Penn has had Hillary campaigning like a Republican, and now thinks it's a good thing that she votes like one, too?  Whose side is this guy on?

Another gem from Mark Penn.  Setting aside the premise that Independent and moderate Democratic voters actually favor a long-term or permanent commitment in Iraq, Hillary has already appeased anti-war Democtracts by clearly staking out the same position as Obama going forward -- immediate draw-down of combat troops, aggressive pressure on the Iraqis to reconcile, a residual force to fight Al Qaeda, etc.  Sorry, but this is really different from John McCain's views on the issue.  How is this position, coupled with her prior support for the invasion and war, superior to Obama's views in the general election?  Wouldn't McCain's consistency on the issue have vastly more appeal to voters than her flip-flopping?

I've been saying for a year that Hillary's appeal boils down to the following statement: Yes, she's as bad as George W. Bush. But dammit she's _our_ George W. Bush.

I just never expected Hillary's campaign to adopt that as a slogan.

It's interesting how they refuse to absorb the fact that the mainstream has just plain changed.

I mean, anyone who's been to SXSW in the last few years, could have told them them not to openly declare the state a must win.

If Penn's focused on immigration and Israel and guns, as Gabe Sherman suggests, then the man is truly inept.

From this voter's perspective, Obama's vulnerabilities with moderate GOPers and centrist independents are on 1) taxes and 2) cut and run. These are potentially huge liabilities that could be easily exploited by McCain. Obama needs to get to the center on these issues-- maybe do a souljah re tax and economic lefties?-- well before November. I like the guy and am not terribly keen on McCain but I can't vote for someone who's going to jack up the marginal tax rate during a recession. Dumb, amateurish, been there done that not again.

Funny...I thought Hillary was the candidate for change! Now she's the safe, secure, status-quo, Establishment candidate that whimsical folk should vote for because she's not as scare as the McCain aka Darth Sidious and Obamatron and his robot army of latte sippers

"I can't vote for someone who's going to jack up the marginal tax rate during a recession."

Then don't vote for him.

Bill Clinton raised the marginal tax rates on the wealthy, it wasn't a drag on the economy. The cuts in marginal tax rates on the wealthy in '01 and '03 had so little effect as to be almost immeasurable.

Anyway, I pretty much have nothing to say to someone who thinks Obama is basically fine but might select McCain over some nominal difference in marginal tax rates.

If "jack up marginal tax rate in a recession" is a reference to Obama's plan to let the 2001 Bush tax cuts expire when due in 2010, then you are a serious economic pessimist.  Is Krugman even that gloomy about the current slowdown/recession?

I'm sure Krugman's even gloomier, but that's not the point.

The point is this assertion of an automatic correlation between marginal tax rates on rich people and nationwide demand.

I say, maybe if we were perceived as managing our economy in a sane manner, global confidence in our banks and our dollar would once again rise. I'd argue this would have a FAR bigger impact than the supposed tamp down on demand of some rich guy paying an extra 2%.

No, the point is the political calculus: many upper-bracket families with children, esp those living in expensive metro real estate markets ie most of these families, are being squeezed now. These are the kind of well-educated people who are flocking to Obama now. If he doesn't give them some comfort on the economic front-- the HOME economic front-- then they'll be very susceptible to a no- tax-increase pitch from McCain.

Esp if, as indicated by everything we've seen from Michael Barone, Larry Kudlow et al during the last 12 months, the GOP strategy is to paint the Dem nominee as a tax-and-spend 1970s liberal. In a period of stagflation-- yes, that's coming-- that charge would be devastating if not refuted by a _clear_ economic plan that does not encompass major tax increases on middle and upper-middle class families that are already feeling the pinch. If such voters in FL, CO, PA, OH MN IA etc  get spooked on taxes, then McCain would be tough to beat.

For just about everyone who's looked at our structural deficits and their impact on the world, the dollar etc, "managing our economy in a sane manner" = reducing deficit-financed spending, both fiscal and consumer. You want to boost the dollar, eh? So do I. How do you achieve that when your Fed is determined to provide stimulus by cutting, not increasing, the rate of return on US sovereign debt?

OK, so then we have to cut back on our spending. Where? Even if Obama did believe in slashing defense spending-- and IIUC he favors INCREASING it-- there's not a great deal that he could do, given the fact that 2/3rds of it goes for basic operating expenses. I'm not familiar with all the details of his program but typically a liberal economic program envisions huge increases in spending of the sort that no amount of realistic tax increases will pay for.

Point is, Obama's coalition has, I think, a very clear fracture point that has to do with taxing and spending priorities. Let's not get cocky. This election will be very, very tough and it will likely turn on tax and spend issues.

"the GOP strategy  is to paint the Dem nominee as a tax-and-spend 1970s liberal."

Obama's promising a middle class tax cut, a 'closing the loopholes' (tax hike) on corporations), and to roll back Bush's tax cuts on top earners. By definition, that's a tax cut for more humans and a tax hike for less humans, and more total gov't. revenue.

"How do you achieve that when your Fed is determined to provide stimulus by cutting, not increasing, the rate of return on US sovereign debt?"

I hate what Bernanke is doing, but after careful though, I don't actually think he's Wall St.'s bitch.

"Point is, Obama's coalition has, I think, a very clear fracture point that has to do with taxing and spending priorities."

I thought you were the guy who screams and yells about healthcare all the time, don't you think these representative families might appreciate a better health plan?

Stagflation IS coming, of course it is, we're a much poorer nation than we thought we'd be, no one will blame Obama (or at least not for awhile) for that.

I'm not cocky, I think this election hinges on the exact thing every election since 1964 has hinged on; race.

"I thought you were the guy who screams and yells about healthcare all the time, don't you think these representative families might appreciate a better health plan?"

I do indeed, largely because our insane employment-linked system is extraordinarily wasteful and costly. I would expect the cost savings from UHC to offset the increased burden of insuring everyone; also, there has to be some rationing as part of the package. Though some out of pocket expenses would of course go up, net-net, I do not expect UHC to signficantly increase the tax burden on households.

"I'm not cocky, I think this election hinges on the exact thing every election since 1964 has hinged on; race."

??? 1992? 1984? 1996, 2000, 2004? Do you really believe this, or are you just funnin'/starting happy hour early?

Re "top earners", again, there are huge differences in take-home pay depending on where you live. I've been hammered by taxes this year. I live in Silicon Valley. Maybe someday my startup will make me a gazillionaire but for now I'm schlumping along from paycheck to paycheck. I'm not wealthy or anywhere close to it, and yet my *income* puts me squarely in Obama's gunsights. This is f***ed up.

The intelligent thing to do would be to propose a wholesale revision to the tax code so that you don't end up punishing *work* ie inducing people like me to wonder whether the long hours and family sacrifices are worth it when close to half of every marginal dollar earned is sent back to the state (USA and CA combined).

Is Obama proposing to overhaul our ridiculous tax code? I've not seen any such proposal. If I'm wrong, could you send me a link?

thx,

T

-Any race featuring Reagan was about race, he was 100% about race (domestically at least).

-1992 was so obviously about race I'm surprised I have to type it. Sistah Souljah?

-2000 was the most subtle campaign about race, but still about race.

-1996 and 2004; the former race had been neutralized and the latter it was about a difference race, Ayrabs.

I'm an SF/Valley technology laborer as well, so I understand, but I'm ok with a tax hike.

I haven't seen rhetoric or evidence wrt Obama and overhaul of our agreeably ridiculous tax code.

Believe it or not Tep, I'm not trying to push you toward Obama (or anything else), but I've read a lot of stuff you've typed and although it's all reasoned and thought-out, you tend to present it as somehow representative while it sometimes strikes me as if you have odd priorities.

Me? I figure if you think Obama 'passes the readiness test' and 'is a leader' and is 'somewhat moderate,' the idea that you would forgo a history-making presidency and the astonishing symbolism it would represent over a few pcts. on marginal tax rates strikes me as bizarre.

Once again the soft support argument is being put forward by Mark Penn, the same argument he's been making since New Hampshire and it hasn't stuck anywhere, not even in New Hampshire, where Obama lost by less than 8000 votes.  Those who support Obama are not going to be easily swayed into voting for someone else, certainly not McCain.

Clinton is the one who has the real soft support among Democrats, and she has no support coming from independents or Republicans.