitt's ---- ---."

This is of course a lie and a sexist lie, because what is important is always to use sexist language in lying. Of course, horrid sexist language must always be used to show just who we are and how we think.

Pray tell what is so sexist in that phrase?

Is Levitt cross-dresser and doesn't have nuts?
In that case commenter unknowingly insulted presumably a man in a woman's body, Ms. Levitt.

And I think we can be resonably sure that other gentlemen mentioned, Clinton, Gramm and Lieberman, do have their very own organicaly grown nuts. So it says in Vagina Monologues.

[mik]

"I don't care which national health care program we model ours after, but we better do it soon."

France
Sweden
Norway
Germany
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
Ireland
Spain
Netherlands

beginning with....

One cannot model a system based on a dozen very different systems. US goverment is quite incompetent even in a relatively simple things. It costs the US goverment 4 times as much money to deliver pension check as it does for private companies.

I have a bit of experience with 2 of the systems listed above, also a bit with 2-3 not listed.

From my experience, as limited as it might be, French system is by far the best. Beats US and German systems hands down.

The only hope that what emerges from the best congress money can buy is not totally bad is that we just copy French system (or something equally good) and implement what surely will be bastardly copy of French system.

[anne]

"Instead, Clinton turned a blind eye as Phil Graham and Joe Lieberman cut Levitt's ---- ---."

There are people who are determined to used sexist language and sexist imagery, there are people who used prejudice, because that is a fine way to belittle and intimidate others. Make sure, then, to continue along just to show who you really are.

[James Killus]

Ah, we're simply awash in unity and bipartisanship here, aren't we? I can feel just feel the love coming through. No one is pushing a private agenda, so we can all work together to bring about that CHANGE that we all so desperately crave.

Dudes and dudettes, if change is all you want, G.W. Bush has been the most change-oriented President in modern times. If you gave him another 8 years, he'd change things even more.

And if you think the only way out is for us to get us a proper "leader," you've already lost the argument.

[Lafayette]

Article: What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues ... and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward.

Mindless idiots

Goodness, Mr. Krugman, it's obvious that you've never run a presidential campaign. You don't even know the ground rules.

Rule Number 1: Never, never, never get into details. People are too dumb to understand them and details get your opponent thinking about how to destroy you.

Rule Number 2: Blather simple banalities that Joe Six-pack can understand. Talk about high-minded stuff -- like unity or how prepared you are to rule. Dance around the issues, tango if you have to with the hairy ones -- but never ever explain fully your vision.

Rule Number 3: Above avoid any truth that, in fact, people may have to undergo some pain in order to reform a country that has been run by a misfits. (And, who needed the presidency to prove that they were "real men".)

Rule Number 4: At each occasion possible, assassinate your opponents character. Joe and Jane Sixpack LOVE to see the blood run. The press is ENTHRALLED with the mud-slinging -- it gives them fodder for their media canons. It's obvious to our twisted minds that if you demean your opponent, then you MUST be a decent person.

Rule Number 5: Kiss any baby in arm's reach, smile broadly at all times, have you hair coiffed before each and every media event, gargle before talking closely with people.

See, any mindless idiot can follow those rules. Which is why mindless idiots run this country -- the Greatest Nation on Earth.

[macquechoux]

Anybody ever bother to take a look at Singapore? I have friends that have lived there and they seem to have an excellent health system complete with safety nets at small per cent of GDP.

[anne]

Macquechoux

Please describe or suggest refence articles on Singapore. When I looked briefly about a year ago, I could not find a coherent enough description. Also, I could not find how comprehensive the system is. However, I like the idea of borrowing from a range of promising systems. Brazil, by the wayt, is interesting for a developing country.

James Killus:

"Dudes and dudettes, if change is all you want, G.W. Bush has been the most change-oriented President in modern times."

I'll say.

[Denis Drew]

"This is hateful hate-filled lying slander, with no other purpose than to slander and lie hatefully."

Ann,
To be ill [paranoid] is not to be evil. LBJ is my favorite pres of my lifetime but was paranoid as can be. I like Nixon, too (these days anyway, as he is unfortunately now seriously to the left of too many contemporary Dems), but the next time you see a speech of his, especially from the 50s, think of the word "obsequious" and suddenly you will discover why most people find Nixon unlikeable -- SURPRISE!

The real moral trouble with Bill may be (nobody can read a soul) that Bill cares pretty much only about Bill -- which problem will be magnified if he is paranoid and therefore more obsessed with making himself look good -- which is about the only thing he ever did well.

According to Nobel Prize winner Joe Stiglitz who was part of Bills admin and who likes him, Bill screwed up badly on about 7 out of 10 domestic economic issues (you'll have to read Roaring Nineties to find out -- I can't remember) and screwed up other countries seriously (turned a recession in South East Asia into a depression) just to get American bankers paid off (ditto for Argentina).

I've believed until recently that once the immediate presence of Bill's personality and intelligence faded, he would be seen by history as a president who achieved practically nothing -- that is until he started making a cry baby fool of himself on Hill's campaign trail -- now, I think the truth of his empty presidency is showing up ahead of time.

[TigerPaw]

Lafayette,

Love your rules! They're perfect and explain everything.

If only I wouldn't get ashamed following them, then I could be a politician. A conscience is a terrible thing. hehehe

[anne]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1105roaring90s.htm

November 5, 2003

The Roaring Nineties

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Thank you very much for the introduction, which has actually said everything I had to say in the book, so I guess I can just answer questions. Let me just try to elaborate on a few of the things that you said.

What motivated me in writing this book was that the nineties were viewed as a fabulous decade. The economy was roaring. We even talked about the new economy which was to mean the end of the business cycle. We don't want to remember that, because we have lost almost 3 million jobs in the last three years. At least at the beginning of the decade, we also had a "globalization bubble." Everybody thought globalization American style would take over the world and bring prosperity to all.

By the end of the decade and the beginning of this current century, both of those bubbles have been broken. We realized that we were not on a never-ending, upward path, but that our economy was in a downturn. And even before that, December of 1999, with the protest movement in Seattle against the new round of trade negotiations, what was supposed to be the feather in the cap of Clinton's international economic policy turned into riots instead.

It was clear that if globalization was bringing unprecedented prosperity to the world, an awful lot of people didn't seem to know or appreciate it. One of the points in my earlier book was that that unhappiness was in fact justified. As early as 1997-1998, a global financial crisis showed that globalization wasn't working out quite as well as we had hoped.

If we had claimed, as we did so strongly in the Clinton Administration, that we should be given credit for the successes of the nineties, we ought to have to take some blame, because as I jokingly say, the downturn started even before Bush had a chance to do all the damage that he has done since. But it wasn't an issue of trying to assess credit or blame that motivated me. It was trying to learn the lessons of the nineties, to try to understand what we had done right and wrong, that prompted me to write this book.

In thinking about the economy, it is essential to try to get the balance between the market and the government or the state right to get good economic performance, and avoid very negative side effects on poverty. In some ways we failed to get that balance right. The central lesson of economics over the last more than 200 years has been Adam Smith's view about the "invisible hand" -- that markets lead, as if by an invisible hand, to efficiency; or that the individual pursuit of self-interest leads, as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency.

One of the main results of my work on asymmetric information -- which is just a fancy name for saying that different people know different things -- was to show that the reason the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is not there. That means that there is an important role for government. Or to put it another way, every game needs rules and referees to avoid chaos, and that is true of the market game as well.

I will touch on four themes and then open it up to questions.

1. In the nineties we sowed some of the seeds of destruction of the bubble; the boom that we had, and some of the economic problems we have today originate in that.

2. The same can be said about the way in which we managed globalization. In our successes in the beginning, we again sowed the seeds of the problems that we had by the end of the decade and into the current one.

3. How in the first place did we get out of the recession of 1990-1991? The standard interpretation of what we did, I argue, is not only wrong but dangerous.

4. As I look at the Clinton record in economic performance and compare it to what happened before and after, I have to give it an A+....

[2slugbaits]

Krugman is a first rate economist, but his political science skills are pitiful. He can't even get the history of the post-1992 election right.

Has Krugman learned how to count to 60 yet???

[anne]

Denis, I understand criticism however rough that takes us beyond a mental-emotional state that we cannot know. Joseph Stiglitz criticizes fairly.

[anne]

"He can't even get the history of the post-1992 election right."

But, of course, Paul Krugman has the period right, from the immediate attacks on health care reform, any health care reform, by most powerful health care industry interests and Republican allies on. The course of the attacks and the increasing success of the attacks was continually reflected in the prices of health care stocks as my father and I carefully noticed.

We have a Republican President and Congressional Republicans who are to this very week determined to prevent health care protection for millions of needy children and even newly for American Indians. Where is the lovely unity?

[anne]

Who becomes President is no concern to me beyond policy, and if we think that conservatives who will battle month after month to deny health care protection to needy children and to American Indians or to needy pregnant women in Mississippi, we are foolishly mistaken.

There were another 5 Americans killed in Mosul, as we pretend by bombing ever more in unban Iraq that the surge matters while the surge is wrecking ever more destruction. George Bush is insuring that the coming President must stay in Iraq. Will the coming President have the strength to leave?

I care about policy, not making sure wild conservatives are satisfied with a candidate before they attempt to destroy the candidate when policy become the issue.

[anne]

Here is the sort of policy we need to worry about:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/25/bush_plan_for_iraq_would_be_a_first?mode=PF

January 25, 2008

Bush Plan For Iraq Would Be a First: No OK from Congress seen - Constitutional issues raised
By Charlie Savage - Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.

After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.

By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.

"We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress," General Douglas Lute, Bush's deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, said in November when the White House announced the plan.

Lute's disclosure initially attracted little scrutiny. Most of the attention has instead focused on whether the pact could make it more difficult for the United States to withdraw from Iraq after Bush leaves office. Although the next president could scrap the agreement, reneging on the compact would create diplomatic problems by showing that the nation does not live up to its obligations, specialists say.

But there is now also growing alarm about the constitutional issues raised by Bush's plan. Legal specialists and lawmakers of both parties are raising questions about whether it would be unconstitutional for Bush to complete such a sweeping deal on behalf of the United States without the consent of the legislative branch.

"There is literally no question that this is unprecedented," said Oona Hathaway, a Yale Law School professor who has written a forthcoming law journal article about the proposed Iraq agreement. "The country has never entered into this kind of commitment without Congress being involved, period." ...

[anne]

Conservative Republicans have been profoundly successful in changing America these 7 years, and I am not in the least interested in charming the conservatives editorialists at the Wall Street Journal since they will only be charmed in continuing to subvert a hard won Democratic social heritage while continuing our destructive and self-destructive foreign policy.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

Conservatives did not start changing America just in the last 7 years. The conservative movement really got going beginning with the 1978 mid-term election.

If you want to fight back against the conservative movement, then it's really important to understand the actual history.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

"But, of course, Paul Krugman has the period right, from the immediate attacks on health care reform, any health care reform, by most powerful health care industry interests and Republican allies on."

Hillary Clinton was the one person who was most responsible for the healthcare fiasco in the early Clinton years. The GOP didn't have to fight all that hard to defeat it; Hillary's political tin ear and bungling made it easier than shooting fish in a barrel to kill healthcare.

Clinton never won the kind of commanding landslide victory that he needed to reverse the conservative movement; and even if he had, it wouldn't have mattered all that much because the conservative movement had not yet exhausted itself. In 1992 most voters were not looking for an alternative to conservative government, they were looking for an alternative to Bush #41. And let's admit some painful truths here: were it not for Ross Perot, Bush #41 would probably have won re-election. Remember, Clinton never won a majority and he left office with the Democratic party in worse shape than when he entered office. That's just a fact. Clinton did a lot of good things and I cheerfully voted for him twice, but let's not pretend that he strengthened the Democratic party. He just didn't.

[anne]

2SB:

Agreed; I have no argument with your conclusions, beyond possibly a sense that change from here will be difficult, quite difficult. At least this, it is critical to know where we are and project as precisely as possible even knowing that projections will always prove somewhat wrong.

[anne]

2SB:

Agreed; I have no argument with your conclusions, beyond possibly a sense that change from here will be difficult, quite difficult. At least this, it is critical to know where we are and project as precisely as possible even knowing that projections will always prove somewhat wrong.

[anne]

Paul Krugman is thinking through the relative economic weakness these years, and I am convinced the fiscal mix with military-war emphasis has much to do with the weakness and if I am partly right robust recovery from here will be fairly slow and difficult and depend on the coming President recognizing that even from an economic perspective war and occupation are harming us. For this, and for the terribleness of war as such, I do not want the issue of Iraq lost in any way, let alone Somalia and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Lebanon and Gaza.

[anne]

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, that nominess needs to be pushed and hard and Krugman has does us a pronounced favor by pushing Obama as Clinton was being pushed, but fairly, by Molly Ivins a year ago. Similarly, I wish John Edwards as much strength as possible since the strength has clarified Clinton's policies and even Obama's though too little with Obama.

[Devang]

From what I've read by conservative high-minds on the interwebs, Obama is apparently Carter on many levels. Whereas Clinton is, well, Clinton. There will be other attacks drugged up, but this is the level of attacks so far.

The endorsement that matters is out, and for all the right reasons:
"When putting together tech policy (to take an example close to home for xkcd) others might have gone to industry lobbyists. Obama went to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons (under which xkcd is published) and longtime white knight in the struggle with a broken system over internet and copyright policy. Lessig was impressed by Obama’s commitment to open systems — for example, his support of machine-readable government information standards that allow citizens’ groups to monitor what our government is up to."
http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/

This might not the media reform Bruce Wilder talked about, it's so much f%^king better. Cut out the middle man!

[Lively Money]

Thier are lesson to be learn about George inauguaration and what it did to our society and here is a way that can help our society get back on its feet

http://livelymoney.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-making-money-on-internet-will-save.html

[Lafayette]

2slug: Hillary Clinton was the one person who was most responsible for the healthcare fiasco in the early Clinton years.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

The comment cited above is about the most myopic recently posted on this forum.

Hillary was set upon by the AMA and their K-street running dogs (lobbyists) to torpedo any Health Care reform that might jeopardized the Income Status of the Health Care industry. Which is why America has today one of the world's most expensive Health Care systems and its coverage has such wide holes in it that 16% of the population fall right through.

I suppose you think she's a failure also because she doesn't walk on water?

I'd vote for anyone who could get those damn lobbyist weasels off the back of Capitol Hill. But if any one can do it, she can. Obama "sponsored" lobbyist legislation in the Senate ... and that got him where? Nowhere.

Obama is all talk. Nothing in his background shows he has the right stuff to be the Change Agent he so fervently projects. He just another slick product of the Daly Dem Machine in Chicago.

He'd make a great VP, whilst Hillary teaches him the ropes. He's been a Junior Senator in Washington since 2004. What does he know that is going to change the habits of a political class in the making for over a century? What?

You're buying into a Hollywood Hologram. All image, no substance. Where's the beef?

Hillary is no angel. But, I prefer the devil I know to the one I don't know. (Last time we voted so blindly for a Dem candidate, we came up with lead-head. Look at where that got us.)

It's just like the Dems to go willy-nilly for an idol-candidate that eventually loses to a Republican candidate. It's Kerry and 2004 all over again.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

[calmo]

Dang, you have the lines down laffy.
I see you missed one: "All hat no cattle" and went for "All image, no substance. Where's the beef Pass me the ketchup!"
Thank you for that defense of HRC and the Dems generally for a performance that is narrated by a media infested with GOP interests.

[Lafayette]

cal: Thank you for that defense of HRC and the Dems generally

The mess in the GNonE

The Dems are getting indefensible, cal.

Americans preferred an unknown lead-head from Texas to Al Gore, who had mountains of experience. Americans preferred the lead-head again, rather than Kerry, who's been a Senator for a donkey's age -- and had more than enough war so as to have avoided the quagmire of Iraq.

What is about the Yanks that they find the Dems so unpalatable? Is it that most of America moved slightly to the Right, whilst the Dems anchored themselves on the Left? I thought Bill showed his true credentials when he signaled Left and turned Right. Cannot we expect as much of Hillary?

But, hell, why should I care? We've got Nicholas Sarkozy tending the sheep here in France. He's is just to the Right of Genghis Khan on a political landscape that is just to the Left of Karl Marx. Meaning, in fact, he's fighting desperately to stay in the middle. Smart guy ...

I'm doin' jes fine here in the land of 360 different cheeses. Lookin' at the mess in the GNonE. Laffin me arse off at clowns in the media circus. Hope yer enjoyin' the show! ;^)

[macquechoux]

Anne here are a few sites that might give you some insight in Singapore's health system. Please note they have not been shy in tweaking their system for better results.

http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/healthcare/render2.asp?ID=13850

http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo7200508/V34N7p461.pdf

There are lots others but this should gave you a good start.

[anne]

Nicely written all through, Lafayette.

I know now that I am not interested in supporting change that when I understand specifics is not change I can support. I am offended when objections to nebulous policy proposals are expressed and ignored. I am not interested in a unity that is actually divisive.

[anne]

Macquechoux, thank you.

The more precise international comparison, the better. Also, in terms of public health as such Singapore which is tropical was remarkably successful in limiting tropical illness early on and I need to look at that as well. How was malaria eliminated? Along with education, public health measures were most important in Singapore's development.

Nelson Mandela would often say that Singapore should be a development model for black communities in South Africa. I need to ask about that.

[baileyman]

(I'm so far down the reply list, no one will ever see this...)

This article missed the essential issue: Suppose Obama wins, and suppose that under the fog of rhetoric he turns out to be a true progressive champion, will the Democratic Congress still force him to pursue the Bush agenda?

[bakho]

Malaria was quite prevalent in the US at one time. Drainage tiles placed throughout the Midwest in the late 1800s "drained the swamps" and pushed malaria out of much of the middle of the US by the early 1900s. Malaria continued to persist in the SE US and was decreased by mosquito control and the use of window screens. The most persistent pockets of malaria were finally eliminated by the use of DDT.

From the CDC: "The National Malaria Eradication Program, a cooperative undertaking by state and local health agencies of 13 Southeastern states and the CDC, originally proposed by Louis Laval Williams, commenced operations on July 1, 1947. By the end of 1949, over 4,650,000 housespray applications had been made. In 1947, 15,000 malaria cases were reported. By 1950, only 2,000 cases were reported. By 1951, malaria was considered eradicated from the United States."

Malaria is a human disease and does not exist outside of the human population (unlike West Nile Virus or encephalitis). The key to malaria eradication is to limit the interaction between mosquitoes that vector the disease and infected people. Once the incidence of malaria is low enough in the human population, and populations of vector mosquito species are kept low, the malaria rate goes to zero.

Most areas of the US currently have mosquito control districts. They no longer use DDT, but other controls that are less harmful to the environment. They have been very successful which is why mosquito transmitted diseases are low in the US. The WHO was very successful at reducing malaria in the 1940s and 1950s primarily through the use of new insecticides. Current measures include insecticide impregnated bed netting in areas of high malaria incidence.

[anne]

The question of electing a President whose policies are not understood or are troublesome but a President who might present well defined policy subsequently is interesting, but the answer not knowable which is precisely the problem. I would prefer to have a President whose proposed policies are well defined, but who will have to compromise in setting policy because practical and political conflicts will inevitably emerge.

I am not interested in a Presdient who is elected to dramatically expand our military forces but who is rumored to secretly want to reduce military spending.

[anne]

Bakho, the comment on malaria is especially kind and helpful. I had no knowledge of our own experience with malaria, and need to read more on this as well. Please set down any suggestions.

[anne]

Taiwan went from 1995 and a private insurance model with 40% of the population having no health care insurance, to a universal coverage program based on a Medicare model. The transition was remarkably smooth and successful and applauded by the Taiwanese from all I understand from students and families. The program requires participation but allows private care purchase, which I am told is not usually considered necessary. I need to ask about references.

[Lafayette]

bm: Suppose Obama wins, and suppose that under the fog of rhetoric he turns out to be a true progressive champion, will the Democratic Congress still force him to pursue the Bush agenda?

Don't underestimate the will of a Hillary Clinton

Suppose Father Christmas really, truly lives somewhere within the Artic Circle. Will that fact make you go to church on Christmas Day?

If I had to hire a politician to represent me Washington, to do what is best for me and my business interests, I'd be looking at the most qualified person.

I wouldn't want some sweet-talking, high-minded, intelligent twit who promised to "Change Things" for me. Because in my heart-of-hearts, life's curious ways has taught us how effing difficult it is to change human nature.

I will want to believe in the intrinsically goodness of mankind. I will admire that person for their faith in human nature. But, far from pie-in-the-sky, and on-the-ground, I will want someone who sees this warped world exactly as I do. I will want my representative to be politically skillful, but not a miracle worker.

Do not underestimate the immensity of the reform that is necessary. It is NOT just politics that needs be altered/enhanced, but basic human values that have been lacking for a good long time. Cupidity has become so ingrained, we think it is an positive attribute of one's character. (Greed is good, etc., etc.)

And, don't underestimate either the will of a Hillary Clinton to get her way. She's got a pair of balls that makes Bill envious.