I was sloppy in characterizing Mark's comments about Gene Sperling. He writes:
I think this misstates what I have said. I posted something defending Sperling, and the claim that
"their grounds are basically that he is a protege of Robert Rubin and that he took money to work (essentially) as a consultant for Goldman Sachs."
I didn't say he was a protege, and said nothing about the money, etc.
I did say that from a political view I thought the administration would be better off breaking its ties with the Clinton administration personnel, just as I said the same thing about Summers. But that is different from saying there is something wrong with Gene in particular other than the political baggage that comes with him.
Here is what I said specifically. First, I echoed a post defending him. Then, I said "I still think a break from the Wall Street connected side of the Clinton administration would have political value."
See:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/12/who-should-replace-summers.html
Tim Duy had much more to say, but those are his words, not mine.
