Paul Krugman: Loans and Leadership

What do the presidential candidate's responses to the mortgage crisis tell us about the kind of president each is likely to be?:

Loans and Leadership, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:

When George W. Bush first ran for the White House, political reporters assured us that he came across as a reasonable, moderate guy.

Yet those of us who looked at his policy proposals — big tax cuts for the rich and Social Security privatization — had a very different impression. And we were right.

The moral is that it’s important to take a hard look at what candidates say about policy. ...[P]olicy proposals offer a window into candidates’ political souls... Which brings me to the latest big debate: how should we respond to the mortgage crisis?...

Mr. McCain is often referred to as a “maverick” and a “moderate”... But his speech on the economy was that of an orthodox, hard-line right-winger. It... was more about what Mr. McCain wouldn’t do than about what he would. His main action proposal, as far as I can tell, was a call for a national summit of accountants...

Mr. McCain more or less came out against aid for troubled homeowners: government assistance “should be based solely on preventing systemic risk,” which means that big investment banks qualify but ordinary citizens don’t.

But I was even more struck by Mr. McCain’s declaration that “our financial market approach should include ... removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.” ... Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.

Hillary Clinton’s speech could not have been more different.

True, Mrs. Clinton ...[has] echoes of the excessively comfortable relationship her husband’s administration developed with the investment industry. But the substance of her policy proposals..., like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.

Maybe the most notable contrast between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton involves ... restructuring mortgages. Mr. McCain called for voluntary action on the part of lenders — that is, he proposed doing nothing. Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired ... mortgages..., then reduced payments to a level ... homeowners could afford.

Finally, Barack Obama’s speech ... followed the cautious pattern of his earlier statements on economic issues.

I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation... But his proposals for aid..., though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clinton’s: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done.

Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts ... a centerpiece of his economic plan. It’s not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda.

All in all, the candidates’ positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they’re often portrayed.

Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have.

Comments

[anne]

So, what do I understand, we have a candidate who wants to cut taxes which already favor the wealthiest, cut taxes when we are in the midst of a $3 trillion war and occupation, wants to increase the size of the military by 100,000 soldiers, wants to leave tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and add to forces in Afghanistan, wants to increase taxes on Social Security and broaden the availability of health care insurance in a more costly way than is being done in Massachusetts which is struggling financially from the effort.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Now Obama is "cautious and relatively orthodox"...? I guess that this would make Mrs. Clinton bold and progressive...?

You've got to be joking.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[Dickeylee]

People have got to realize that a McCain Presidency would be putting Phil and Wendy Gramm in charge of our economy. That is way way way more frightening than an "orthodox" Obama. Obama, being from Chicago, puts him in close proximity to the "Chicago Boyz", as Mark's link call them, the Milton/Rand camp as best as I can tell.
OK, so maybe that's scary too.

[anne]

What I find in Barack Obama is an increasingly conservative candidate, a candidate who is continually excused for policy pretenses. I am not interested in leaving tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq or even in pulling some soldiers from Iraq as a "best case scenario." I am not interested in adding to our soldiers in Afghanistan or adding 100,000 soldiers to our military. I am not interested in fiscal policy that protects tax cuts for the wealthiest while undermining Social Security and setting down a self-defeating health insurance policy.

I have serious problems with a candidate I voted for, and wonder what are the policies I vote for that I agree with.

[odograph]

Did Krugman mean to position Obama for moderate America? Because I think he just did, for those of us who are neither "orthodox, hard-line right-wingers" nor have a "strongly progressive agenda."

.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If Krugman wants to endorse Hillary why doesn't he just do it?

Clinton has some good ideas but the interest rate freeze would do little to solve the problem. Trying to paint Obama as center-to-center-right is just weird.

[anne]

A policy that includes keeping tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq, adding to our soldiers in Afghanistan, adding to our general military forces, cutting taxes for the wealthiest in time of war, increasing taxes on Social Security, failing to develop a plan to gain universal health care insurance, is conservative not moderate. Such a policy is distressingly like what we have now.

[anne]

"Trying to paint Obama as center-to-center-right is just weird."

Trying to paint Obama's policies as Obama's policies seems to be a real problem for those who prefer only the policies of their own imagination. I am not interested in having another Republican President after these 8 years of having a definitively Republican President.

[odograph]

Do you self-identify as a moderate Anne?

[op]

anee
consider this:

you're choice and pk's
has become too obvious
for others to care

you have so magnified the c and o diff
and flopped c to the otherside
as if by dislexic hazard

you are not even getting the facts
out in full

ob
wants to cut payroll taxes
and restore the pre bush
upper brackets on income tax
ie a burden shift so far as i can see

not too far from

tax wealth not work

i myself can't find a dimes worth of difference between iraq promises between c and o

and let's face it
campaign promises despite pk's caveat
are less important then base or donor interests
which would have told u all u needed to know about gwb

wealth and in particular finance and energy related wealth

once office is secured
by what ever promises necessary
its time to dole out the thank u's

[anne]

Even at a time when America is presiding over additional destruction in Iraq for the sake of subverting the coming Iraqis election, when America is presiding over increased urban destruction in Iraq, which I would not have thought possible, to undermine voting; even at such a time I do not even know whether the candidate who continually tells us of opposing the war is determined to leave Iraq if President.

Where is the moderation?

[reason]

Jeez...
American Democrats - keep at it and you'll end up with a flaky geriatric in charge of the US. (Mind you you've done it once before already).

[anne]

Jeffrey Liebman and buddy Andrew Samwick, wish to slash and bash Social Security. Liebman, who is Obama's economic adviser, wishes to undermine Social Security. Simple. I am tired of being told a tax increase on Solcial Security, when no tax increase is needed for a program with a massive an growing surplus, when a tax increase will only lessen support for Social Security and encourage a lessening of benefits, which is what Liebman wishes, I am tired of being told this is other than Republicanism.

[odograph]

I was having the simpler (and less serious) chuckle that we moderates(*) are often told, by folks to the right or left, what we believe (or can believe). In fact, people who get far enough to one side or the other have a real problem seeing a moderate, as a moderate, without grouping them with "the other."

On Iraq, it is a tragedy. It is a pig's ear that no one is going to make into a silk purse. And so we argue about how to wind it down ...

* - I test out as a very near a dead-center moderate in on-line forms, though I sometimes self-identify as a conservative for old time's sake (and to annoy today's conservatives).

[anne]

By the way, just so that we unerstand, I care as little for age discrimination as any other discrimination. Get it?

What I know for sure about John McCain, and which is enough to make me care not a fig about anything else, is that McCain will keep us fully in Iraq indefinitely. I am tired beyond proper description of America presiding over death and destruction in Iraq.

[op]

anne
straight up

st hill the come home america candidate.....

are you mind melding
with the identity pol types ???

st hill and the whole clinton faction
has one history
when in office
provide taylored confected
three sided sell outs

her track record is clear

or is she a new clinton

something like...... a new nixon
equal to no one still running

[odograph]

Wouldn't there be a new dynamic, with a Republican President beginning a new term, and a strongly Democratic congress?

The only reason Dems haven't forced a pull-out as a congressional issue in the last year is because they want it as an election issue instead, right?

We might call that itself immoral.

But regardless, I don't think a Pres. McCain would get a free ride.

[anne]

"On Iraq, it is a tragedy. It is a ----- --- that no one is going to make into a silk purse. And so we argue about how to wind it down ..."

Rubbish and worse.

Iraq is a tragedy of our making, a tragedy through of our needless immoral invasion and occupation, for which there is a simple resolution. The resolution is to leave completely an immediately as we should have left each month these 5 terrible years. Iraq will have a chance of being what Iraqis can build when finally free to build as they wish.

[odograph]

Anne, are you saying you expect the Iraqis to build a silk purse?

... what, a cosmopolitan and progressive society?

Because if you mean that you would just leave them to their own devices (I might too), we have to recognize that will likely have its own rolling tragedies

I think it may be a sort of moral high ground to leave them to "self-determination" but that leads to moral gray zones ... where people call for intervention in the Balkans but not in Iraq, etc.

[anne]

"The only reason Dems haven't forced a pull-out as a congressional issue in the last year is because they want it as an election issue instead, right?"

Wrong and worse than just wrong.

There has been and there is a determined Republican Senate presence that can and has and will prevent any effort by Democrats to bring our soldiers home. Also, there is a Republican President determined not to bring our soldiers home.

[odograph]

Shorter: Some people used to think "ethnic cleansing" was sufficient cause to argue for intervention, yes?

[odograph]

A "presence" means you can't force a vote? And another vote?

On an issue of high morality?

No, I think Nancy and Harry could be doing that, but they chose not.

Of course, we could say that was democratic (if slow-moving) because it makes the Presidential election a vote on the war.

(Or it was projected as such, before the economy became an issue.)

[Turbo]

Why doesn't Krugman just come out and say which job he's been promised in a Clinton Administration? Trying to paint Obama as a center to center-right candidate is just absurd. Be careful what you wish for Paul - do you really want Ben's job in this environment?

[anne]

"Some people used to think 'ethnic cleansing' was sufficient cause to argue for intervention, yes?"

Some people are deceiving war-mongers.

We invaded Iraq and occupied Iraq because we were repeatedly told that Iraq was a direct and immediate threat to America; similarly Britain was told of being threatened. We were repeatedly told of mushroom clouds to come from Iraq. We were driven to attack Iraq out of mad fear and a wish for revenge beyond comprehension.

[Don Quijote]

Why doesn't Krugman just come out and say which job he's been promised in a Clinton Administration? Trying to paint Obama as a center to center-right candidate is just absurd. Be careful what you wish for Paul - do you really want Ben's job in this environment?

The only Democrats running for office who were not "center to center-right candidates" were Kucinich, Gravel & Edwards. The Democratic choice now is the equivalent of Pepsi vs Coke which is why the campaign is getting so personal.

Ben's Job is not to be had for another 6 years.

American Democrats - keep at it and you'll end up with a flaky geriatric in charge of the US. (Mind you you've done it once before already).

Once the general public discovers that their choice in November is between a Republican and a N***ER, that's exactly what we will get...

[anne]

"Some people used to think 'ethnic cleansing' was sufficient cause to argue for intervention, yes?"

Some people use to think that lying to drive a people to war was immoral; which is what some people use to think. Some people used to think that the shock and awe of a people who were no threat to us was immoral. Some people used to think that occupying a country that was no threat to us, even after replacing the government of that country, was immoral.

Some people might even think that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and millions of Iraqis driven from country and homes was enough. Some people.

[odograph]

I speak as someone who opposed this war, and wrote this President to say that his plan failed the test of realpolitik and would yield blowback for generations. I thought I'd take the pragmatic tone with him, rather than make a moral argument I was sure he'd ignore. Still, I think I called that one on realpolitik and blowback

... and so to take that tone with me seems a bit irrational.

... even if you are confusing me with the "orthodox, hard-line right-wingers"

[ddt]

The self-destruction of the Dems is really something to behold. What is Clinton doing? Why destroy the party when there is almost no chance of getting the nomination? Having large donors send threatening letters to Pelosi? that's low. The whole thing is just mind boggling, with McCain's chances rising by the day.

[anne]

Odograph:

"I speak as someone who opposed this war, and wrote this President to say that his plan failed the test of realpolitik and would yield blowback for generations. I thought I'd take the pragmatic tone with him, rather than make a moral argument I was sure he'd ignore. Still, I think I called that one on realpolitik and blowback."

Excellent, simply excellent and courageous.

[anne]

Barack Obama is virtually certain to be the Democratic nominee, and deserves to be the nominee according to the remarkable and deserved delegate support that has been won from Iowa on. All I have wished are a set of policies showing more promise of change than I have found so far.

[robertdfeinman]

About the NY Times:

First, it against the Times policy for columnists to "support" a candidate. Krugman has made his preference for Clinton obvious, but he can't come out and say so explicitly. Does this cause him to see Obama in a certain light? Of course. Is there anyone in this country who can be "objective" about the candidate's positions? It seems not, one can pretty well predict a person's favorite by their take on any aspect of the campaign.

More serious is the trend, which is becoming more evident, that the Times business viewpoint has been taken over by libertarians. The evidence keeps mounting. I'm not talking about the usual Main Street Republicanism that was it's hallmark for generations, but the support for ideas which have no standing in the scholarly world (especially outside the US).

The evidence includes two libertarian columnists from the same liberatarian economics department (GMU) - Cowan and Tabbarok. I don't see this amount of space being given to contributors from more highly respected universities.

Then there are the prominent places given to Brooks, Friedman and Kristol. They aren't just neo-cons, they are libertarian inflected neo-cons.

Finally there is the subtle shift in the way "news" and analysis articles are written. Here's an example from today.

Parties Differ on Whom Economic Aid Should Help

There is only one "economist" cited in the article, and he's from Cato.
“Democrats are more likely to propose protecting individuals, and Republicans are more likely to propose protecting markets,” said William A. Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group in Washington that champions smaller government.

The meaningless phrase "protecting markets" is discussed further as if it meant something other than protecting the wealthy. There are no "markets", there are people who participate in markets and their are firms who participate as proxies for them.

Why would any (non-biased) columnist even think of soliciting a quote from somebody at Cato?

Mark Thoma keeps puzzling as to why the press goes with the misleading stories over the projections for Social Security and Medicare. If the "press" is seen as the libertarian press, everything becomes clear...

[Ben Stein the Hack]

1) I don't buy the media narrative of Hillary as the one willing to destroy the party. As I understand it, Obama's campaign has been the one browbeating superdelegates since Iowa, particularly African-American superdels, and basically pulling out all the stops. I've read many articles about Hillary's supposed ruthlessness, and yet I've not see any substantive evidence to back that up, with the few examples cited being ones that I know are pretty standard campaign tactics. The rhetoric I've seen coming from Obama himself (as opposed to Hillary "proxies") has been pretty bad as well.

2) I think the difference in this primary, from an economic perspective, is between a center-left and a center-right candidate. Obama supporters I know have really gone off the rails on this point, because they hear the rhetoric, and believe Obama's more liberal than he is. For example, if you look at their mortgage rescue plans, Obama supporters have consistently stated that his is bold and progressive. It is neither. It is instead a lukewarm halfway rehashing of proposals already put forth and vetted by Congressional Dems. If you want to talk about triangulation, look at Obama's policy proposals. They're always more conservative than the ones that are "mainstream Dem", and yet Obama's campaign manages to spin them as being more progressive (to progressives, not to his Republican/indie core supporters) than they are. This is true of his Iraq pullout "plan", his plan on mortgages, his plan on taxes, etc. As an aside, if we're talking about leadership, I'm not sure I want to support a Presidential candidate (who are typically much more bold in their proposals than Congressional reps and sens) who seems to continually fail to lead on policy. I have yet to see Obama's campaign take the lead on any of the myriad of serious issues facing our country. Even if you believe the spin that he was "right" on Iraq (ignoring the fact that his rhetoric in 2004 and his votes from 2005-2007 did not match his claim), so what? What has he done about it? Nothing in the Senate. Nothing on the campaign trail as far as calling for real change. No, he's taking the easy route of taking potshots at W for his failures on Iraq, which is pretty easy to do. What has he done on mortgages? Proposed half-measures that are less cutting edge than Republicans in the Senate. Already, I'm seeing a real failure of leadership here, and as a partisan Dem, I'm terrified of an Obama-McCain general election, because I haven't seen anything from Obama yet to suggest he'll hold up under sharp scrutiny (and no, I don't think Hillary is subjecting him to particularly sharp scrutiny, for a number of reasons, including the "she's a calculating b*tch" narrative emanating from the media and the Obama campaign that pretty much handcuffs her ability to go super negative). He's got an extremely thin record, he's got no record of leadership, and his mantra of change is unbelievably unsupported by his actions or his policy proposals. If this is about "change" and we're looking at what Obama's done and proposed, then McCain can just as credibly claim "change" (which is to say, not at all). And that's concerning. Furthermore, Obama's bona fides on the economy are almost as bad as McCain's. In an election that will be decided by working class families struggling in a very bad economy (you know, folks who hate NAFTA and supply side theory and generally are distrustful of Ivory Tower economists), Obama's market-based schtick isn't particularly more appealing than McCain's "I'm a libertarian kook" schtick. Obama = Kerry v.2008. Or to put this another way, what do you think Obama as president will do, in 10 words or less? And how do you think the average working class voter will answer that question? I have no freaking idea, but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't "save my job", and that's the real problem with a campaign that's run by Goolsbee et al.

[ddt]

Ben Stein is a Hack,

Just to be clear: I'm no fan of Obama or the people advising him and running his campaign, and the same goes for Clinton. my favorite was probably Kucinich.

The thing is that Hillary has pretty much lost, and in the circumstances (having to rely on super-delegates, Repubs already consolidated and pushing forward) she should just let this one go. Even if she were the better candidate, her (or Obama's) chances of winning the general election after this primary going all the way to august are far less than Obama's chances of winning if the Dem race ended now (IMO).

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

I am keenly aware that some of us will have to disengage emotionally from Madam Clinton's mystique., She should no longer be used as a topic as it relates to presidential politics. Today is as good a day as any to begin the Obama/McCain comparisons.

Let's be good sports and place Madam Clinton where she belongs, as a footnote in the history books. She was a good wine, however, well past her time.

My best regards to all.

Econolicious

[kharris]

I understand that what I have to say in this case partakes of its own set of cliches, but I think there may be substance to the cliches.

Obama says he is the candidate of change, change, change, but the change he seems to want us to anticipate from him is a change in tone. This is exactly what Bush said he would do. It is a varient of the "I'm an outsider" claim, in that it is a claim that the candidate will change the culture of Washington. It is the culture of Washington, as much as anything, that is seen as the problem with insiders.

(Bush certainly has changed the culture of Washington. K Street, rampant lies and intimidation, rejection of compromise and of long standing traditions and practices meant to constrain our government from running off and doing stupid things. End of diatribe.)

Obama has two reasons not to push for innovative policy. One is that doing so would run contrary to his claimed intention to "reach across the aisle". Policy that veers too far from the middle is going to make compromise difficult. The other reason is that Obama is simply not steaped in the nuances of economics and the workings of institutions (governmental and private) to the extent that he is going to see the magic in an innovative policy. He certainly could glom onto an innovative policy proposal if it suited him, but that runs afoul of the push for compromise. It seems less likely than I would wish that Obama would actually tell the difference between a workable innovation and one that would drive off a cliff. Not that he's dumb. He simply hasn't been at this long enough, hasn't had a policy job, hasn't hung out in cabinet meetings, studied law, rather than policy. Campaigns aren't good for deep study. And most of all, he's younger than I am so he can't possibly know enough.

Hillary wants to be the candidate of experience. The change, change, change stuff has been thrust upon her by Obama, and it is working, but her strength is policy experience. A lot of that experience is derivative. We have elected a lot of former governors to be President since Ford left office. Hillary was never a governor, but she hung around with one. He became president and she hung around with him too. Her big profile has meant she has been able to push her way to the center of Senate business in a way that Obama apparently did not. Again, that allows a smart person - both of them are smart - to pick up the sort of detail that can lend confidence in stepping off the conventional path.

So, just to get right down to the cliches in which I am indulging, Hillary has been around longer, been exposed to more, than Obama. She has been at the edge of policy creation and and execution in a way that Obama has not. As a result, her policy prescriptions suggest a focus on policy, his on being unobjectionable during an election.

Perhaps most important, Hillary is older than I am, Barack younger - so there. My guess is that the same is true for Krugman and our host.

[lonesome moderate]

anne: So, what do I understand, we have a candidate who wants to cut taxes which already favor the wealthiest, cut taxes when we are in the midst of a $3 trillion war and occupation,

Krugman's original column includes the line "middle class tax cuts, to be sure". The full text of Obama's speech can be found here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d19abee-fc27-11dc-9229-000077b07658.html. In the speech, Obama not only proposes tax cuts for the middle class, but condemns Bush's cuts for the wealthy.

[lonesome moderate]

Well, yes, Obama is not as liberal as Clinton (or Krugman). Since he has said repeatedly that he wants to govern as a non-polarizing figure who can work with people across the political spectrum, I really don't see why this makes him "seriously at odds with the way [he's] often portrayed."

[dd]

anne, many posters here were against the Iraq war-for-profit success at its first rumbling and have a Rahall thank you note to prove it. The Iraq war was a success as it neutralized Saddam (UAE & Saudi thorn)and guaranteed a strong military presence. So please stop calling it a fiasco as it was and continues to be a great success from a profit perspective.
Taxpayer blood and money (taxes and high oil prices) are underwriting Dubai: a shiny American protectorate tax haven that is morphing into a major financial center free of regulatory oversight with a bonus of fabulous golf (Tiger Woods approved: http://www.tigerwoodsdubai.com/!) and wonderful tennis courts (Federer loves it:
http://www.mensvogue.com/health/feature/articles/2007/04/roger_federer). Halliburton's relocation says it all.
Iraq is a fiasco for everyday Americans and Iraqis but it is a huge success for neo libertarians everywhere. It matters not who the president as this Switzerland on the Gulf will be protected.

As for the mortgage crisis: American taxpayers are already putting a floor under the MBS/CDS markets via the Fed, the GSE's and FHLB. If Obama and Clinton wanted to do something about foreclosures they could have last year and now it's just politics as usual. Full disclosure: supported Clinton but bringing Greenspan and Rubin in to "fix" the crisis they created is just beyond the pale although the Volcker angle was a nice touch.

[Winston]

Wow, if McCain is the candidate least in favor of government action to try to re-inflate the asset price bubble that has being growing over the 10 years and is now, thankfully popping, then he has my vote. I can't see how any of Clinton's or Obama's proposals consist anything other than government price supports on housing which is exactly what we don't need.

[anne]

Lonesome Moderate:

"Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts — middle-class tax cuts, to be sure — a centerpiece of his economic plan. It's not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda."

An important distinction, thank you.

[anne]

K Harris:

"Obama says he is the candidate of change, change, change, but the change he seems to want us to anticipate from him is a change in tone. This is exactly what Bush said he would do. It is a variant of the 'I'm an outsider' claim, in that it is a claim that the candidate will change the culture of Washington. It is the culture of Washington, as much as anything, that is seen as the problem with insiders."

Important comment.

[Alex Tolley]

kharris: "Hillary...her strength is policy experience. A lot of that experience is derivative."

Being in the midst of, is not the same thing as gaining effectiveness. To see this clearly, read the absolutely laughable opinion piece by Schumer in today's WSJ. After all these years in the Senate and the Finance Committee, he has finally seen that the deregulation he presided over has been a cause of the current troubles and he wants to change things? (Perhaps more cynically, he wants to be part of the faux changes that will keep the senator from Wall Street from losing his contributors).

PK: "Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts ... a centerpiece of his economic plan. It’s not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda."

Maybe it is the tax cut promises that will be ditched, rather than the health care? How can we know in advance which way he will roll if he is in office? When Bill Clinton was in office, he triangulated away quite a few promises, much to the ire of his supporters. Why would Hillary act any differently, learning at the feet of the master?

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB120665982547770063.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[Jean]

You all talk like candidates are written in stone. Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill are hopeful if not confident that an INDEPENDENT anti war movement can influence the ultimate dem candidate. Firedoglake is electing progressive democrats with some success. Other groups are doing the same. I think pressure from the grassroots and from the blogosphere will have more play in the next Democratic administration. More people are voting, younger people who are suddenly realizing we can't just step back and let the 'more informed' people run this country. There has been a sea change. People are more willing to go sit in offices and hallways and flood meetings than ever before. And not just in Washington. Bush and the reeps have mobilized the left like no one else could do.

[Bruce Wilder]

I find the passion with which people seem willing to embrace Hillary while rejecting Obama unfathomable at this late date.

Like Econolicious, Hillary - "bold and progressive" contrasted with Barack - "cautious and relatively orthodox" seems more like a bad joke than serious analysis.

I simply don't find much policy divergence.

But, more to the point, there's no longer a realistic opportunity to make Clinton the nominee. The division of elected delegates in the remaining contests is easy to predict -- even fairly wide divergence in popular vote projections results in the same narrow division of delegates. Out of the remaining roughly 300 uncommitted superdelegates, Obama needs 70 to put away the nomination. What are the chances he's not going to persuade 70 out of 300?

Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

What is the point, at this late date, of torturing ourselves with the idea that Clinton might have been preferable?

Shouldn't we be convincing ourselves that while Clinton was a good candidate, Obama is a great candidate? (You know, cognitive dissonance and all that.)

I can suggest some paths to happy rationalization.

Obama's conservative, but idealistic tone is a feature, not a bug, broadening the appeal of the Democratic brand in what may be an historic realignment election. Obama is less repulsive than Clinton to some moderates and conservatives, looking to the Democrats for the first time in a generation. Obama has more appeal in western and relatively rural States, and may have stickier coattails for Democratic candidates in those States (even when he doesn't actually win in those States). Obama has more appeal to young voters, who look to be voting in record numbers.

Obama's campaign is better organized and better financed (both qualitatively -- having more small donors -- and quantitatively).

Obama's youth is a stark contrast to McCain, and Obama's foreign policy views are a clearer contrast to McCain. In actually being President, Obama's ethnic background is likely to be an immediate tonic for American prestige abroad. At home, Obama's election will be a useful step forward in racial politics.

If you need, psychologically, to reject Hillary Clinton's candidacy, I think there are many good rationalizations available. I will refrain from listing some, though, for fear of stoking the hostility.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

Econolicious, ddt, are you reading something different than I am?

I thought that it was actually still possible for HRC to win, and that Obama's campaign was spinning the inevitability card as a campaign tactic.

As I understand it, HRC's best case scenario is that she dominates the big states going forward, takes a small lead in the popular vote, and then argues that if Florida and Michigan had been counted, or if they had been allowed to revote, she would have had a lead in the pledged delegates as well.

Obama looks likely to prevent this from happening, barring any major missteps, but that is quite different than saying it's over.

Regardless, I'm glad that the elitist wing of our party has once again managed to put a paper tiger forth as our likely nominee.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

Good argument Bruce. I don't know that I agree entirely re the delegates, but I think you lay forth a well argued post for why Obama is a great candidate.

[donna]

Clinton takes us back to the 90s. McCain takes us to hell. Obama might take us to the future.

[ken melvin]

Been there, done that. Without major changes in his platform Obama will lose in November no matter how stupid, senile and corrupt McCain. I'm not sure that a black candidate can carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, ..., but without addressing the concerns of the working class core of the party Obama certainly will not. In the final analysis, it is about the people.

Winning primaries in the south because of his blackness was slick, but those delegates aren't really the same are they. He won those states not on the issues but rather because he was black. The move has to be to issues that the working class core can support. These issues must overide.

[ddt]

"As I understand it, HRC's best case scenario is that she dominates the big states going forward, takes a small lead in the popular vote, and then argues that if Florida and Michigan had been counted, or if they had been allowed to revote, she would have had a lead in the pledged delegates as well."

This is what I'm reading:

Popular Vote Total:

Obama: 13,355,239 49.5%
Clinton: 12,637,963 46.9%

Popular Vote Spread:

Obama +717,276 +2.6%

The chance of her overtaking Obama are tiny, and the projections (at RealClearPolitics) show him increasing that lead.

[ken melvin]

Yes, it would great for America to have a black or a woman president. We need it, the world waits. What is not needed is another four/eight year of republican rule. This is the real issue. Blaming the voters don't cut it. If the party presents a candidate, a platform, that the voters can't support, the blame lies with the party.

[anne]

Though Hillary Clinton could actually win the nomination, if I understand the possibilities, * the process would be so disappointing to supporters of Obama that there would likely be a loss of support in the election. However, I find no reason to worry about Obama being pushed on policy to the convention by Clinton and even John Edwards.

* Brad DeLong disagrees.

[Patricia Shannon]

odograph says...

Wouldn't there be a new dynamic, with a Republican President beginning a new term, and a strongly Democratic congress?

The only reason Dems haven't forced a pull-out as a congressional issue in the last year is because they want it as an election issue instead, right?

The Dems are hampered by Bush's veto threats, his signing orders, which nullify anything Congress enacts that Bush doesn't want, and the fact that their are enough Reps in Congress to kill whatever they want thru filibusters. Of course, when the Reps were in total power a couple of years ago, they tried to kill the power to filibuster that they are now using themselves.

[Patricia Shannon]

anne says...

"On Iraq, it is a tragedy. It is a ----- --- that no one is going to make into a silk purse. And so we argue about how to wind it down ..."

Rubbish and worse.

Iraq is a tragedy of our making, a tragedy through of our needless immoral invasion and occupation, for which there is a simple resolution. The resolution is to leave completely an immediately as we should have left each month these 5 terrible years. Iraq will have a chance of being what Iraqis can build when finally free to build as they wish.

And when there is the predictable bloodbath, you will say how sorry you feel for the poor Iraqis, but who could have know, like the people today who are surprised by the economic crisis.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html

March 29, 2008

U.S. Planes Attack Militia Strongholds in Basra Fighting
By ERICA GOODE

The American forces entered the battle at the request of the Iraqi Army, which asked the Americans to strike two militia strongholds in the city, according to a spokesman for the British military.

[Imagine.]

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/al-hayat-reports-in-arabic-that-iraqi.html

March 28, 2008

Mahdi Army Stands Firm in its Basra Neighborhoods; Demonstrations in Baghdad against al-Maliki
By Juan Cole

People are asking me the significance of the fighting going on in Basra and elsewhere. My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. It is admittedly a big 'if.'

[So that we understand.]

[anne]

This very week on public television, listen to Viceroy Paul Bremer and General Ricardo Sanchez and New York Times reporter John Burns tell of the need in 2004 to destroy Muktada al-Sadr who was save by Spanish officers.

Notice now that after many months of praising al-Sadr for asking for peace in the midst of provoking violence, now we have change and loosed forces including our own to destroy al-Sadr before what might have been an election that really reflected what Iraqis wish.

[ken melvin]

Interesting juxtaposition, this Obama supporters vs. McCain. They, the Obama supporter are said to represent the younger generation. This is good in that it is their generation. McCain , as did Bush, represent a generation long past, Bush, the generations of the late 19th, and McCain those of the cold war. Obama supposters need listen to the party's elders who have lost the good cause several times before. There's an evident naivete. They haven't yet accepted that they were set up to lose and continue to play into it. Neat to appropriate Reagan type strategies, but be better if these were acknowledged. Too much la la.

[anne]

"And when there is the predictable bloodbath...."

The predictable bloodbath has followed in the wake of our invasion and our occupation and proceeds even this very day as American planes bomb as they have so often bombed another city of Iraq.

[Francois]

"Why doesn't Krugman just come out and say which job he's been promised in a Clinton Administration?"

Why? Because he already wrote several times in his blog that he just doesn't want to get any job in any Administration. Too much BS for his taste, too much curtailment of frank talk in the name of toeing the party line.

[anne]

General Sanchez in 2004 openly ordered that al-Sadr be taken "dead or alive" by Spanish forces that were occupying the region where al-Sadr was housed. The Spanish refused and complained that an attempt to take al-Sadr would be destructive and self-destructive. Then the Spanish chose to leave Iraq, much to American anger.

What are we doing in 2008 bombing supporters of al-Sadr? What gives us such a right?

[kharris]

Bruce,

Policy and politics. Your post is mostly about politics, and I think is mostly correct in that regard. aonly mostly, because I think you have mistaken some other comments for politics when they were meant as policy. We voters need to think about both, and to do so, we need to avoid making ourselves comfortable by adopting a warm feeling toward whoever seems most likely to win nomination. Just think how warm many Republicans and swing voters allowed themselves to become toward Bush, before they decided that his policies were really bad.

[dd]

42 Democrats Vow a Drawdown in Iraq If They Win Seats
"Rejecting their party leaders' assertions that economic troubles have become the top issue on voters' minds, leaders of the coalition of 38 House and four Senate candidates pledged to make immediate withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of their campaigns."
snip
"The starkest difference between the group's proposal, dubbed a "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," and those embraced by many senior Democrats and the party's presidential candidates is that it rejects the idea of leaving U.S. troops on the ground to train Iraqi security forces or engage in anti-terrorism operations. The group instead calls for a dramatic increase in regional diplomacy and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces, if necessary."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702963.html?hpid=topnews

also here:
http://www.responsibleplan.com/endorsees

[anne]

Public television this week has shown Viceroy * Bremer issuing a shoot to kill order, shoot to kill looters, on his first day in Iraq. Our senior military officers in Iraq simply refused, thankfully. But, such has been a characteristic mindset through the occupation and there has been shooting enough; shooting in a country that we have no reason to be in but are preparing to stay in more firmly than ever.

* Imagine an American Viceroy.

[Patricia Shannon]

Where have international "peace-keeping" forces kept peace in the past?

A multi-national effort to improve the situation in Iraq does sound like a good idea.

[anne]

Joseph Stiglitz has showed that Britain which has only 4,000 soldiers remaining in Iraq, remaining incidently in Basra, has had a 72% cost increase this year for maintaining even this minimal and essentially meaningless troop level. Leaving tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq will not lessen our fierce costs. But, there will be no American leaving for at least a year in any event.

What can we hope for then?

[im1dc]

Evidently Krugman decided to use his NYTimes Editorial today to shill for Hillary Clinton and b/c of that I found only these words, at the very end, to be worth repeating and remembering today: "Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily..."

Which, btw, negates his entire pro Hillary partisan pitch.

[don]

From this blog, I would favor Obama over the others, probably not what Paul had in mind. One thing Clinton may have going for her is the "Japan bashing" that Bill's people engaged in. The outrageous reserve accumulations in Asia are just the old policy of devaluation to export unemployment. I think it is foolish for us to concentrate on the mortgage crisis, when the real problem is too much U.S. borrowing. Why are we trying to spur demand when we already have huge excess demand and current account deficits? Smoot-Hawley was a bad way to go, but if the Asian economies continue to try to take more than their share of scarce global aggregate demand, they need a sharp rap on the knuckles. Japan is making noises that make me think they will revert to intervention if the carry-trade ceases to do its job to maintain their surpluses. They should not be allowed to.

[kthomas]

Well-said, Don. My buddies in Japan are more frightned then children right now. No kidding. They blame Bush and Greenspan, and they;re not too happy with Ben.

As for Hilary, NO WAY. We need another Clinton in the WH like we need another 4 more years of Dumbya.I'm ready to vote for a woman, just not THAT woman.

If Obama becomes President, I think this will go along ways towards bringing our multi-ethnic country together, and healing many open wounds. If you dont like that, sorry, but you can always go back to whatever homogenous nation-state you and your family came from....(and yes, I heard the preachers so-called inflamatory speeches, and all I can say is BIG DEAL)

McCain is not fit to be President, end of story.

[anne]

"I think it is foolish for us to concentrate on the mortgage crisis, when the real problem is too much U.S. borrowing. Why are we trying to spur demand when we already have huge excess demand and current account deficits?"

Good grief; we are in the midst of war and occupation and have repeately lowered taxes and here we are wondering why we are borrowing.

[anne]

Imagine not being able to understand that since the initial budget of George Bush we have repeatedly cut taxes especially for the wealthiest, military spending has increased far faster than the economy has grown an increased as a portion of national income, while social spending has grown more slowly than the economy and actually fallen as a portion of national income.

So taxes are lowered while we are at war and there are people who wonder why we have a bugert deficit an why we have a trade deficit. Amazing.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/world/africa/29somalia.html?hp

March 29, 2008

In Somalia, a Government on Life Support
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Many of the same elements that lined up in the early 1990s to create a famine in Somalia are lining up again — war, drought, displacement and skyrocketing food prices.

[Just so we never ever have to have to wonder at the amage we have done these last years. Remember when we urge Ethiopia to invade and occupy Somalia?]

[Ben Stein the Hack]

kthomas your most recent post makes no sense. on the one hand, you argue that economic policy is the most important thing (your buddies in Japan, etc.). on the other hand, you argue that obama will be the best president because he will unite the races.

I agree with your first premise. I disagree with your second. I think Obama will be a bad President, because the economy is the most important thing going forward over the next few years, and he has evinced very little understanding of the economy, and what understanding he has shown has been in a neo-libertarian frame (from his chief advisor Austan Goolsbee no doubt).

Why you think that an incompetent President who happens to be half African-American will heal the racial divide is beyond me.

It goes without stating that McCain would be worse than Obama. But I'm pretty sure Obama, who has not shown any real leadership on issues that I've seen, will be a pretty big failure in his own right, given the enormity of the issues he'll be facing.

[anne]

Against the wishes of all Africa save Ethiopia, we encouraged and supported the invasion and occupation of Somalia in December 2006. Since then we have directly bombed Somalia several times, while there has been continual fighting and continual misery as poor people have been driven from poor country and poor homes to poverty that has only worsened.

We went so far in supporting the invasion and occupation as to allow Ethiopia to buy weapons from North Korea.

[Bruce Wilder]

Ken Melvin: "Without major changes in his platform Obama will lose in November no matter how stupid, senile and corrupt McCain. I'm not sure that a black candidate can carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida . . . "

You want him change "his platform" or his skin color?

I found your comments quite disappointing, but maybe I can reassure you a bit. I have followed politics for many years, I know a lot about the history of American political dynamics and I can read a poll.

Frankly, the Democrats could probably elect a yellow dog in 2008. The vote totals will, conservatively, end up being around 53-46, nationally, which comes close to being a blowout, by the standards of the last 20 years.

The truth is that Presidential campaigns don't do much to affect the outcome, because the two campaigns tend to cancel each other out, and themselves out.

Economic conditions are the major drivers, followed by party succession (marginal independent voters like to alternate which Party holds office), corruption (which tends to reinforce the argument for alternating Party in office) and losing a war.

Voter turnout and voter confusion are the two levers that a campaign can get its hands on, and affect at the margin, and neither is at all easy to move, with a net effect at the margin, in a national campaign.

Voter turnout is usually about motivating the partisan base, but most of the easy moves are self-defeating on the equal-and-opposite-reaction principle. Anything you do to bring out A for your candidate tends to bring out Z for your opponent; attracting a group into your coalition tends to repel another group out of your coalition.

Voter confusion is about capturing the all-important ignoramus "independent" vote. All that a really effective voter confusion effort usually accomplishes, is that the ignoramus vote becomes a completely random variable, cancelling itself out, and returning marginal control of the outcome to differences in partisan turnout.

So, political campaigns cancel each other out, for two reasons: 1). each opposes the other, and 2.) the things they try to do -- motivate voter turnout and "inform" the voters most resistant to political information -- tend, themselves, to be self-cancelling.

That leaves economic conditions, political succession, corruption issues and losing-a-war -- the big predictors of political science models like Ray Fair's -- as reliable predictors of outcome. Do I need to point out that all four of the Big Four point in the direction of a Democratic victory?

There are plenty of other indicators, reinforcing the big picture. One is fund-raising: the Big Money powers-that-be in the Republican Party are showing no indication that they actually want McCain to campaign, let alone win. Voter turnout in the primaries are another: turnout in the Democratic primaries has been phenomenal, as has fund-raising.

Your point about the race factor is really a point about political identification and voter turnout -- the general action-reaction tendency I mentioned, which repels one group as it attracts another. A candidate who attracts business people repels union members; attracting religious people repels secular voters; attracting the anti-immigrant vote repels latinos, etc. The very fact of appeals, which have this dynamic, is an issue in American politics -- and one which Obama addresses directly, and, I hope, persuasively.

But, we should also notice the indirect implications. Blacks are the most reliable of Democratic voters; 90% vote Democratic. But, they also, historically, have terrible turnout. Obama will get the usual 90% of the black vote, but he will also get 90% of blacks to vote. And, he will not have to make any kind of explicit appeal to that group of voters. Now, you might think his face is an appeal to the black vote, and that's true up to a point, but the die-hard racist (aka white supremacist) vote is already entirely a Republican vote. See, it's that action-reaction thing. 90% of racists vote Republican for the same reason 90% of blacks vote Democratic. The question will be whether Obama has any effect on racist turnout -- I don't think McCain's supporters will be able to make any effective appeal to the white-supremacist vote, which doesn't, in turn, increase Obama's support among whites, and decrease Republican support among latinos. McCain's best racist play is to appeal to latinos, who tend to feel at odds with blacks as a minority interest group, and that's a weak appeal, given the Republican play for the anti-immigrant vote. Given Obama's personal qualities ("not black enough") race is a complicated double-bank shot, with no net gain for McCain.

The Rev. Wright thing is, obviously, a potent piece of racial politics, but it hasn't much affect Obama's support among actual Democrats. There are no white-supremacists in today's Democratic Party -- duh! The Rev. Wright thing has other dynamics worth noting, though. One of Obama's biggest problems is that something like one-quarter of voters secretly suspect he's a Muslim. It is tough to maintain that bit of low-information doggerel side-by-side with images of an obviously Chrisitian preacher, even in the minds of phenomenally confused voters. It also sets McCain up for attacks on the Republican evangelical base -- a group of easily ridiculed nutcases, who, conveniently, repel the kind of secular, moderate-conservative Republicans Obama appears to have a magical appeal for. On the billiards table of American political identification, it is really hard to get a predicable net effect from something like Rev. Wright, especially this far out; in this case, I call the series of bank shots and ball deflections, net for Obama.

As for the three particular States you mention -- Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- which have been battleground States in recent Presidential elections, none of them is likely to be a battleground State in 2008. Ohio has moved blue so far and so fast since 2004 that it is beginning to rival New York and California for its solid blueness. 90% of blacks voting will seal the deal for Obama in Ohio. Florida is also trending blue; oddly for a State famous for its retirees, the youth vote is driving the State Democratic. Pennsylvania always looks more doubtful for the Dems than it really is; machine politics takes care of any close elections and there are fewer Republican machines left alive than ever before in Pennsylvania.

[hari]

WHAT IF McCain derails ALL your above reasoning...and GOP retains the WH...inspite of Barak and his charisma.

[kthomas]

Hi Ben (I really like the way you poke at ole Stein...he really is a hack, the King really).

Economy, schmonomy. My instincts tell me that Obama is no worse or any better than Hillary when it comes to affecting something that might help our schmonomy. The kind of mess this economy is in cannot be corrected simply by voting in a new President. America has been living on BS credit since Reagan took office....we consume consume consume, and consume some more. And the last time a Clinton was in office, he had increased poverty (spare me the spiel about how nice the economy was when Bill was around....nice for who?....NAFTA anyone?) and endless sex-scandal. No thank you.

I would vote 3rd party, but we really don;t live in a real democracy. I despise most Repubs and many Dems. Obama is my choice at this point - he's got this honky's vote. I'm not a full-fledged Obamaniac, but I see no other legitmate choice. Who knows, maybe he'll invite Mrs. Clinton to is cabinet, i would? She would make an outstanding Sec of State, even a VP.

[kthomas]

Hari, I'll give you 5 to 1 odds on that wager.

[anne]

Policy is critical from here, and knowing where here is. Here is a country that as never before in war has cut taxes as military spending has increased while social spending has been sacrificed. We are not troubled because of France or Australia or China or Japan. We are our own trouble.

We borrowed because we had to borrow to finance a war while cutting taxes repeatedly. We have been fighting a $3 trillion war, and pretending anything but that we are at war and that with no possible sane or moral reason.

Was even Somalia a threat to America? Was that the point?

[Ben Stein the Hack]

Bruce:

I think your reasoning in your last post is flawed. I agree that the drivers point to a Dem victory, but I think Obama is reasonably likely (and far more likely than Hillary) to lose despite that.

1) I think your voter confusion/voter turnout model is too simplistic, and too cute. I don't think it's a very good explanation for elections. While I agree that voter turnout is important, voter confusion is neither random nor is it about confusion. It's about branding and messaging more than anything.

2) I think you're wrong about black turnout and Obama. Yes, it will be high, but it's already been historically high. Non-elite black voters have felt the pains of the transition from Clinton to Bush more acutely than other voter blocs. So I think any gains here are minimal at best. Also, you're forgetting how popular Clinton is with black voters. While the whole unfortunate "Clinton is running a racist campaign" message has no doubt hurt that popularity, I strongly believe it's a temporary dip, rather than a permanent one. So I don't think this bloc can help him very much.

3) Obama increasingly looks like the candidate of Democratic elites. He has failed repeatedly to connect with working class, non-black voters. I think we now have enough data to determine that this is a trend. I believe, and believe I have seen evidence supporting this belief, that this bloc of voters is the most likely to vote against their own economic interests (enough so that it's not merely random or "confusion"-- it's a legitimate trend), so they are a key bloc.

4) Obama's failure to lead on economic policy and general timidity to propose bold ideas means, I suspect, that he will be unable to differentiate himself from McCain sufficiently on pocketbook issues come November with this demographic. THIS IS HUGE. In an environment where the economy should be the #1 issue, Obama basically looks to be neutralizing potentially the Dems' biggest asset (progressive economic platform) by sticking to a neo-Chicago school script on economics. Given that McCain is a Vietnam war veteran, a "maverick", etc., while Obama is generally perceived as a liberal elite candidate (and yes, I realize this is all very unfair, since Obama is not liberal, although I would argue he is clearly the candidate of white elites, but I digress), I strongly suspect that McCain will kick Obama's ass in this demographic.

5) The two swing blocs that are currently supporting Obama stridently may be soft in their support. Obama clearly has two groups of voters behind him that are interesting: 1) young voters, who are "swing voters" only insofar as turnout has always been key for them; and 2) socially moderate, economically conservative wealthy Republicans and indies. The problem I see here is that they form a tenuous coalition, because they are in many ways diametrically opposed. Young voters are behind Obama because he is a liberal, while wealthy voters are behind Obama because he is a right-centrist. I think it's difficult to maintain that balance between readers of Perez Hilton and the Wall Street Journal oped page, and I don't think Hillary has done a very good job of driving a wedge between them (largely because I think, despite the media coverage to the contrary, that Hillary feels she cannot run a particularly negative campaign). I think the GOP, which better than anyone knows how to play wedge politics, will drive a jackhammer between these two groups. Either Obama will be the candidate of Wall Street, or the candidate of young indie rock kids. He won't be both, once the GOP is done with him.

All told, I think that Obama makes for an exceedingly weak Democratic candidate in a year where the stars should be aligned for us.

[anne]

Enough deceiving.

America during the Presidency of Bill Clinton had a declining deficit that led to a surplus massive enough to project paying off the entire American debt in this decade. Enough of savaging history.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

kthomas,

Clinton increased poverty? According to who? I haven't seen any numbers suggesting that. Can you point them out?

[anne]

We had a superb economic situation during the Clinton Presidency, an economy that was generating 225,000 jobs a month for 8 years, while we have had 160,000 job a month created during the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency.

Enough deceiving!

[Jay]

Anne: You should do some research on...

A) The age at which workers reach their peak earning years.
B) The percentile distribution of Americans in this age group in 1990, 2000 and 2006.

Or maybe you'd love to explain to us how demographics do not impact economic variables such as incomes.

[hari]

@ kthomas -

I know you guys want to win!

I do too - for the sake of good old USA.

However the harakiri that's going on right now will undo all the good expected after end of "the decider" reign. I'm afraid you don't get the dynamics of politics...it ain't based on logic or intelligence or just charisma either.
Unlike Clinton, Barack has not shown knowledge or capacity to deal with intricate economic issues let alone other stuff.
He may end up similar to GWB - with a VP doing the donkey's work for "the decider". May be a Bloomberg!

How's that for an idea?

[anne]

We had a superb economic situation during the Clinton Presidency, an economy that was generating 225,000 jobs a month for 8 years, while we have had 160,000 job a month created during the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency.

Now, for a spate of deceivng rubbish from those for whom truth is as nothing.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

Jay:

I'll bite. What's your point (not meant as an attack, but as a legitimate question)?

Are you arguing that the Clinton economy was not historically good (independent of the stock market bubble), or significantly better than both the Bush, Bush, and Reagan economies? If so, I'll call bullshit, and point out that once again, it appears that Obama supporters are trotting out debunked Republican talking points to try to tear down Hillary.

Plenty of reasons to criticize Hillary, no need to resort to false GOP talking points.

[Jay]

"We had a superb economic situation during the Clinton Presidency, an economy that was generating 225,000 jobs a month for 8 years, while we have had 160,000 job a month created during the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency."

Nice post hoc ergo propter hoc argument (I assume from your past comments that you have faith that there is some causation here).

[anne]

And so that we understand the difference between a lie and truth, there were 990,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio when NAFTA was passed * and the number was never less than 1 million through 2000 while now the number is only about 775,000.

* http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-and-barack-afta-nafta.html

We had superb economic policy through the Clinton years.

[Jay]

Ben Stein:

Would you think that income growth would be more robust in a period when the percent of the population in its peak earning years rises from 10% to 13.5% (an unprecedented rise, although there was a similar fall in the early 1980's) or in a period when that age cohort is virtually flat?

[anne]

"We had a superb economic situation during the Clinton Presidency, an economy that was generating 225,000 jobs a month for 8 years, while we have had 160,000 job a month created during the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency."

Precisely; now for a reply from the crazed intimidator.

[ken melvin]

Bruce,

I come as a gadfly, a devil's advocate, so am little effected by your rationalizations, though I do pray you be right (the charisma thing does little for me and won’t carry the day). The rethugs never, at least not in recent memory, run on the issues and so it not by issues they win. The point(s) I'm wanting to make are: though prima facie the wins in the southern primaries are good, there's no balance in that no dem is going to win there in Nov and there was no equivalent pickup as in the states I mentioned. In fact, it make such more difficult. Thus the need for an offset in policy. Rather educate, Move-On et al think they are going to tell people how to vote. Ain't going to happen. Polls Smolls, any dem can carry CA, IL, MA, and NY. In order to win the dems must carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, FL, … My ‘polls’ show McCain carrying the border states because ‘they’ ain’t agonna vote for no woman nor a black. If Obama prevails, the dems need start (admit) from the premise that the delegate count was weighted both by the southern states and rethug crossovers (a lot of your new found dems are of the fickle sort). It will take an all out concerted effort to get votes where they count and that means in those states that count in Nov. I agree, it appears that the corporate money is on the dems , and that’s big poll.

[anne]

I know, I know, Mom. Look at me, Mom. there were six, count 'em, six babies born in 1994 an there we have a trashing of Clinton economics by a crazed trasher.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

Jay:

It's Ben Stein THE HACK! Please don't confuse me with Ben Stein!

I understand the point you're making, which is that at least some of the Clinton economic boom was explained by demographic factors. But I don't understand it in response to Anne's comments. Are you claiming that it was the sole or even main cause of the Clinton economy's boom?

If so, again I call bullshit. I have read nothing reputable that would lead one to that conclusion.

Also, in response to your specific point, I'd also note that, intuitively (but without having read data on this) that "peak earning years" is a concept that makes less sense when the effective working life of the population has been so extended. For example, more "retirees" are working today than under Clinton, because the economic stability is poor.

[Jay]

"And so that we understand the difference between a lie and truth, there were 990,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio when NAFTA was passed * and the number was never less than 1 million through 2000 while now the number is only about 775,000."

Anne: Chart a trade weight dollar index from 1995 to present and remember that there is about a 3 year lag in the response of trade patterns to shifts in currency values.

For every single variable regression you can come up with to describe complex systems, I assure you there is a variable I can name that is probably more important than who happened to be the president.

[anne]

"And so that we understand the difference between a lie and truth, there were 990,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio when NAFTA was passed and the number was never less than 1 million through 2000 while now the number is only about 775,000."

Precisely; but continue with the crazed rubbish because that is the point.

[Jay]

"But I don't understand it in response to Anne's comments. Are you claiming that it was the sole or even main cause of the Clinton economy's boom?"

Of course not. There are plenty of other variables, say technology that impacted growth positively in the 1990's. That is ironic that you would suggest that I think one variable is the sole cause, when it is Anne in her socialist tendency(and yours, there is no such thing as Clinton economy) that is making the claim that Clinton was the sole variable of the runup in the 1990's U.S. economy.

[Bruce Wilder]

kharris: "I think you have mistaken some other comments for politics when they were meant as policy"

I remain skeptical of the kind of gazing-at-tea-leaves analysis of policy proposals, which Krugman has attempted, not least because in all of his columns and almost all of his blogposts, he comes down squarely against Obama, but, rarely, against Clinton. I just don't think there's enough difference betweem Obama and Clinton policy proposals, or policy cadres, to justify any but the most subtle or tenative deductions of difference. And, any objective analysis is going to result in many open questions (and not so many definitive answers) about both candidates, and, given how close in policy preferences they are, very few if any clear and telling differences in policy preference or committment.

There's a difference of style, in that Clinton tends to lead with specific policy features, while Obama leads with general principles and critiques of past-policy (the foundation for "change" perorations, which are never as empty as charged). I think Krugman mistakes this difference in style as a difference in policy substance, largely because he's so determined to find a difference in policy substance, which would disfavor Obama and favor Clinton.

I find the difference in style somewhat confusing. I suspect it reflects different oratorical skill-sets. Concrete policy features that people readily understand are a standard part of Democratic faux-populist "I'll fight for you" speeches, of the kind Gore and Kerry gave, and that Hillary tends to give. "social security lock-box" has a kind of bumpersticker brevity, but satisfies the earnest wonkishness of Dems, who think candidates should "avoid the negative" and "talk about the issues". If Gore had won in 2000 (and also been the "fighter" promised by his rhetoric), the "lockbox" bumpersticker might have translated into some impact on fiscal policy -- but it is hard to tell.

As Mark Schmidt has eloquently explained, it is not really what the candidates say about the issues, that matters to whether they get elected, it is what the issues say about the candidate. You, the voter, are supposed to deduce something about the candidate from what they say and how they say it.

From Clinton, you are supposed to get that she cares about health care and she's a fighter and she's experienced and trustworthy. If you are a conservative business type, you are also supposed to get that Hillary is someone willing to work with you, someone you (aka business people) can work with. On foreign policy, Clinton also has at least two message themes -- she emphatically states that she will leave Iraq (that's for anne), and she also advertises that she's a hawk closely aligned with Lieberman and McCain.

I am cynical enough that such contradictory narratives only bother me a little, and mostly because they confuse me, and make me wonder if the candidate actually has any principles. I assume that every candidate has some principles and personal opinions -- even Republicans do -- but I know that no one could possibly have as many principles and (non-judicial) "convictions" as politicians are required to have on the campaign trail. Many of these positions and convictions are adopted purely for defensive purposes, to deflect or defuse opposition narratives ("tax-and-spend" "arrogant liberal elite" etc.)

I would fault both candidates for too much bi-partisan happy talk. Democrats, systematically, fail to define their Repubican opponents in pejorative terms, and it actually hurts Democrats with "independent" voters, who seldom learn anything else about politics, except that Democrats are foreign policy weaklings and tax-and-spend liberals. Clinton has actually praised McCain's patriotism and foreign policy expertise; for that alone, she should be denied the nomination of her Party.

The picture of Clinton sitting at a table with Richard Mellon Scaife, during her meeting with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh newspaper owned by Scaife, really doesn't reassure me that she's a genuine fighter and not a victim of Stockholm syndrome. Scaife spent millions promoting the accusation that Clinton murdered Vince Forster! But, even if she can get over the personal animus, as a Democrat and an American, I don't understand how she can forgive the naked assault on the Constitution financed by this man -- Ken Starr was, and is, practically his employee (Starr is actually an employee of Scaife-beneficiary Pepperdine, hardly a coincidence).

Obama is often faulted, by Democrats, for things he has said, about Reagan's influence, about increasing the size of the uniformed military (anne hates that one), and about Social Security. For some Democrats, these statements are hot buttons -- less about policy substance than about which team you are on -- and a good example of what Schmidt says about what-the-issues-say-about-the-candidate. On policy substance, though, I can find no confirmation that they indicate that Obama is more conservative than Clinton, who has a tendency to be unnervingly Republican-lite, herself.

The increase-the-uniforms policy, for example, strikes me as both good policy positioning rhetoric and (potentially) excellent politics. Obviously, anne doesn't see it that way. But, the Pentagon budget problem is primarily about increases in military spending going to a network of corrupt, Republican support contractors -- a cost-inflating policy, born of a policy decision to restrict the numbers of uniformed military, while increasing their operational committments. It has had disastrous consequences. Advocating an increase in uniforms is great political tactics, and Obama has carefully (and sincerely) laid down a record of effective support for veterans. But, it leaves the door open to a policy of much-needed Pentagon reform and budget-cutting.

I don't see this as a stark policy substance contrast with Clinton. But, Clinton is less well-prepared by her record on veteran's issues, and tends to defend herself by being a super-hawk on foreign policy, which I don't find reassuring at all. I don't know why it doesn't upset anne more, but on all these topics, ymmv.)

[Patricia Shannon]

"If Gore had won in 2000"

He did win.

[Patricia Shannon]

Nobody is addressing the role of that tool of the plutocracy, the press.

[wogie]

Anne: "And so that we understand the difference between a lie and truth, there were 990,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio when NAFTA was passed * and the number was never less than 1 million through 2000 while now the number is only about 775,000."

True enough, millions of manufacturing jobs have evaporated -- but it may be facile to blame it on NAFTa. Fact is, manufacturing output has continued to grow nicely, as it has since NAFTA's inception, despite far lower employment. If you can cut and paste this URL for a graph it is apparent.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/frbg17/b00004_ipsa+1980+2008+0+1+1+290+545++0

A better explanation of job losses in manufacturing can more likely be attributed to improved efficiency, reflected in output per employee hour

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedstl/mfgoph+1980+2008+0+1+1+290+545++0