Nomi doesn't mention the matter of fiscal policy. HRC wants budget surpluses. BHO does not expect to balance the budget any time soon. (The TNR article recognized this difference.) BHO also wants an infrastructure bank, which would presumably be off-budget and presumably increase the overall deficit.
The mandate thing thanks to Krugman is a molehill masquerading as a mountain. Otherwise there is no advantage on health care for either, though the politics of BHO's position are more congenial for November.
HRC is a free-trader. I don't give a sh*t what she is saying now. You don't need a long memory to recall Bill's cooptationist antics re: Seattle.
Both would leave the Fed alone. No advantage for either.
Housing: the interest rate freeze is, to quote WJC, a fairy tale. Illegal. Infeasible. Not going to happen.
Family leave: edge to Clinton for a grant to state govs versus the dependent care tax credit? State govs are a toilet bowl for grants.
Clinton would create 5 million jobs, BHO only 2 million?!? I myself would create six million jobs, so there!!
And then . . . oh well . . . might as well watch teevee.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Nomi Prins writes:
>
> <http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/02/obama-vs-clinton-
> economic-policy.html>
>
> As a practical matter of readability, Clinton's document is a clear
> 12-page report, with nonduplicative points and slightly less detail.
> Obama's is a 48–page thesis in which several key ideas appear
> multiple times with slightly different descriptions each time. But
> that's stylistic choice. On the economic substance, Clinton beats
> Obama 5-to-3 and ties on 2 topics.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>