Conservatives have a system of talk shows to promote their books to an audience that aggressively buys these books in large quantities. Once these books are on the best-seller lists, they are instantly given prime position and huge discounts at bookstores everywhere, which generates even more attention and sales.

Progressives won this election, and our values represent the majority in America, but progressive books are increasingly being shunted to the sidelines. Today, it’s conservatives who dominate the political book industry.

If we can publicize progressive books and help sell more of them, we can directly increase the dissemination of progressive ideas. And by increasing sales, we would also encourage publishers to acquire more progressive books and pay a living wage for them, enabling more progressive writers and investigative journalists to do this important work.

What can you do to help? I have a proposal below for a new website (DailyProse.com) to be a bookish sister site to DailyKos, but here’s the basic way progressives can help:

BLUR: Buy. Lend. Understand. Recommend.

Buy: Buy more progressive books. Try to support independent bookstores or the Progressive Book Club, but if you need to buy them cheaply, buy them. If you can’t afford to buy many books yourself, contact your local library (don’t forget college and school libraries) to recommend good books you’ve heard of. Ask to find out who the acquisitions librarian is, and try to get an email address for recommending good books (and DVDs, too). If you know a faculty member, ask if they’ll request books you suggest to them for the university library to buy. (Personally, I’m very bad at this–my own university doesn’t have my latest books.) Note: donating books to libraries doesn’t usually work at getting them into the collection (you can ask): most of the time, they just sell these books to raise money.

Lend: books are for reading, not for hoarding. After you’ve read a book, lend it out to someone. Start up a lending club among your friends to exchange books.

Understand: Read those books, and think about them. Read progressive book reviews. Watch BookTV on C-SPAN2 weekends. Start a book club, or join one and suggest good books to read.

Recommend: Tell the wider world about the books you like. Write comments and book reviews on DailyKos. Tell your friends on listservs and in person about good books.

There are already some good book features on DailyKos.

Cfk has Bookflurries on Wednesday nights at 8pm ET.

plf515 has What are you reading? on Friday mornings.

sarahnity has Books by Kossacks on Sundays.

But we need to have more book reviews on DailyKos, features such as interviews with authors, and a permanent website to make it easier to find this information and promote good books.

Here’s my proposal for DailyProse.com:

The aim of DailyProse.com is to be a comprehensive website focused on progressive books working in cooperation with DailyKos.

DailyProse.com has the following goals:

1. Increase awareness of progressive books (and books in general) by providing easily accessible links (with commentary) to current reviews (on DailyKos and other websites) of progressive books.

1. Criticize conservatives by providing links to reviews that debunk right-wing books.

1. Encourage DailyKos contributors to write book reviews by providing an additional outlet for their reviews and by providing an easy system for reviewers to get review copies of books in advance of publication. Or, to put it in more easily understood terms, Free Books!

1. Create original content by doing email interviews with authors and other features, such as a "best progressive books of the year" list.

1. Help DailyKos writers publish books by providing a guide on how to do it, and perhaps working with an agent to look at book proposals from DailyKos writers and to help them to improve their proposals and find publishers.

1. Help readers and authors find independent bookstores by having an updated list of links to these bookstores.

1. Help progressive authors promote their books by creating a weekly summary of new progressive books and interesting reviews, and posting that summary while sending it out to various reporters, editors, talk show producers, etc. DailyProse could also provide a list of progressive author events around the country and a system for helping them organize events.

The structure of DailyProse would be to have a rotating group of editors who would make one post per day (or more as needed for breaking news) probably featuring one "book of the day" (a quick summary, not necessarily a review) and additional notable links found that day to any book reviews on DailyKos and other websites. This post would also be crossposted on DailyKos to get more comments and suggestions for other books/book reviews. Each Saturday or Sunday would be a round-up of various newspaper book reviews, and once a week the feature would be a posting/email summarizing news about progressive books that week. Although the site would focus on new books, there would be occasional postings on interesting older books relevant to a current issue or celebrations of the anniversary of important books.

Financial: the aim is for DailyProse to be a not-for-profit, break-even endeavor, perhaps with advertising sought which might eventually be used to pay editors and contributors a small amount. DailyProse would rely primarily on volunteers.

That’s my idea for DailyProse.com. So what am I asking from you? I’d like to see if there’s really interest in doing this. Are there people here willing to volunteer to write some book reviews? Are there people willing to be editors who search the internet for reviews and post updates on the site? Is there someone willing to volunteer to design a website for this project? Does anyone have contacts with the DailyKos editors to convince them to endorse this project and help promote it?

Post a comment AND email me (collegefreedom@yahoo.com) if you’re interested in helping with the idea of DailyProse.com.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

The common view about race in this election was given by ABC News:

Race was perhaps a surprisingly minor factor. Nineteen percent of all voters called it at least somewhat of a factor in their vote; 80 percent said it was not a factor at all. But Obama's margin was essentially the same among those who called race a factor – 53-45 percent – and those who said it was not, 51-46 percent. There were, however, differences by race. Seventeen percent of whites called race a factor, and favored McCain by 61-37 percent. Whites for whom race was not a factor voted for McCain by a narrower 53-44 percent. Meanwhile one in three blacks called race a factor in their vote, and, like all blacks, favored Obama almost unanimously.

I've put together a spreadsheet listing the exit poll data on racial views for each state. It is statistically impossible for the 9% and 19% figures to be correct. In fact, out of 36 states with exit poll data on the race-based voting question, only California (9% significant, 16% a factor) fell below the reported national figure of 9% significant and 19% a factor, and it only did so by a bare margin.

The states without exit poll data on the influence of race are Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, and District of Columbia. (If anyone can find this data, please let me know; I've checked MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News with the same lack of results.)
Considering that the remaining states include high-population states with high levels of racism such as  Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, it's inconceivably that these missing states could lower these numbers. In fact, the correct national numbers on race would almost certainly be much higher than what I report below.

To get an accurate analysis of race, I calculated the influence of race, and then adjusted it for the population of each state in the 36 states where we have results. Assuming that I didn't screw up, I found that nationwide, 13.24% of voters said race was an important factor (including the small number who said it was the single most important factor), and 21.4% of voters said race was a factor (adding those who called it a minor factor).

Now, it is true, as the reports said, that 53% of these votes where race mattered were for Obama, a contrast with the primaries where race-based voting hurt Obama much more. However, it is mistake to imagine that these votes indicate that race was a positive factor for Obama. The overwhelming number of votes for Obama where race mattered came from African-Americans, who vote for Democrats anyway by a large margin. Obama slightly increased the Democratic percentage of the African-American votes, and slightly increased African-American turnout. But for the most part, the people voting for Obama who said that race mattered were almost certain to vote for Democrats anyway. And it is much easier to admit that race mattered and say that you voted for the black candidate than. It is far less clear that people are willing to admit racism.

I measured the "racist vote" (defined as those who said race was a factor and who voted against the black candidate). I should note that this definition represents the bottom-level measure of racism. For example, there are an unknown number of people who voted against Obama because of race and refused to admit it to the pollsters. There are also probably a small number of racists who considered Obama's race as a negative factor but voted for him nevertheless due to other factors (for example, in nearly all-white West Virginia, the proportion of people who said race mattered but who voted for Obama grew from 9% in the primary to 39% in the general election). I know there are some who would say that voters (of any race) who supported Obama and said race was a factor are also racists. I disagree. That's like saying the NAACP is the same as the KKK because they both are concerned about race. It’s not racism to support electing the first African-American president. It is racism to oppose doing so based on race.

The average state was 8.07% racist (as an important factor) and 12.62% racist (as any factor). Because the larger states tended to be less racist, the nationwide average of these 36 states was 7.13% racist as an important factor and 11.5% racist as any factor. (By contrast, according to the inaccurate numbers reported by the national exit poll, only 4.23% of voters were racists who considered race an important factor, and 8.93% voters were racists who said race was a factor at any level. So the levels of racism on Nov. 4 were 69% and 29% higher than what's currently being reported.)

The most racist state in these polls was Louisiana, where 14.84% of voters against Obama felt race was an important factor, while 23.78% of anti-Obama votes said race was a factor in their vote. Closely following Louisiana were Alaska (14.0% and 21.08%) and Kentucky (14.3% and 19.8%).

The least racist state in these polls was California, where only 3.78% of voters against Obama said race was an important factor, and only 5.92% overall said race was a factor. Close behind California were New York (3.41% and 7.44%), Washington (3.51% and 6.84%), and Illinois (3.96% and 7.68%). The biggest surprise might be Georgia, where the numbers were only 4.81% and 8.4%. Maybe it’s notable that the Obama campaign fought hard for Georgia, while the most racist states had essentially no Obama commercials or campaign workers.

However, we shouldn't discount the power of racism just because Obama won. In presidential elections, 11.5% of the electorate isn't a small factor; it's a massive group of voters (more than 14 million people).

How big of an influence was racism? The following states would have turned to Obama if the McCain voters who said race was an important factor had switched sides: Arizona (10), Missouri (11), Montana (3), South Carolina (8), West Virginia (5). That's a total of 37 electoral votes. And these states would have turned to Obama if the McCain voters who said race was a factor of any kind had supported Obama: Georgia (15), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Tennessee (11). That's 43 more electoral votes.

Speculating among the states without exit polls on race, it seems likely that Texas (34), Mississippi (6), South Dakota (3), and North Dakota (3) would have gone for Obama without racism, since they were fairly close, based on the levels of racism in similar states. That's 46 more electoral votes.

Altogether, without the influence of racism, by my calculation, the only states McCain would have won would be Alaska (3), Idaho (3), Wyoming (3), Utah (5), Alabama (9), Arkansas (6), Oklahoma (7), Nebraska (4), Kansas (6): a total of 46 electoral votes, compared to Obama's 492. And Obama's popular vote margin would have easily been in double digits.

There has been far too much attention given to the Bradley Effect, which many commentators declared dead on election night. The Bradley Effect only refers to racists who lie to pollsters (which apparently didn't happen on Nov. 4). But we should be far more concerned about the large number of Americans who are openly willing to admit their racism to pollsters (or those who are influenced by race without saying so).

Frank Rich proclaimed in the New York Times that the election proved, "While there are still bigots in America, they are in unambiguous retreat."

It is indeed a sign of progress in this country that "only" one-tenth of Americans openly admit to being racist in choosing a president. But it is far from a sign that racism is over. Obama was the perfect candidate to overcome racist views among voters, and 2008 (with an economic crisis and a failed Bush presidency) provided the perfect circumstances to do so.

If someone as highly qualified as Obama still faces this kind of racism, imagine what happens to African-Americans in this country who don’t have sterling academic credentials, who are not among the most eloquent speakers in American history, who do not happen to be the greatest fundraiser and campaign organizer in the history of politics, who do not have the opportunity of massive media coverage for two years to enable racists to overcome their doubts.

Obama’s election as president surpassed the hurdle of racism only because he was able to leap so high and because the racial barrier is lower than it once was. But the barrier of race is still there. Racism turned a double-digit Obama victory into a six-point margin. Racism turned a massive electoral vote landslide that could have exceeded Johnson’s victory over Goldwater into a moderate landslide.

Racism still matters in America. Racism substantially affected the Nov. 4 elections, and severely hurt Obama’s pursuit of the presidency. We need to recognize the continuing significance of race in America, not only in order to continue the fight for racial equality, but also to appreciate how truly amazing Obama’s substantial victory was in the face of this racism.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

In Florida, Obama won 61-37 over McCain among the 18-29 group, which was 15% of the voters. A 24-point gap times 15% = a 3.6% advantage. Obama won Florida 50.88-48.37, only a margin of 2.51%. Young voters won Florida for Obama.

In Ohio, Obama won 61-36 among the 18-29 group, which was 17% of voters. That's a gap of 4.25%. Obama won Ohio 51.15-47.25, a margin of 3.9%. So Obama would have lost Ohio, too, without young voters. And that one electoral vote in Nebraska, too.

Now it is true that Obama's landslide was so overwhelming that he would have still won the election without these four states (or even Virginia, which he would barely win without young voters). But Obama's margin of victory would be cut in half in Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa, putting him perilously close to losing if McCain had been able to stage a comeback.

It's also notable that young voters 18-29 voted nationwide in record numbers (18% of voters) and in record proportions (an amazing 66-34 margin) for the Democrats to give Obama an advantage of 7.57 million votes. Without them, Obama's popular vote victory would have been cut to 400,000 votes, or 0.3%, essentially destroying Obama's mandate for change.

Young voters inspired by Obama were absolutely essential in U.S. Senate races in Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Alaska, and perhaps also Louisiana, not to mention numerous close races in the House as well as local and state elections.

It's also important to note that young people were a critical force turning the election to Obama. Whether they were schlepping to Florida or coming out in droves to the Iowa caucus, young voters won this election for Obama. They were the core of the volunteers who drove the enthusiasm for the Obama campaign. They were the people convincing their neighbors and relatives to vote for Obama. They were the bulk of the volunteers and low-paid campaign workers who did the essential grunt work of this campaign. They were the ones who utilized the web and social networking and cell phones and on-the-ground canvassing to turn what might have been another election stolen by Republicans into a landslide for Obama.

The cynical journalists can twist the poll numbers and dismiss the Obama Generation all they want, but we know the truth about how Obama transformed the youth numbers in this election to astonishing levels, and in doing so may have helped establish the foundation for a permanent progressive majority.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

Summers would be a lousy selection for this position. Summers is an overrated economist with a conventional free market ideology. But worst of all, Summers has a terrible reputation as a leader after being one of the worst presidents of Harvard in its history. And Summers has shifted even more toward the right-wing in recent years. If Obama chooses Summers, it would send the worst possible message to his supporters: that he may be nothing more than a repeat of Bill Clinton, and that is rejecting the idea of change in one of the most important posts during this economic crisis.

So what's wrong with Summers? At Harvard, there was his sexist speech about women, his dismissive attacks on Cornel West, his right-wing shift toward intolerance, and his rudeness and arrogance that alienated nearly everyone around him. During the Clinton Administration, Summers was infamous for signing a memo urging more pollution in the Third World, as well as his legendary poor treatment of others. Summers' approach to leadership and his ideology run contrary to what Obama espoused during his campaign, and Obama would be making a serious mistake if he appoints Summers to a prominent position.

The sexism of Summers may be the most well-known aspect of him now. On January 14, 2005, Summers spoke at a Harvard Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. Summers declared,

It does appear that on many, many different human attributes--height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability--there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means--which can be debated--there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.

In other words, Summers was claiming that the inferior genetics of women regarding math was one major reason why so few women were found in science and engineering. By contrast, Summers displayed an extraordinary ignorance of how discrimination works in America:

...Gary Becker very powerfully pointed out in addressing racial discrimination many years ago. If it was really the case that everybody was discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would mean for the pool that was available.

Got that? Summers not only advanced the notion of female genetic inferiority, but he largely dismissed the possibility that discrimination is an explanation for the absence of women in these fields. In doing so, Summers cited and embraced the right-wing economics of Gary Becker, whose long-discredited dissertation in 1950s espoused the ridiculous theory that discrimination can't exist in the free market because rational employers would hire superior candidates overlooked by prejudiced employers. In reality, of course, the world doesn't work this way.

But that didn't stop Summers from concluding,

in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.

In the question period, Summers brushed off a question about how female scientists are much more common in France and other countries: "My guess is that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States." So aside from calling women innately dumb, Summers was arguing that women are too lazy to be good scientists. Perhaps not surprisingly, "the number of women receiving tenure each year at Harvard had dropped precipitously since Summers became president -- down to 4 of the past 32 offers."

But it is a mistake to think that Summers was forced out of his job as president of Harvard because of his sexist remarks (and I believe he should be free to express these stupid, offensive ideas). In fact, Summers held on to his job long after he made his obnoxious remarks. The conservative board running Harvard was fully behind him. Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted 218–185 to pass a motion of "no confidence" in Summers, but this didn't seriously threaten his job.

Summers' end at Harvard came a year later, when he purged William Kirby, the dean of Arts and Sciences, from his post, because Summers wanted to have only his loyalists in positions of power. This prompted the Faculty of Arts and Sciences planned to make another vote of no confidence in Summers on February 28, 2006. But this time, the conservatives at Harvard did not rise up to support Summers. Summers had alienated them completely. Summers announced his resignation on February 21, 2006, and received a substantial golden parachute.

As I note in my book, professor Stephen Thernstrom, who is one of the most prominent conservatives at Harvard, supported Summers but admitted that Summers is in the "top tenth of one percent of any scale measuring abrasiveness, arrogance, and overbearingness." When some of your best friends and ideological allies admit that you're not suited for an important job, it signifies something very important. Does Barack Obama really embrace "abrasiveness, arrogance, and overbearingness" as the model for his cabinet?

Harry R. Lewis had resigned as a dean in 2003 because of his disagreements with Summers, and was sharply critical of him: "For all his extraordinary talents, he just hasn't provided the kind of leadership to the university that people were prepared to follow." These words are important because Harry R. Lewis is a darling of the conservative movement in higher education. Yet Lewis concluded, "His misfortune arose from the impatience, harshness, thoughtlessness, and lack of candor."

The lack of candor was a reference to Summers' dealings with Andrei Shleifer, a close friend of Summers who cost Harvard a $26 million settlement with the U.S. government. Shleifer violated conflict-of-interest rules by making secret investments in Russia at the same time he was working for a Harvard group contracted by the U.S. Government to advise the Russian government. In 2004 a federal court found Shleifer liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government. While Shleifer was being investigated, Summers was pushing to have Shleifer promoted to a prominent chair at Harvard.

The problem isn't just that Summers' buddies are corrupt; the problem is that Summers deceived people about this issue, causing many of his conservative allies at Harvard to abandon him. Summers knew his buddy was investing in Russia, and knew that it might be illegal, and even warned him in 1996. But Summers, even though he was working for the Treasury Department, didn't nothing to stop Shleifer's criminal activities and insider dealing.

At Harvard, Summers was "a blunt and overbearing figure with an overt agenda of drastic change." When he was asked about the value of affirmative action by a faculty member, Summers responded, "The jury's out." When a female law professor at a meeting asked Summers a question he didn't like, he responded, "That's a stupid question." One professor "denounced Summers as 'a control freak' and mocked Summers's hierarchical 'Washington' style. 'He doesn't give a damn what anybody thinks.'"

Summers' life had taken a decidedly rightward turn, even to the level of dating Laura Ingraham in 2001. Summers took a further turn to the right after 9-11, when "Summers says that he felt called to speak up for patriotic values."

Summers also adopted far-right stands on Israel, and harshly denounced anyone who urged that universities disinvest from Israel were "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." Accusing critics of Israel of anti-Semitism is the lowest form of intellectual sleaze from the far right.

Summers showed a disturbing disregard for academic freedom. In 2002, Summers was responsible for helping cancel a poetry reading on campus by Tom Paulin because Paulin had denounced Jewish settlers as "Nazis, racists" and suggested they should be "shot dead." Although Paulin apologized for the remarks, Summers consulted with the English Department and then praised its decision to cancel the reading. (The cancellation was denounced by Charles Fried, Summers' friend Alan Dershowitz, and Laurence Tribe, showing how both conservatives and liberals were appalled by the idea.)

Summers also pushed out famed professor Cornel West, meeting with him to criticize him for recording a rap album and being involved in supporting Bill Bradley's political campaign. A president of a university has no business ordering a professor (or anyone else) to stop participating in political campaigns. It is a clear violation of academic freedom to do so. West called Summers both "uninformed" and "an unprincipled power player" in describing what happened in his book Democracy Matters (2004). If nothing else, Obama should ask West if Summers has the leadership skills for any major post in the next administration.

Summers' reign as president of Harvard was a terrible failure. How bad was Summers? The Harvard Corporation accepted his resignation offer even though it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from angry conservative alumni who loved Summers.

But Summers' career as an economist hasn't been much better. Summers is an ardent advocate of uncontrolled free trade and globalization. Summers' first job was in 1981, when he worked as assistant to Martin Feldstein, the head of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. After a stint at Harvard, Summers went to the World Bank. Back in 1991, Summers was the chief economist of the World Bank, when it was continuing to pursue disastrous policies that did little to help the poor. Summers doesn't deserve all the blame for the failings of the World Bank, but he was never part of any solutions or serious reforms.

While at the World Bank, Summers signed a memo that declared: "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]?" The memo noted, "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

The memo was written by an underling, and Summers claims that he "co-signed it to stimulate internal debate" (it's funny how many disgusting theories Summers likes to promote in the name of "debate"). It's not even clear how closely Summers read his memo and its claim that "underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted."

One of the problems with the defenders of Summers who suggest that this was meant as satire is the fact that Summers' economic ideology doesn't seem to be much different from this memo. Summers' free market economic logic does seem to support that point of view, even if he normally has the political skill not to say so openly.

Back in 1993, Al Gore reportedly prevented Summers from becoming chair of the the Council of Economic Advisers. Instead, Summers was named undersecretary of the treasury for international affairs. At the Treasury Department, Summers was a protege of the free market advocate Robert Rubin, and followed him in the role of Secretary of the Treasury from 1999-2001. At the Treasury, "Summers had earned a reputation as a politically careless upstart."

When Summers was being hired by Harvard, "Summers's temperament was troubling to some members of the corporation. The word from Washington was that he could be peremptory, condescending, impatient with lesser mortals. He had, as Robert Rubin, Summers's mentor and predecessor as treasury secretary, delicately put it, 'a rough-edges issue.'" As Secretary of the Treasury during a time with few crises, Summers had few dramatic events to challenge him.

As Richard Bradley noted, "Though deferential to his superiors, Summers could be a boss from hell. 'If you're in a meeting, whatever you say, he will make you feel like you're an idiot,' says one Treasury aide who worked for both Summers and Rubin." Paul Gigot once wrote, "Larry Summers is to humility what Madonna is to chastity."

Recently, Summers called for Paulsen to be given unchecked authority over the $700 billion bailout plan: "There's more risk in having too little flexibility than there is risk that they will have too much authority."

That indicates that Summers would resist any efforts to monitor, scrutinize, and criticize his control over the bailout if he is the Treasury Secretary. That promises to be a disaster. There's already far too little transparency and monitoring in the bailout plan, and Summers wants no one to be looking over the shoulder of Paulsen or anyone else.

There's also a danger of a conflict of interest, since Summers is a part-time managing director of the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co. Will he try to help his friends by continuing to bail out businesses? He also refuses to answer questions about the financial advice he has been giving Shaw.

I don't want anyone to think that I hate Larry Summers and regard him as a horrible person. He's a well-respected economist, seems to be regarded as a good teacher, and he did undertake some valuable actions at Harvard (such as increasing financial aid for the poor and trying to emphasize undergraduate teaching). I don't have a problem with Summers being an advisor to Obama, and he's not a free market ideologue on the scale of the Republicans.

A 2007 New York Times profile of Summers noted that "Clinton ended up embracing the centrist, business-friendly ideas of Summers and his mentor, Robert Rubin." But it added that now Summers "sounds, strangely enough, a little like Bob Reich." It's good if Summers is rethinking some of his free market faith. But why do we need him if we can get Reich himself, or someone else who was right all along?

However, there are also good reasons to doubt that Summers' conversion is real. Summers played a central role in "negotiations over China's entry into the World Trade Organization," which has been a disaster in terms of protecting human rights, the environment, and labor rights. And Summers doesn't seem to have changed his views much at all.

Back in April 2008, Summers was predicting: "There is a reasonable chance that from a financial market, Wall Street perspective, the worst has passed." That doesn't sound like a smart economic prognosticator.

Just a few months ago, Summers declared: "Alan Greenspan had a tremendous record as Fed chairman."

And in April 2008, Summers proclaimed, "Any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites."

Larry Summers may be a Friedmanite, but I'm not. No one appointed by Obama to this essential position should be announcing how much he agrees with Milton Friedman, the intellectual godfather of the current economic disaster. And an endorsement from Henry Kissinger ("Henry Kissinger has said that Summers should be given a permanent White House job, a sort of fixer of flabby policy ideas") scares the hell out of me.

Still, I find myself agreeing with Kissinger (shudder!) on this point. I think Summers should be an adviser to Obama, somebody who challenges old ideas (hopefully his own) and tries to come up with new ones. But that doesn't mean he should be running the show. Everyone agrees that he lacks the temperament. What he also lacks are genuinely new ideas. And that may be the most disturbing thing of all. We don't need the recycled, pro-business, free-market-is-god ideas of the Clinton Administration in a time of economic crisis. We need change, not more of the same. And Larry Summers is a lot more of the same.

At his best, Summers is a gaffe machine who actually exceeds Joe Biden's capacity to shove his foot down his larynx. At his worst, he's a conservative, domineering leader who alienates almost all of the people he works with. In neither case is he a good choice for the Treasury Department or any other major position.

Crossposted at DailyKos.