What's in a Name?

In his latest column the always sage Krugman (sarcasm dripping) essentially argues that the top issue in the general election will be economic anxiety, not the war in Iraq. He then goes on to make a not so subtle case for Hillary being the candidate to return the country to the prosperity of the 90's.

And, as the Democrats ponder their choices, they might want to consider which candidate can most convincingly ask: “Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?”

I have been struggling to grasp this logic for quite awhile now. Will someone please explain to me what evidence there is for the expectation that Hillary would govern more like Bill than Obama? There seems to be a belief that another Clinton administration would be exactly like the first--that Hillary is just Bill sans the pesky sex addiction. Maybe I missed a turn, but how did we come to this conclusion. Even if Bill and Hillary were ideological soulmates--which they certainly are not--it seems that Bill's greatest virtue was his political charisma. Unfortunately, when they were passing out charm, Hillary was nowhere to be found.

Addendum:
Another bewildering thing about Hillary: isn’t it a bit ironic that her campaign is trumpeted as progress for women? No doubt she would have had an illustrious career on her own merits had she not married Bill. But would she have suddenly moved to NYC and become that state’s Senator, then mounted a competitive Presidential campaign?

Message to teenage girls everywhere: even you can grow up to be elected President of the United States….provided you marry well. If anything, shouldn’t women’s advocates be lukewarm about her campaign?