K. Sabeel Rahman on what the economic fight in the Democratic party is about (Warning: even handed):
Clinton takes a managerialist view of how government works, embracing the idea that, with sufficient expertise, government can fine-tune the economy to prevent crises. Sanders, by contrast, is skeptical of expert oversight, and instead seeks to radically restructure the economy itself.
Take their positions on financial regulation and the problem of “too big to fail” financial firms. Sanders wants to restore the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act, which mandates a separation between commercial and investment banking, and proposes to break up financial firms that are too big to fail into smaller entities, to limit their economic and political influence. As Sanders has argued, “if a bank is too big to fail, it’s too big to exist.” Clinton, by contrast, seeks to extend and deepen oversight of by strengthening the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory overhaul passed in 2010. She argues that the financial crisis itself was caused not by big banks, but by so-called “shadow banks” like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. These financial firms play a critical role in an interconnected financial system, but exist outside conventional financial regulation, and would be relatively unaffected by either a re-instatement of Glass-Steagall, or by breaking up banks like Citi or Bank of America. Clinton’s critique is sound, and several economists and commentators have warned that Sanders’s approach will not address shadow banking. But it misses the broader implications of Sanders’s position, which is not just about financial regulation policy, also concerns the underlying approach to governance more broadly.
By the way, do not miss this righteous rant by Al Giordano on being someone else's idea of a progressive. That’s the dark side of passion, young Jedi. Guard against it.
On a lighter side, Bernie and SuperBernie will be on SNL tonight.
Sanders, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, will appear on "SNL" alongside host Larry David -- who has done a near perfect imitation of Sanders.
James Fallows:
To underscore a point on atmosphere. Hackles are rising in both the Sanders and the Clinton camps. But at least so far, this has been as respectful-toned a competitive primary campaign as you’re going to find.
Back in early 1980, it was none other than GOP candidate George H.W. Bush who blasted the pre-canonization Ronald Reagan for his “voodoo economics.” By the end of the year, they were running as partners and the closest of friends. Back in early 2008, the frostiness between the Clinton and Obama camps was so intense that it was hard to imagine a reconciliation. A year later, Hillary Clinton was a new President Obama’s Secretary of State; by 2012, Bill Clinton was Obama’s most effective re-election advocate; and this year Hillary Clinton is running as the extension of the Obama legacy, much as George H.W. Bush did with Reagan.
Things could worsen. But on the Democratic side they are notably amiable so far.
A McCain strategist reviews New Hampshire:
The dynamics and the political environment are entirely different than in 2000 and in 2008. For the first time in recent memory, a solid majority of Republicans is supporting rebels and outsiders, while Sanders nearly wrested Iowa from Hillary Clinton and appears headed for a big win in New Hampshire. Large chunks of voters in both parties are simply fed up with politicians and their broken promises -- so much so that here in New Hampshire, they appear willing to look past the lack of personal campaigning and throw the political system on its head by handing victories to extreme outsider Trump and 74-year-old Sanders.
The Trump and Sanders campaigns could not be any more different from the way McCain ran for president. But this year, voters may well reward the entertainment value of the rally-to-rally campaign because of their overwhelming disgust for politicians and the status quo in Washington.
Political junkies get their news from cable, along with multiple other sources. And that is scary, since cable has a ways to go in actually being informative (see the Erik Wemple piece below). It happens, but it’s too rare:
So, you know that presidential election you've been hearing so much about?
Well, you're not alone.
A new survey conducted last month found there's a lot of interest in the presidential campaign; nine in 10 American adults had learned something about the election in the past week.
That news came from at least one of 11 different types of media sources asked about by the Pew Research Center.
Those sources range from cable TV news to the candidates' own websites.
Most, 24 percent, said they found cable TV news "most helpful." Social media, local TV, news websites (like this one), radio and the TV networks' nightly news programs were deemed "most helpful" for 10 percent to 14 percent of those surveyed.
Erik Wemple on a Megyn Kelly interview and misogyny:
Far more interesting was an exchange between Stephanopoulos and Kelly over Internet misogyny. The anchor cited comments that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made in a chat with People magazine:
Clinton says she believes there’s a “special amount of venomous commentary” reserved for women, invoking the name of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as a prime example.
“I think it’s good that it’s maybe off the main stage, but it certainly is still permeating in some parts of our political system in ways that are quite disturbing,” Clinton says. “And some of the women reporters and commentators who have either read or said something to me find themselves, as Megyn Kelly has, drawn into the political arena, and not just for their professional behavior, opinions – and I think that’s obviously fair game – but for their appearance, for what they say and do.”
Asked whether she agrees with that assessment, Kelly didn’t hesitate: “Absolutely, yes I do. I mean, I think that — that’s the problem with language like ‘bimbo’ and so on because it gins up other comments along those lines, which is diminishing, obviously, not just to the woman being attacked but to women in general. So hopefully we’ll get to a point where we elevate the level of debate.”
Greg Sargent:
And yet, at bottom, Sanders is not quite willing to say why it is that the acceptance of oligarchic money by specific individual Democratic politicians, such as Clinton or Obama, leads them to personally embrace policies that are insufficiently ambitious to address the soaring inequality that poses a quasi-extistential threat to the middle class and our political economy.
To be clear, as noted above, Sanders is also specifically criticizing Clinton’s policies, which is fair game, and more broadly, there’s nothing wrong with Sanders indicting the entire Democratic establishment. We should be debating the question of how big money paralyzes our system and skews Congressional policy-making in both parties towards the interests of the wealthy. But there are still fundamental unanswered questions at the heart of this Clinton-Sanders argument, and both candidates should fill this void. Clinton could do so by explaining why it is that accepting Wall Street money does not constrain her in policy terms.
Daniel Drezner asks if foreign policy matters:
Furthermore, in the CNN Democratic Party town hall last night, Sanders ripped into Clinton not just on TPP but also for NAFTA and for supporting permanent normal trade relations with China. As a progressive, Sanders might even have some cause to oppose some of those trade deals. What I keep wondering, however, is whether Sanders thinks a progressive foreign policy doctrine exists that is distinct from Clinton. That’s clearly his campaign message whenever foreign policy comes up.
This distinction can matter on foreign policy. Even though Clinton has moved left on trade, she hasn’t bashed existing trade agreements the way that Sanders has. And I’m extremely curious about what Sanders wants to do about changing the current trade system. If he wants the United States to renegotiate World Trade Organization membership, for example, that’s just as obnoxious as anything Donald Trump has proposed this cycle. This will matter going forward as well, since Fisher’s colleague Matthew Yglesias points out that the U.S. trade and investment partnership with Europe will be on the docket in 2017.
Fisher might very well be correct that not a whole lot separates Sanders and Clinton on foreign policy. But neither Sanders nor Clinton is acting like that’s true, and on foreign economic policy I don’t think it is true. But no one will know unless and until Sanders actually talks more about this subject.
Kurt Eichenwald:
Clearly, these were not the typical “Islamic terrorists” described in the boogeyman stories of American politicians who exploit fear for votes. Glendon Crawford, the industrial mechanic who conceived the plan, has all the panache of a Macy’s shoe salesman; Eric Feight, a software engineer who helped build the device, looks like a less impish version of Kurt Vonnegut. But their harmless appearance belies their beliefs—Crawford was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and the plot he hatched with Feight involved killing scores of Muslims, as well as officials at the governor’s mansion in Albany, New York and at the White House.
They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don’t know it’s all lies. These extremists turn to violence—against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials—in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.
“Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face,” the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.
Mickey Kaus doesn’t care for Marco Rubio:
All of this is mildly terrifying. If Rubio’s a “robot,” as many have charged, he’s a sophisticated new model robot with simulated humanistic elements and a charm algorithm. And if he still seems insubstantial–which he does–it’s a higher level of insubstantial than you expect: You don’t get the impression he’s actually thought through these problems, but he knows his modules. He’s the ideal choice for Student Body President of America, the best band at Band Camp. And–as those who remember Gary Hart’s 1984 post-Iowa surge know–that may be good enough for Rubio to do very, very, well in New Hampshire, unless someone rudely interrupts him.
Why isn’t that someone Trump? Trump’s been attacking Ted Cruz lately, and leaving Rubio alone. Why? Cruz isn’t going to win New Hampshire. Rubio has a chance–certainly a chance to come so close he’s proclaimed the winner by the press. And Cruz isn’t going to destroy the nascent, effective populist insurgency that anti-amnesty activists and trade skeptics, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, have built over the past three year–and that Trump is demonstrating has substantial, intense support among voters of both parties. Rubio will.Electing Rubio, after killing the Gang of 8 bill, is like marching against the Vietnam War in the 60s and winding up with Richard Nixon running things.