About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« This can't possibly be right | Main | An important lesson from election 2000 »

January 29, 2008



And who do you think would lose? The Clintons? Wake up! You use emotion rather than your mind. What if you vote for McCain, you continue the war? If the Clintons did not say anything, some people like you would continue to be misinformed. The country has an opportunity to get back the prosperity of the 90s... you'd rather take a chance on a person with very little experience or another Republican who would increase the deficit? The Clintons are not going to suffer except disappointments. They will continue to have a good life as they are capable of earning as much money as they want. They are very bright people willing to serve the country.


I am surprised the way media and bloggers have been talking about Clinton attacks. If you are indeed as objective as you claim to be, you will realize the Obama campaign has been attacking Clinton all the time as well. In fact, they have often initiated the first attacks. Just like Bill has talked about Obama, likewise, Mrs Obama has talked about Hillary often with contempt. So to take a stance on this election using "negative campaigns" as a criteria can be called naive at best.

I am a democrat and I will support whoever wins the nomination. Right now, I would choose Hillary or Edwards depending on how I feel the day of the primaries here in California.


I didn't know about the Vilsack matter, and I agree with your assessment of the Clinton's campaign tactics. I've not figured out why they felt it necessary. Even after it was apparent that Obama was a force to be reckoned with, Hillary's got the resume and knows the issues well enough to let her positions stand on their own merits. Still, there's NO WAY I'd not vote for her should she be the nominee. I think McCain's the best of the R bunch, but I don't agree with his solutions to the mess W has left us.

Whatever you "yellow dog Democrats" may think of Tung's choice of McCain over Clinton in a two-way race, you do have to at least think a bit about the following:

1. Hillary Clinton started off this campaign with among the highest "negatives" of anyone in the field.

2. As one Democratic political pro put it to me nearly a year ago, "Any one of the Democrats could win in November 2008. That's not the issue. The issue is who could lose. Hillary is the one who could lose."

3. What she and her husband have done -- especially during the last few weeks -- has raised those negative numbers and turned a number of independents from neutral/maybe to outspoken hostility and opposition. During the last two or three days I have encountered a half-dozen people (who, so far as I know, have not talked to Tung) who have expressed precisely the same sentiment as he (not including the Vilsack comment, but including the switch in vote to McCain). Honestly now, haven't you?

4. My personal encounters are only anecdotal and not statistically significant. But Peter Hart's (national) poll, released over this last weekend, is statistically significant. And what it shows is that Obama can beat any of the Republicans -- including, by a significant margin, McCain. It does not show Clinton beating McCain.

5. Can you imagine what the Republicans will pull out to use against the Clintons if she's the candidate -- to which I've recently been led to believe they have now added a whole new batch of material they've been accumulating for just such a day.

Stick with Hillary if you must; just be aware that you -- and the Democratic Party -- may end up paying a very heavy price indeed for doing so.

John Neff

I guess I would place the Clinton/Albright conduct of foreign policy in the top five. In my opinion there was no effective leadership on other issues during the Clinton administration. What little was accomplished was tossed out with the trash when GWB moved into the White House.

I don't think Hillary has the horsepower to repair the damage done to our foreign policy by GWB even if she wants to (evidently she wants to keep the blood flowing in the Iraq civil war). It is hard for me to believe she can improve on Bill with respect to other issues.

Clinton versus McCain? Yuck!!!


Some of the comments raise another problem I have with the Hillary Clinton campaign or (the Clintons' campaign(s)). Her supporters seem to assume Hillary Clinton will be as competent/effective as her husband, or that somehow they will govern as equal partners. While I have no doubt Hillary Clinton is highly intelligent and competent, a great deal of her support seems to be rooted (at least in part) in a desire for a third term for her husband. This troubles me for some reason, maybe it shouldn't, but it does.

 Ned Baker

I used to be pleased to have three solid candidates, but the more McCain speaks the more idiotic he sounds. He is not a fiscal conservative (he wants to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and balance that by eliminating unspecified "earmarks"), his gas tax holiday is populist foolishness that will relieve no-one's burden but will help entrench our dependence on oil, and he will clearly not be the leader for sustainable development that Clinton or Obama will be. I could go on.

So I ask you: Is your beef with Vilsack worth this trade-off?


Hi everyone:

Until the past few weeks,I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton.I had several good reasons for wanting her to be the next president of the United States,one of which was she would be a woman in the White House leading this great nation in a way that was very unlike many of the men who have been president.

Addiction Recovery Iowa

Addiction Recovery Iowa

The comments to this entry are closed.