Klain makes a persuasive case for how Obama can avoid getting caught in the contradictory demand, "Do something big, but don't throw any federal money at it.." Unfortunately, Klain doesn't use hard data, or experts on the economy, to bolster his case. He also doesn't address how the president might be able to pull off job creation by finding ways to partner with industries to focus on specific needs of the country, like building/repairing roads and bridges. While green energy jobs are the jobs of the future, there's still a lot of work to be done with the old technology, which would also appeal to a wider political spectrum. Joe Sixpack's looking for shovel-ready employment right now, rather than retraining to install solar panels.

The article urges the administration to abandon what the author perceives of as 'the classical Keynesian playbook"and come up with some tangible solutions that would create jobs and appeal to voters turned off by the academic context of the current job debate. Although the author seems to ignore the fact that the administration has only timidly endorsed some Keynesian economics,( which unfortunately, Obama has allowed his enemies to define),Klain makes a very appealing argument for changing the language of the debate.