So, people who’ve known me well, know I was for Hillary. Many can’t understand this, being the creative people and intellectuals they are, they won’t… They lust after change, change, change.

The main reason I was for Hillary, was Bill Clinton’s approach to economics: collect a wide range of dissenting economists who are all bright, and then find a middle ground position. Presumably Hillary would follow Bill’s lead, and use some of the same people.

Contrast this with GWB, who has basically just equated liberty with ‘free markets’. Free markets sounds much better than some other labels ‘unprotected consumer markets’, ‘markets without regulation’, ‘zero consumer protection’ and other labels. Free sounds great!

But it’s not the label, it’s how it is implemented. And GWB really screwed the poor pooch on economics. Reagan may have had right-wing ideas, but I don’t recall the country being so royally broke under Reagan.

Fact is, even the far-Right are admitting some need for protection.

And I think a middle ground to economics approach is best, hence I was for Bill, and now, Hillary.

I like John McCain as a man, but I’m a bit worried about the selection of his economic advisors. I did take heart from a recent news of some ideological competition for economic advisory positions.

I’m only referring to an economic choice here, and not looking at policy, but someone has to clean up the mess the US economy is in right now.

What are your choices?