So I must confess that I'm quite tired of the "I disown Hillary on the basis of [insert objectionable rhetoric here]" posts.  I understand (and usually agree), but I think it's time we returned to the basic attributes that will fuel success of a post-W administration.  The issue I will address here is decision-making, specifically making tough calls in a "crisis."  And by crisis, I mean neither generational events like Pearl Harbor nor PR snafus that require little more than a deft Press Secretary and plausible deniability.  I'm talking about low-grade, smoldering crises, like the mortgage market, health care, or the cost of energy.  I'll leave health care out of it since it's my firm belief that a reform package passed in 2009 would ultimately differ very little under a Clinton or Obama administration -- assuming that either can get one passed.

So let's have a look at energy.  All the candidates have snappy long-term solutions for this country's lamentable dependence on external sources of fossil fuels.  None will reap tangible benefits within the first four to six years of implementation because commercialization of new technologies and the effects of efficiency mandates will take this long to quell demand.  What you're left with is the short term, which is driven by the supply/demand dynamic that's in place today and for the next year or two at least.  HRC has proposed opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the gas tax holiday with the aim of providing very modest relief during hard times.  Economists point out that both prongs of this gambit ignore the real gatekeepers to North American gasoline supply: refineries.  This industry has an operational ceiling that imposes an artificial cap on supply independent of demand.  It is also the site in the supply chain where the federal tax is imposed.  The next effect of these measures on gasoline availability is zero; the net effect on demand is also zero; savings to consumers will not be forthcoming because they are still willing to pay the same high prices, which will rise to offset most or all of the benefit.  Releasing crude from the Strategic Reserve to refiners -- even at below-market rates -- also has no effect on the market dynamics that dictate the price at the pump.  A much more efficient solution would be to send every American car owner a coupon for a full tank of gas, paid by the federal government, since this is the value of the benefit in real terms.  We reject the coupon approach as pandering, but we are asked to consider the "relief" offered, at much greater expense, by the holiday to be a progressive action in the interest of working families.  That is not leadership; it's a candy-coated bribe promised to the driving public, delivered to the refiners, and ultimately paid for by taxpayers, absent a windfall profit tax (itself hardly a fait accomli).

On to mortgages.  Again, there are long-term solutions in the form of financial services regulation and -- most importantly to my mind -- greater emphasis on practical personal finance at the elementary school level.  For the short term, we have two approaches: one favored by Obama that leverages the existing bankruptcy law to permit restructuring of mortgage debt by judicial order, and another that relies heavily on direct intervention on the part of the Executive branch and alteration of the terms of legal contracts.  In tandem with the gas tax holiday, we have on offer a foreclosure holiday.  Curiously, this is also pegged at 90 days -- it seems that Clinton has never encountered an economic downturn that outlived the warranty on an air conditioner.  Hillary also has floated the idea of "freezing" (I assume this effectively means capping) interest rates for sub-prime, adjustable-rate mortgages.  So let's set aside the dubious legality of rewriting the terms of private contracts en masse by presidential fiat (it's plainly illegal), and assume that Clinton has successfully enticed lenders into participating (presumably at public expense).  What is the result?  A storm of foreclosures immediately before and directly after the holiday -- if a lender can't predict what will happen to an iffy debt over the following financial quarter, why take the risk?  Foreclosing now tears off the band-aid instead of letting the mortgage fester into an abscess on your balance sheet.  Any abscesses that form over the interim will be swiftly lanced the day the ban expires.  Interest rates for borrowers with good -- but not perfect -- credit ratings will go up in the wake of a rate cap imposed on sub-prime obligations.  The drive to report positive earnings will lead many institutions to simply transfer onerous rates to new borrowers who do not fall under the cap's restrictions.  This could easily damage the housing market as middle class families find that they cannot secure affordable mortgages.

So in several instances we see HRC making tough calls, but coming down on the side of quick fixes with broad appeal under superficial appraisal, but substantial negative repercussions when additional scrutiny is applied.  If these steps are a bridge to intermediate interventions that are more responsible and in turn lead us to the long-term reforms that we agree are needed, then so be it.  However, I have not heard this voiced or even received anything approaching an honest acknowledgment of the shortcomings of these policies from the Clinton camp.  If this approach -- of not providing voters with the information required to make an informed decision about what is best for the country -- is any indication of the presidential leadership we can expect when confronting the other crises simmering on the national stove, then I fail to see how we are well-served with this candidate in the White House.

Footnote regarding the Derby: is anyone else noting the irony of Clinton's favorite finishing second and being put down on the track?  Yeah, I went there.  The death of the horse is a tragedy, but then again so is the destructive character of this race...