The Times's David Leonhardt has an interesting column on the differences between Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's economic philosophies:
The easiest way to describe Senator Clinton's philosophy is to say that she believes in the promise of narrowly tailored government policies, like tailored tax cuts. She has more faith that government can do what it sets out to do, which is a traditionally liberal view. Yet she also subscribes to the conservative idea that people respond rationally to financial incentives. Senator Obama's ideas, on the other hand, draw heavily on behavioral economics, a left-leaning academic movement that has challenged traditional neoclassical economics over the last few decades. Behavioral economists consider an abiding faith in rationality to be wishful thinking. To Mr. Obama, a simpler program - one less likely to confuse people - is often a smarter program.
For example, Clinton wants to force you to buy health insurance, whether you like it or not. Obama's plan, which still relies heavily on a government role in the health care marketplace, lacks a so-called "mandate." Leondhardt (like me!) finds more to like in Obama's approach than in Clinton's:
[F]or all of the good ideas Mrs. Clinton has proposed, there still seems to be something missing from her agenda. It feels like less than the sum of its parts. It lacks some of the elegance of the Obama approach. Most people have only limited time and ability to sort through the details of government programs and then sign up for each one that might help them. And today's middle-class anxiety stems from some tremendously broad issues, like globalization and technological change. No matter how well it's designed, a package of tax credits doesn't seem quite up to the task of making the economy work for the middle class.
Read the whole thing, as they say.