Mar 31st, 2008
Obama campaign picks up on Krugman’s good advice
On Monday, the NYT’s Paul Krugman wrote some fair criticism of all three presidential candidates: they’re talking about the economy in general, but they aren’t sufficiently addressing the ongoing fiscal crisis. More importantly, they aren’t offering the kinds of regulations the system needs.
Now, the shadow banking system is facing the 21st-century equivalent of the wave of bank runs that swept America in the early 1930s. And the government is rushing in to help, with hundreds of billions from the Federal Reserve, and hundreds of billions more from government-sponsored institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Given the risks to the economy if the financial system melts down, this rescue mission is justified. But you don’t have to be an economic radical, or even a vocal reformer like Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to see that what’s happening now is the quid without the quo.
Last week Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, declared that Mr. Frank is right about the need for expanded regulation. Mr. Rubin put it clearly: If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks. […]
[Clinton and Obama] are running more or less populist campaigns. But at least so far, neither Democrat has made a clear commitment to financial reform.
It looks like the Obama campaign got the message. The senator delivered a speech at Cooper Union in NYC this morning on the economy, specifically emphasizing “legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system.”
From a purely political perspective, I’d just add that Obama did so a) while exposing the disaster of Bush’s economic policies; b) trashing McCain’s speech on the economy from Tuesday; and c) without mentioning Hillary Clinton, in any context, even once.
Tags: barney, blog, s
10 Responses to “Obama campaign picks up on Krugman’s good advice”
The people who participate in caucuses are typically more active in the party. They’re more likely to donate and campaign for the eventual candidate. They’re also typically more informed about the issues and what is necessary for someone to get elected. It makes more sense for a party to base its nomination on the desires of caucus attendees than to base it on a primary election.
If there is an infinite amount of numbers, wouldn’t elevnty have to be a number?
Not in our county. We spent a few minutes on the resolutions (voted to pass them to state without going through each one). Most of the time was waiting for the credentials committee to tally the votes, and get the at-large delegates to fill gaps.
It’s not so much reluctant as they aren’t registered as Democrats.If Texas had a closed primary, Obama would have won both.
Idiot.
Chelsea will be just eligible to run in 2016.
Old news, right?
I wish idiots like you wouldn’t clutter up the fucking internet with your stupidity.
I voted for Obama in the cacaus, but I want Texas Democrates to use the popular vote for all of our delegates.But, rules are rules, and Obama won more delagates and therefore won Texas for the only thing that matters, delagates.Everyone should keep in mind Hillary’s strategy for getting the nominations is for Obama’s campaign to implode. Obama doesn’t implode.