I like Krugman a lot. Too bad Hillary would rely on Greenspan (who helped cause this mess) for her high level commission instead of Krugman.
"...I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation, which might help avert future crises...."
Hard to understand why Krugman thinks Hillary is so much more progressive when lack of regulation is precisely what led us into the current mess (along with sheer korporate greed).
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 28, 2008 11:44 AMWhy is Hillary "Huckabee" Clinton still campaigning when she's been mathematically eliminated from the race? Obama won, Hillary. Sit down and shut up.
Posted by Steve at March 28, 2008 11:52 AMtoday's PEW poll says national disenchantment is at a 20 year low. Maybe peter can remind us who was president 20 years ago.
Posted by T2 at March 28, 2008 12:14 PMgay veteran, are you serious? You mention the worst thing he said about Hillary and the best thing he said about Obama, but you completely ignore every good thing he said about Clinton's plan (which he finds bolder and more progressive) and you ignore his concerns over Obama's plan.
The only reason that you don't understand Krugman's preference is that you can't fairly analyze articles when obama and clinton are being talked about. Krugman's views are perfectly cogent.
Hey, GV, give credit where it is due. Hillary would also rely on Rubin and Volcker.
eriposte:
Let's assume that Hillary is, as you claim, legitimately more progressive than Obama. If so, she has run a disastrous primary campaign. She has let the CW to exist for months that the candidates are "virtually identical on the issues". Indeed, some version of this phrase occurs in almost any news story or editorial comparing the candidates (save those here at TLC).
What has Team Hillary done to debunk this perception? From my standpoint, virtually nothing. Her theme has been "experience versus inexperience" not "progressive versus centrist". Her central attack on Obama has been that Obama will not be able to execute his plans, not that Obama's plans are too conservative.
At every step, Hillary has avoided drawing a strong contrast with Obama along ideological lines. On the rare occasions when Team Hillary has defended progressivism (e.g. complaining about Obama's Reagan comments), it has drawn Obama's blood. Clearly, Obama is vulnerable on this score. And yet, Hillary has made such attacks the exceptions that prove the rule: Hillary has no intention of running as the candidate that you claim her to be.
Hillary has studiously avoided building any credibility as a progressive during her time in the Senate. She has avoided confrontation on numerous controversial issues, telecom immunity being the latest. She has refused to distance herself (if not courted) some of the vilest elements of the Democratic Party: Carville, McAullife, and Penn.
Finally, I know that he is her husband, but Bill Clinton has a terrible reputation among real progresives as being a phony, corporate sell-out. It is her responsibility to find some way to signal to voters that her administration would not be a repeat of Bill's. Hint: Calling for a task force of Greenspan, Rubin and Volcker is not the way to do it.
Posted by space at March 28, 2008 12:44 PMWhile space's tone is a little harsh, (s)he is correct in the bottom line. Especially on health care,where the differences with Obama are vast, HRC has failed , even in the 16-min debate back and forth, to make clear their differences.
I believe she is more progressive, and has failed to articulate it. Obama is ripe to be branded as a libertarian, based on his economic advisers alone. Given the increasing weight of the "economy, stupid" on the remaining contests, it's a greivous mistake.
Was very glad, though, to see Krugman evaluating her mortgage approach as best, because the Greenspan nod and the anti-securities lawsuit sop to tort reform had me down in the dumps about her.
Posted by Desert Dawg at March 28, 2008 01:04 PMKrugman is correct -- Hilary Clinton's policies do make more sense than Obama's. This is the main reason many people (me included) have hesistated to support him.
But it's one thing to have good proposals and another to get them implemented. Clinton's approach to politics does not give one confidence she will get much done. She's pissing off many of her fellow Democratic senators now, and just went out of her way to fire a public warning shot a the Democratic House Speaker. She's beginning to remind me of Jimmy Carter. The root causes were different -- Carter was an outsider who didn't listen to the Democratic brass when he came to town, and thus proceeded to piss off every one of them so badly that they nearly managed to beat him in the 1980 primaries. Clinton isn't coming in as an outsider, but she certainly is not a bridge-builder.
There are different ways to get policies implemented. The Bush (Rove) approach is to strong arm and threaten -- and with the malable authoritarian followers in the Republican Congress, that worked perfectly. However, most of the time you need to use persuasion and political skills to build consensus. LBJ and Reagan were very strong in this area. GHWB had similar skills in terms of building foreign relations. Bill Clinton had these skills (just ask anyone in Ireland, where they love him), but was prevented from making full use of them by the Gingrich crowd.
Obama certainly seems to have these skills, although his record is incomplete. But Hilary? Clearly she does not.
Posted by Ren at March 28, 2008 01:56 PMWell, Krugman can do no wrong as far am I'm concerned, generally.
He has decided to weigh Hillary's broader program to "save" people who bought houses at more than twice what they were/are "worth" as being "more progressive" than Obama's call for (admittedly) much greater regulation of the investment banks---who got us into this mess through their greed and fraud. Obama's is thus the much bigger change to the current financial set-up and is the more long term solution. I suspect Wall Street-lovin' Hillary would never propose such a thing.
And remember who else also is going to benefit tremendously from Hillary's call for the gub'mint to buy ALL the underwater mortgages America, and then restructure and manage them (at OUR expense): the Big Wall Street Banks currently holding the shit mortgages and shit mortgage backed securities issued on these shit mortgages (which her program would also bail out). Not a coincidence from the senator that represents Wall Street, IMO.
So Hillary is proposing more "socializing" of the losses for the Wall Street banks and little regulation of their profits, but clearly her plan would benefit underwater homeowners as well, to the extent that you feel they are "innocent"---which many people don't.
Of course, all this talk is mostly meaningless, because something along these lines will need to be done NOW in 2008, not 2009. And Bush/Bernanke plan on bailing out the Wall Street banks/investment banks NOW, placing their liabilities on the taxpayers balance sheet, and doing nothing to obtain actual regulation of the culprits in return. Standard operating procedure, we'll see if either Hillary or Obama object, now that we know what they each think should be done.
Posted by euzoius at March 28, 2008 02:16 PMAnd thanks for covering this topic, eriposte.
Posted by euzoius at March 28, 2008 02:17 PMSpace,
You are confusing perception with reality. Hillary has been very progressive on the stump. The media and some of the Greatest Blogs on Earth have more often than not chosen to filter out what they don't care about and focus on the trivia and garbage they do care about. I have heard her speeches on numerous occasions and it is often aggressively populist and progressive - she has often called out why her policies are more progressive than Obama's but to someone who is not a policy wonk the differences are much vaster between HRC/Obama and McCain than between HRC and Obama. Not to mention, you won't hear much about the differences if your main source of news is the media and Obama-supporting blogs who keep spinning the much more centrist economic policies of Obama to be somehow Bolder.
I am not surprised that so many Democrats and progressives just listen to what the media chooses to cover and then think that somehow HRC is not running a progressive and populist campaign. There's a reason why she's on track to win the majority of the popular vote among registered Democrats. She is going on the campaign trail every day and talking about her progressive policies and positions and her record.
Of course, don't get me started on the topic of Clinton hatred.
P.S. Sorry, I don't have time to respond to every one of your points but I can easily make similar points about Obama. Let's not pretend he doesn't have some pathetic advisors and surrogates.
Posted by eriposte at March 28, 2008 02:43 PMGay Veteran,
When Obama made Bold proclamations about how he's going to get everyone on the table and involved in setting policy - especially those who are the enemies of reform - I recall that was something worth applauding - i.e., The Obama Rules:
------------
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011643.php
....if you show yourself to be willing to work with those who don't agree with you, then suddenly there's going to be some Republicans and some Independents outside of Washington who I believe are also frustrated with our Government...have also lost trust that they are being listened to...who are willing to be part of a change movement...and that's how you form a working majority...
Let me tell you something, when you have a working majority you can afford to be polite. You can afford to be courteous. Because you've got the numbers. You've got the votes. When I've got the American people behind me I will say yes ma'am and no ma'am. But if the insurance companies get in my way, we'll just push them aside very politely and go ahead and do what's right for the American people. That's how you bring about real change.
....
------------
Of course, when HRC thinks it is important to get everyone on the table to prevent fiascos like the health care debacle she is a piece of crap. If she argues for excluding some people from the table, then she's a piece of crap because it would lead to fiascos. The Clinton Rules.
This is how Democrats lose elections. This is how Gore was torn to bits in the 2000 election - first by Bradley and his supporters (incl. the media), then by Bush and his supporters (incl. the media).
Posted by eriposte at March 28, 2008 02:52 PMDesert Dawg,
What is this: "the anti-securities lawsuit sop to tort reform"? What are you referring to?
Is it the latest nonsense hoax about HRC?
---------------
....The “oh, shit” link (the post is from Suburban Guerilla) is to an article about Hillary Clinton, and the clear implication is that Hillary has proposed barring homeowners from suing predatory lenders. If that’s true it is not borne out by the linked article:
The New York senator proposed greater protections for lenders from possible lawsuits by investors, a variation of so-called tort reform. For years, GOP leaders have called for restrictions on what they consider unwarranted lawsuits against businesses. Democrats have often resisted them on grounds they limit injured parties’ legitimate rights to redress.There is nothing in the article to support the contention that Clinton is trying to bar the homeowners from suing. Clinton is talking about people who invested in the sliced and diced mortgage backed securities. I.e., she is turning the Republican guns back at them, since it is the fat-cats (well, slightly less fat now) who would be thrown out of court.
“Many mortgage companies are reluctant to help families restructure their mortgages because they’re afraid of being sued by the investment banks, the private equity firms and others who actually own the mortgage papers,” Clinton said in what she billed as a major address on the economy at the University of Pennsylvania.
We Democrats have to stop beating up on our own.
---------------
eriposte:
Thank you for your response.
Blaming the media for any disconnect between perception and reality is a cop-out. Smart, talented, and effective candidates know that not all of their constituents have the time or expertise to wade through detailed policy proposals. They understand that people will look to symbols as shorthand for what the candidate believes: The candidate's campaign themes, soundbites, and proxies. Hillary has failed to create a progressive aura around her campaign.
While the media has often been sexist, superficial, and mean towards Hillary, I have seen absolutely no evidence that they have fundamentally distorted her central message: that she is the "experience" candidate and that she, unlike Obama, will be ready on day one. I have seen no evidence that Hillary's campaign -- as opposed to certain pro-Hillary bloggers -- is upset at being portrayed as insufficiently progressive.
It would have taken Hillary so little to fundamentally alter her public perception among bloggers in the past few years and she CHOSE not to make any effort.
Posted by space at March 28, 2008 03:24 PMyou're pretty funny rjarnold when it is well known that Krugman is pro-Hillary (and I generally STILL like his articles)
Desert Dawg: "...Obama is ripe to be branded as a libertarian, based on his economic advisers alone...."
Then why is Obama calling for MORE regulation? That is the opposite of the libertarian position.
and as usual perfesser jay doesn't talk about how people were steered into sub-prime mortgages. The current mess is what happens when you have UNregulated capitalism.
Posted by gay veteran at March 29, 2008 11:07 AM