You wrote that the forum was sponsored by New American Century. I got pretty alarmed thinking you meant Project for the New American Century, but it's actually The New American Foundation which looks completely different. I almost thought I had to change my vote.

It is one of the many peculiarities of this campaign season that Hillary Clinton's campaign strategists have decided that there is an advantage to be gained in attempting to position her as the progressive candidate, in comparison to Obama.

"Peculiar"? The word I would use for Clinton strategists trying to position her as progressive is "hilarious".

Mind you, I wouldn't generally call Obama progressive, either ... except in comparison.

are elections just deck-chair re-arrangement? sure. is obama's 'change' mantra just a superficial hook? you bet. is america doomed? sure thing. does anyone care? not visibly.

it's discouraging, but the usa was designed to be run by an upper class in a world where change was slow and escape to the frontier was possible. the constitution is hopelessly obsolete, the society it shaped is moribund, and the only real concern of the mob is with bread and circuses.

mike gravel, dennis kucinich, even ron paul, see that change, real change is necessary. gravel even had a plan to do it. the elite turned them into unpeople, the dimwits concentrated on the spread, the chatterati prosed endlessly on the color and gender of the candidates, and the band played on.

Kudos to you for posting this, Mr. Leonard -- I like the notion of Obama's "left-libertarian" economics as a change and a way of freeing the discussion of economics from the shrill GOP wrongthink stranglehold (since they've dominated the discussion for the last 20+ years or so, gotten us into our current jam)....

It hardly needs stressing that concerns about income inequality do not generally fall into the category "Republican-lite." But it is also true that Obama appears to be pushing a relatively market-friendly agenda that does not map neatly onto liberal Democratic traditions.

That's part of the problem -- the American liberal Democratic tradition is pro-capitalist, certainly not pro-socialist, although it likes to pretend it's anti-capitalist. It's absurd for there to be a line of criticism from any Democrats on this, since they long ago hitched their wagon to the capitalist star.

Where they've failed is to deliver the benefits of capitalism to the everyday American worker, and also to protect them from the costs of such an economic system -- no wonder they've failed to date. At least Obama's trying to hitch the bear and bull to his wagon and reckon with it from a "left-libertarian" perspective, instead of being forced to defensively and ineffectually react to GOP economics, which has been the Democratic approach for a generation or two. Good for him, and hopefully, if he wins, good for us, too. Sounds like a good trade.

Nothing has helped Wall Street more than these automatic deposits. Some states automatically increase the employees contribution, if the market somehow manages to lose value, the worker has to pony up the difference.

Even so called responsible Pension Funds like CalPers have fallen all over themselves chasing risky returns. The problem goes back to the post 87' crash when the brokers went to street name accounts. It then became possible to add incremental shares, and pool assets. That is a system which hasn't been tested, but has the possibility to be a real nightmare in the event a major broker goes bust. The Obama plan sounds like it plays perfectly into the current spiraling out of control system.

I regret the error!

Which I'm guessing is either ironic or dull. We see what 'flexible choice' with a minimum of interference yields: idiotic greed and ignorance. And now We The People who made comparatively conservative economic choices are being told more or less at gunpoint to go clean up the elephant shit.

No thank you. I'm all for Freedom and Choice, as long as I can choose to watch you drown on those terms.

Great article Mr. Leonard. Nice to see someone actually wants to cover the issues in this election.

I feel that the linked post makes Obama sound less of a liberal than he really is, but it captures the spirit of why I support Obama over Clinton even though I think they have similar aims.

From the New American Project website they have a working paper that opens:

For more than a decade, rising asset prices have driven the economy, benefiting the wealthy but doing relatively little to improve either the economic status of the majority of Americans or the country’s overall competitiveness...In order to retool the economy and generate balanced, robust job growth, the government should focus on rebuilding and enhancing the nation’s energy, transportation, and communications infrastructure.

I would really like to know if the candidates agree with that statement and if so, how they would help foster it.

I think one of the reasons why capitalism is the best economic system we have developed is because of "creative destruction" in which superior ideas can fully supplant the old ways in an organic fashion. Indeed, the system completely fails when entrenched interests (either corporate or government) can successfully suppress creative destruction.

I feel that we are at a turning point both due to globalism but also the over-expansion of debt. Hillary and Obama both seem to genuinely recognize the challenges to the middle/lower class, but I think only Obama has had rhetoric that shows he will stand aside and let creative destruction take place. They will both work towards revitalizing the infrastructure, but I think Hillary is more likely to pile money into existing solutions, while Obama is more likely to use it to encourage new solutions (now if only he'd stop supporting ethanol, which is a huge knock against him).

To me it seems like Hillary is mostly concerned with making sure that as few people as possible get pushed down (e.g. her "solution" to the subprime mess) while Obama thinks we should foster progress, and that we have a moral imperative to help them those that fall get up again. Indeed, her whole theme is that she is the best to be our protector, while he is saying he's the best to have us believe in ourselves and communities.

I think there is a good chance that we are going to see another Depression, and if so, I'd rather him be at the helm since he would be more willing to use resources to help us when it happens instead of futilely fighting it.

Oh yeah, and Edwards needs to be AG to go after every one that doesn't play fairly.