I think this is the main reason I distrust Clinton. Not because she is not a great candidate (I think she is very, very talented), but that she surrounds herself and continually falls back on "safe" Dem advisors who have proven to be wrong, not just once, but many times.

From a political perspective, Carville and others are continuing to play a tune that is out of date (see Schaller). On the financial front, they refuse to let go of the "good times" and fail to recognize that a lot of bad stuff has been enabled in the meantime.

And, as always, the same names (right or wrong) are in my face all the time. It is time for some new ideas, which means new people, which means...not Clinton, as the crowd around her was established years (many many years) ago, and it is depressing to think that the same people are going to have her ear.

Absent some really fundamentally new ideas, we are just going to keep doing this economic/military/cultural dance over and over. Problem is, we used to be able to afford it (on all levels). I'm not sure we can any longer. We need some big time new ideas that are presented by people who are willing to say...this stuff is doesn't work, and we need CPR, not a band-aid.

Anyway, I wish more folks would be willing to say...uh, you are famous and get to be on TV, but you are also wrong. Really wrong.

You perform that function, and it is a breath of fresh air.

Krugman too, most of the time, when he weirdly allows his desire for new ideas to translate into bashing the newbie for not being realistic enough. It's kinda strange at times.

It is not remarkable the media has buried the irony and absurdity of Clinton's proposed panel. It is business as usual, but you knew that ...

If and when the economy reallly tumbles Greenspan might be trotted out as a scarifice, but let's face it, he has pleased the bankers well ...

Dean, when will you question the record of the Federal Reserve over these 95 years of inflation, panic and war ... ?

You decry the bailouts yet fall silent about the role of the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve ...

I read it in my morning paper and thought, too bad, Dean Baker can't do this as an April Fool's piece.

This confirms my worst suspicions about Clinton. If she's the candidate, this liberal Dem may vote for McCain.

BTW, you forgot to mention Rubin's responsibility for the overvalued dollar that -- as you've pointed out many times in the past -- has wreaked so much havoc on the nation.

Dean, this is what politicians do. They appoint fellow pols to watch the store to make certain their mistakes get cleansed before being aired in public. How can you expect people in the mainstream media to actually have any ideas about research and independent thought when their entire education is/has been constructed on a foundation of arrogance or their very hiring is dependent upon being sheep? It's what you get for $30K per year tuition. "Professor, I'm not here to learn. Just tell me what's on the test so that can graduate and pay off these humongous educational loans that I've hocked my parents up to the gills with."

I wish somebody somewhere will help expose Sen. Clinton inexperience compared to Sen. Obama. You can pile a lorry load of past experience in an ever dynamic world what we need is foresight wiht good judgement and not an obsolate experience.

Sir

While I may not have agreed with everything Greenspan did either (bringing interest rates down so low in early 2000 when it did not seem necessary was a mistake)to lay such blame at his feet is to make a bold statement.

You believe the Fed should act to control our economy in ways no one had ever intended. There are consequences to giving that kind of government body that kind of power.

We as a society must shoulder much of the blame as it was our own greed and lack of fear that lead us to this.