MOLI VIEW™

This presidential election has quite a bit in common with that of 1992 — and not only because a Clinton may take the keys to the White House from a George Bush. While a president has devoted his term to pursuing a war in Iraq — then successfully, now not — the economy in the US has suffered. If CNN hadn't been full of Super Tuesday coverage last night, it would have been devoting more attention to the worst one-day stock market decline in a new year that has seen plenty of them.

So far, at least, the candidates haven't paid all that much more attention to the nascent recession, either. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to disagree on which month of 2009 to take US troops out of Iraq, what form national health care should take, and whether to hope for or work for change. (Last night, Obama supporters had a sign that read, "Stand for Change.") Meanwhile, some voters are looking for spare change.

For their part, the Republicans seem to be hoping that the situation in Iraq will change. John McCain has admitted that he doesn't understand the economy. Mitt Romney has promised to bring jobs back to Michigan after making a fortune running the kind of private equity firm that eliminates them. Mike Huckabee has more to say about creationism than job creation. And Ron Paul, who favors cutting many government programs, draws support mostly from tech types too ignorant to realize that the Internet was the result of one.

But back to 1992. Back then, Bill Clinton had a sign in his campaign headquarters that reminded his staff that, "It's the economy, stupid." This year's candidates need a similar focus. In the 2006 Congressional elections, many voters identified the economy as the most important issue — and that was before some of them started questioning whether it was such a smart idea to take a no-money-down mortgage.

Previous Page  1  2  Next Page