Separated at Birth??

Two conflicting articles on the McCain - Obama connection.

First Jacob Weisberg at Slate emphasizes their similarities.

Then David Brooks at the NYT says, not so fast.

Weisberg: For all their obvious stylistic, ideological, and generational differences, both are anti-politicians whose fundamental argument is that our system is broken in ways that only they are capable of fixing. When McCain and Obama proclaim the need for "change" in Washington, it is neither meaningless rhetoric nor a fancy way of saying throw the bums out. They are both focused on addressing flaws in the political process—the power of special interests, unproductive hyperpartisanship, and the habits of reality-avoidance that afflict both sides.


Brooks: The central issue in this election is the crisis of leadership. Voters are reacting against partisan gridlock. Obama and McCain both offer ways to end this gridlock. Obama wants us to rise above it by rediscovering our commonalities. McCain hopes smash it with fierce honesty and independent action.

This is the general election matchup I'd like to see. Well I guess Kucinich v. Paul would be my favorite, but of the feasible ones, this is my pick. Anyone agree?

Bosses Don't Wear Bunny Slippers

New essay on EconLib.

You like, you not like. Let me know!

Sure, the Food is bad, but at least the Portions are large

So say the Romers regarding the economic expertise of FOMC members:

"Twice a year, the FOMC makes forecasts of major macroeconomic variables.
FOMC members have access to the staff forecasts when they prepare their forecasts, and they have roughly a two-week data advantage over the staff. We find, however, that the optimal combination of the FOMC and staff forecasts in predicting inflation and unemployment puts a weight of essentially zero on the FOMC forecast and essentially one on the staff forecast: the FOMC appears to have no value added in forecasting. The results for predicting real growth are less clear-cut. We also find statistical and narrative evidence that differences between the FOMC and staff forecasts help predict monetary policy shocks, suggesting that policymakers act in part on the basis of their apparently useless information."

Wow. and they presented this at the AEAs at a session chaired by Fed vice-chair Kohn. Kudos to them!

Update: Kevin Hassett provides some thoughts about FOMC expertise here.

Trainwreck

I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. There, I said it. I feel better. Whatever you may think of her, man she is catching it real real hard these days.

She has waited so long and put up with so much. She stuck with her serial philanderer husband. She endured 8 years of getting the stinkeye from Tim Groseclose. She played the quintessential junior senator, keeping her mouth largely shut and her nose to the wheel. She watched Gore and Kerry blunderingly lose to the Shrub. Now was her time. She had all the elites on her side, all the money, Bill seemed on board and under control. She was the "presumptive nominee" with the proverbial "air of inevitability".

Now as we approach the first actual primary, she is on her last legs. She came in 3rd in the Caucii of the Hawkeye and trails by 10 points in New Hampshire with 1 day to go.

Where did it go? And how did it go? Barak Obama, to me is, so far, more of a metaphor than a real person. His message is totally what he is not and the claim that what he is not will allow him to change / improve the world. Amazing. But it's working.

Maybe we can talk more about Senator Obama soon, but for now, I feel Hill's pain. It's gotta be frustrating as hell for her, and there is little she can do. Attacks now sound shrill and desperate. Sour grapes and all. But she seems to be standing in front of a speeding freight train.

Am I wrong? does she have a chance? Will Edward's people go over to her and not Obama? If that were to happen will it be too late? Is it really curtains for the Clinton Dynasty?

Can you help me....please?

The Nanny is here to help.

No, really, he is.

And this book tells you all about it!

(Nod to Tommy the Wannabe Brit)

Man-Crush Alert!!

From the no longer to be taken seriously Ezra Klein:

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.


To be fair, Ezra has a poor basis for making judgements about orators, shown here by his list of greatest hits:

Howard Dean challenging the Democratic Party to rediscover courage and return to principle.

Bill Clinton speak(ing) of a place called Hope

John Edwards bravely channel(ing) the populism that American politics so often suppresses.

I especially like the part about how brave Edwards is, and how Dean and Edwards are/were "great leaders".

Mungowitz = Nostradamus ???

In his 2008 predictions post Mungowitz said:

1. John Edwards does better than expected in Iowa, winning the largest percentage of Democratic vote at 40%. Clinton and Obama split most of the remainder.

2. Mitt Romney "upsets" Huckabee in Iowa, though by a nonsensically small margin.

OOOPS!!

As we probably all know, twas Obama 38%, Edwards 30% for the Dems and Huckabee 34% Romney 25% for the Torture Party.

Based on his record so far, I'd suggest shorting Hillary and the Diamondbacks bigtime!

Sooner Jokes

Q: Why does Bob Stoops eat his Cheerios on a plate??


A: Because if they were in a Bowl, he'd lose it!!



Hat tip to the inimitable Tommy Blue!

The Best Sentences I've Read Today

From longtime KPC fan Marcel Proust:

Just think of how many projects, travels, love affairs, studies, it–our life–hides from us, made invisible by our laziness which, certain of a future, delays them incessantly.

‘But let all this threaten to become impossible for ever, how beautiful it would become again! Ah! If only the cataclysm doesn’t happen this time, we won’t miss visiting the new galleries of the Louvre, throwing ourselves at the feet of Miss X, making a trip to India.

‘The cataclysm doesn’t happen, we don’t do any of it, because we find ourselves back in the heart of normal life, where negligence deadens desire. And yet we shouldn’t have needed the cataclysm to love life today. It would have been enough to think that we are humans, and that death may come this evening.”

hat-tip to the empirical skeptic