Decision ‘08

An Inconvenient Marriage

When it’s a headline that a husband and wife appear together, would it be fair to call such a marriage one of convenience?

Another reason I’m souring on Hillary’s prospect is the ‘hubby’ effect: I just don’t think a lot of people are anxious for the Bill and Hillary show, round two…

9 Responses to “An Inconvenient Marriage”

1 Dennis Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I don’t know if that will really make a difference. If Giuliani is the nominee, it’ll be a full-employment act for late-night comedians; they’re guaranteed soap operas no matter who gets elected.

It does make me wonder what the practical reality of having a former president as the first gentleman. Is he going to be the one greeting the arrival of the White House Christmas tree, reading books to kids in schools, etc.? It’s difficult to imagine someone with his well-known appetite for, well, everything, being content to take on that kind of fifth- or sixth-banana role. But he’s managed to stay out of the headlines fairly well the past few years, so maybe he’s mellowed.
2 peter Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
My guess is that a heart attack will do that to you.

I think that after six years of Bush, the halcyon days of the Clinton administration will be fondly remembered by enough people that the exigencies of their marriage will be ignored. Those who will vote against Hillary will do so for other reasons than Bill.
3 Mark Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Peter, no doubt Clinton left a more popular president than Bush will - but that still doesn’t mean people want him back in the White House again, particularly when there are alternatives…
4 peter Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
The difference is that Clinton has a track record and the other’s don’t — and my guess is that people will forgive and forget Monica and the other Big Hair Girls to replicate the eight years starting in 1993.

Maybe it will be like Alabama, when George Wallace couldn’t run again so his wife Lurleen was his surrogate — although somehow I think Hillary is too strong a personality to be anyone’s surrogate –
5 Mark Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Peter, with all due respect, that’s the kind of mindless nostalgia we can’t give in to; yes, the Clinton years were relatively good - we rode an economic wave that was in large part due to a technology bubble that collapsed and drained $4 trillion dollar of wealth out of the economy overnight - and we hadn’t gone through 9/11 yet.

We can’t go back there even if we wanted to. I’m not blaming Clinton here, I’m just saying it’s not going to be the ’90s again, no matter who’s in office…
6 Peter Says:
March 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Well, we’ve gone through the economic legacy of the Clinton Presidency before, so no need to reprise it. My contention then (and now) is that the Internet bubble was too small a part of the economy in the 1990’s to have had much of an effect. I’m not sure what the $4 trillion refers to, but that sum dwarfs the size of the Internet industry at that time (or now). Also the good economy of the 1990’s is due in no small part to Robert Rubin and the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton administration and its balancing of the budget. It’s remarkable what good things result from the government not competing with industry for capital.

Moreover, the obvious differences between the Bush and Clinton administration are not economic in nature. Clinton did not launch a war of choice which drained the country of lives, treasure, and spirit. Clinton had strong managers and ran a fairly tight ship. (Have we ever had a Secretary of Defense worse than Rumsfeld? An Attorney General worse than Gonzales? A V.P. worse than Cheney? A national security official worse than Tom Ridge? Care to compare James Lee Witt with Micheal Browne?) A simple return to competence would be welcome.

I think most Americans recognize that if Hillary is elected, she will have an administration whose policies and personnel will be similar, if not duplicative, of Bill’s administration. After the past six years, I think this will be more than enough to get enough votes to take the White House.

Different subject: what is your opinion of the Bong Hits For Jesus case?
7 Mark Says:
March 20th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Peter, if anything, I understated the complete collapse of the NASDAQ that followed the bust:

In March 2000, the biggest bull market in Wall Street’s history came to a halt. With the stock market’s slide, households lost more than $5 trillion, or 18%, in financial wealth between March 2000 and the end of 2001, the largest nominal decline since 1952.

As for the Bong Hits thing, believe it or not, I may be the only person in the country who hasn’t payed attention yet…
8 Peter Says:
March 20th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I assume that the $5 trillion then refers the the difference in market capitalization between when the NASDAQ hit its peak at around 5000 and when it hit its trough? If so, I don’t think it supports your hypothesis …

a) “Households” lost this amount? Institutional and foreign investors didn’t lose anything?

b) It’s a dumb statistic, because when the NASDAQ was at 5,000 and stocks like pets.com were trading at $100, it was a bogus wealth unless you sold all of your stock at the peak. Stocks fluctuate: I don’t think people do a daily correlation between their personal balance sheet and what the S&P is that day.

c) A far worse bear market was 1973-1974, which did not have any great effect on the economy.

d) If you want to use your logic, then you would have to ask why the economy hasn’t gone gangbusters since the market hit its trough in 2002: after all, the NASDAQ has doubled and trillions of dollars of market cap have been created, yet the economy is muddling along at 2.5-3% growth. (Not that this level of growth is bad — but it is by no means stellar, despite easy monetary and fiscal policy).
9 Mark Says:
March 20th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I’ve never bought the argument that paper wealth is not wealth - are you telling me your money’s backed up by gold deposits? Whether my wealth is United States Dollars or certificates of stock, it’s still wealth - and when it went, it hurt a lot more thn foreign investors and institutions…The point, as a said, is not to deride Clinton, it’s just to point out that a lot of that miracle 90’s economy was fluffled-up internet hype that was fun while it lasted, then crashed big time…