« It's going to cost more to fix Alaska's roads | Main | A Trade Policy for Progressive Democrats »

October 11, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter Gallagher

The most important measure here (IF she means it) is moving to stronger fiscal discipline. Of course, Presidential candidates say that all the time and then play the game with Congress as soon as they're in the seat. Otherwise, as long-term foreign observer of US trade "rhetoric" -- i.e. the things politicians say to their home constituencies -- I'd say this looks relatively moderate. Of course, the 'enforcement' of labor standards (whose?) is potentially a shabby refuge for protectionism. But there's nothing in Clinton's approach to this that threatens more than the Democrats in Congress have already agreed, which seems to allow for differentiation. Doubling TAA is may be a good idea, too. If it works (I've never been sure what it actually DOES). What consumers in the US and producers abroad don't want above all is a return to the knee-jerk (or cynical -- take your pick) use of safeguard actions to 'protect jobs' such as those in the early days of the Bush Administration. One thing to be said in Mrs Clinton's favor here seems to be that, unlike Mr Bush in his first term, she doesn't have as much need to 'learn on the job'.


Obama should have chosen Clinton if it’s really for the good of America, both of them would have given up their differences and tried to work out all the issues by employing Obama’s vision and Clinton’s experience. The fact that Obama chose Biden simply because this guys has the cleanest history and less problems for Republican’s attack shows how egoistic Obama is and what he’s really in for - to win the race, not for the good of America. Clinton is so much more brilliant and capable than Biden. What a poor choice on Obama’s part to choose Biden as a running mate. He just lost my vote for this election.

The comments to this entry are closed.