Some time ago, Matt Yglesias drew up a list of substantive items that weren't getting enough attention in the Democratic primary. Two of his items caught my eye. First,

Federal Reserve: Are Clinton or Obama happy with the past 25 or so years of conservative Republican leadership at the Fed or would they like to take things in a new direction?

I had a couple of thoughts on this item:

1) I wonder - does Paul Volcker count as part of the "past 25 years or so of conservative Republican leadership?" Most Fed-watchers would draw a bright line between pre-and-post Volcker eras, and see primarily continuity between his reign and that of undisputed conservative Alan Greenspan. The wrinkle is that Volcker is a lifelong Democrat who recently endorsed Barack Obama.

2) More importantly, the one thing that has been made clear through the current economic turmoil and the Fed's current tough spot is that while there are debates about the role of the Fed at a given time, they don't usually break down easily along partisan lines. For example, if Paul Krugman (a born blogger whose day job is something to which he is far less suited) has disagreed with anything Ben Bernanke has done in the current crisis, I've missed it. A number of Republican economists, by contrast, have accused Bernanke of loosening credit too much too fast. And even Greenspan was far less dogmatic in his actions as Fed chairman than one would assume from his biography or reading his memoir. So it's far from evident that (a) the phrase "conservative Republican leadership at the Fed" is a meaningful description of what has happened at the Fed over the last 25 years, or (b) that a Democratic President who wanted to take things in a new direction at the Fed would succeed in doing so (unless he or she appoints some pure hack).

Second from Matt's list:

Judiciary: Assuming a Democratic Senate allows for relatively easy confirmations, do Clinton or Obama intend to continue appointing 1990s-style moderates, or would we see a return to the liberal jurisprudence of a Thurgood Marshall?

I also have two thoughts about this one:

1) When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court, Bill Clinton called her the "Thurgood Marshall of gender equity law." Yet on the Court, she has been generally considered fairly moderate. So you never know, even if a judicial candidate is the closest thing to Marshall.

2) This deserves a post unto itself...but let's just come out and say it. When Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Court to fill Marshall's seat, most people scorned his chances of ever matching the record of Marshall. Well, Thomas has been a far, far superior Justice to Marshall, using any possible criterion (such as influence on the Court and the development of the law generally, skill of opinions, etc.) other than the crudest form of results-oriented judging I am quite confident (as confident as I can be without actually going to the trouble of asking anyone)that many, many respectably liberal legal academics would agree with that assessment (especially if they could do so off the record).

To clarify: this only refers to the two men's records as Justices of the Supreme Court and not their legal accomplishments as a whole; Marshall is surely a more important figure based on his civil rights record. But I view Marshall as a legal parallel to James Madison - a man of monumental impact whose least important role was his service as President.