In An Interview With TPM, Krugman Ramps Up Case Against Obama

Comments (405)

BluePuppy wrote on December 19, 2007 3:59 PM:

"Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think."

Krugman's right, of course. As President Clinton has said, Obama is a symbol. Many people project onto him what their ideal is, but when you actually look at his plans he comes up short.

Go Hillary! You're kicking arse.

Jeremy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:04 PM:

Why didn't you ask Krugman about the time his guy Edwards compared single-payer health care to the DHS's performance in Katrina. Krugman the pundit is a VERY selective frame cop. When will we get Krugman the economist back?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:04 PM:

As it happens, I am big fan of Dr Krugman and think (even as I support Obama) that many of his critiques are not far amiss. That said, I think the central premise of the highlighted critique above gets really to the center of Obama's talk about the "audacity of hope." Sen Obama believes that those on the other side of the debate are not so intrinsically evil that it is impossible to work together with them to arrive at something that is better than that which we have now. To be very fair, it is clear that Sen Clinton believes the same, although she phrases her belief differently. Dr Krugman believes (and not without reason) that those on the other side are so thoroughly committed to their own self interest (even at the expense of the common good) that they will never allow a change in the status quo unless and until they are compelled to do so. In other words, Obama has hope and Krugman has none. Only time will tell whether this means that Obama is a dupe or a visionary, or whether Krugman is a realist or a crank. Certainly, though, neither man is ipso facto unreasonable for believing as he does.

Greg wrote on December 19, 2007 4:06 PM:

Greg -- I think you get this exactly right. Some Obama folks would read this and say, "yep -- that's our guy. He's not gonna piss on the other side. he's gonna persuade them that he's right."

And as you say, we'll see who's right eventually.

Jeremy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:07 PM:

Here's the link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016768.php

EC should have challenged Krugman more directly on his reasons for singling Obama out. Edwards compared single-payer to Katrina. Hillary attacked Obama for wanting to raise taxes on six figure incomes. Krugman has nothing to say about these things, but goes full bore after Obama.

bawbie wrote on December 19, 2007 4:07 PM:

Wow. Paul Krugman really doesn't like Obama and it doesn't seem to me like you got to the bottom of why, Greg.

My other take is that Krugman seems to buy into the idea that Bush has killed compromise and bipartisanship. Or that 'compromise' and 'bipartisanship' mean what Bush defines them to mean (my way or the highway). Obama specifically rejects the Bush meaning of those terms, which is why he is the candidate of change and the others aren't.

BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on December 19, 2007 4:07 PM:

Can we get a comparison of this interview with the sections of Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" where he looks at the Edwards and Obama health plans? I don't want to take time to analyze this on the merits, but I seem to recall Krugman saying the four basic components of the plans from Edwards and Obama were almost the same.

Or is this about tenacity?

Or is this about personality?

Pat wrote on December 19, 2007 4:08 PM:

I can certainly see where Krugman is coming from here, and I can't even say that I disagree with him. But let's be honest about "what happens after the election" shall we? For one thing, it will be just as much Congress's plan as it is Obama's plan. And like it or not, if the Dems don't get 60 seats in the Senate, the GOP is going to be a formidable force in that Congress. So you're going to have to sit down and talk to them whether you like it or not.

Tithonia wrote on December 19, 2007 4:10 PM:

"Mostly it's a question of what happens after the election."

I beg to differ. Mostly it's a question of winning the election.

Krugman can pick at Obama all he wants, but it's looking increasingly likely that either Clinton or Obama will be running for president. I'm supporting Obama because
a: Edwards seems to be be less viable every day, and b: I don't want to see Hillary become the nominee. It's a little late in the game to start attacking Obama now.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:10 PM:

Krugman needs to STFU!!!

Here is what Alter has to say:

Krugman is an economist and I trust his forecast that things are going to get even worse for working-class Americans in the months ahead. The middle-class squeeze is real. Predatory lenders and CEO greedheads should be called out. So should insurance and drug companies. But it needs to be done in a way that produces results, not just spleen-venting.

How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Sound familiar? This is essentially what Obama is proposing for health care after he's elected. If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993—instead of convening a secret task force—she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.

Edwards and Krugman think that's naïve. They want the evil drug and insurance industries excluded from any of these conversations. Edwards surely knows better than this. The drug industry that he seeks to bar from a seat at the table is the same industry working to save his wife Elizabeth's life and that of anyone else with a serious disease, including me. The answer to price-gouging is to force these companies to negotiate drug prices with the government, a reform any Democratic president would quickly enact.

snip

Obama's idea is a better one: Get every special interest out in the open on television, where the new president can cross-examine them and expose their phony rationalizations for charging $100 a pill or denying coverage to sick people (and Edwards, the former trial attorney, would be especially good at this). Then, having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow. It is, indeed, a fantasy to think these interests will roll over entirely, but they will get a much worse deal.

snip

To call Obama "anti-change," as Paul Krugman does, is anti-common sense. Leadership requires a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face. "They have to feel the heat to see the light," LBJ liked to say. That heat is best applied up close. In public. Across the big table.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/2

Greg wrote on December 19, 2007 4:10 PM:

bawbie -- I'd say the interview pretty well highlights exactly the points you made...

Michael's Mom wrote on December 19, 2007 4:11 PM:

Krugman's son works for Hillary; he is hardly an unbiased judge of this campaign.

But even substantively, everyone knows that the "15 million" is an analysis of averages. There are analyses of Obama's plan that see it insuring everyone. By the way, even with that, 95% are insured, probably more. Secondly, mandates haven't worked in car insurance; why would they work with health insurance? And please, don't cite Germany or the Netherlands or any other European social democracy to tell me how it works with them. The difference between Americans and Europeans on this question should be obvious, yet every time anyone explains mandates they always refer to a European example. Give me an American example, and then I might believe we can exorcise this American problem.

CalD wrote on December 19, 2007 4:11 PM:

Death! Death to Krugman! Burn the heretic!

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:13 PM:

Some Obama folks would read this and say, "yep -- that's our guy. He's not gonna piss on the other side. he's gonna persuade them that he's right."

Indeed; I am an Obama guy and I would say that exactly.

Radha wrote on December 19, 2007 4:14 PM:

Krugman is turning out to be too unprincipled to be considered a liberal god any more.

His shilling for Edwards is thoroughly shameful, considering the latter has walked on the neocon side (SPONSORING the IWR) and otherwise amassing a Senate career replete with votes against the masses and finding religion for the 2008 campaign.

How can a life spent living the progressive values NOT outweigh a deathbed (campaign) conversion? I just do not get the Edwards mania in the blogosphere -- he is our very own Romney.

LJ wrote on December 19, 2007 4:15 PM:

I don't know. For the past 7 years the conservatives have been ramming their agenda down our throats whether we like it or not. Seems like Krugman thinks we're now supposed to treat them like they've treated us.

Whoever wins the general election is incredibly unlikely to have a real mandate. I'd be fairly surprised if the winner reaches much more than 51% of the popular vote. Maybe 52%. We're likely to remain a highly divided country. Is it really the job of the party in power to ignore the will of the other 49%? I sure don't like it when the Republicans do that, so I have trouble embracing the "screw 'em" attitude that Krugman seems to endorse. I'm not really looking for the Democratic equivalent of George W. Bush.

And I doubt we'll see a 60-40 Dem majority in the Senate, so it's not like a Dem president can just do whatever he/she wants to without considering the opposition party.

And I'll be the first to admit that health care is far from a hot button issue for me. But isn't there something to the notion of doing what's actually achievable, instead of shooting the moon and accomplishing nothing?

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 4:16 PM:

Let me see if I understand this healthcare debate correctly. According to krugman and clinton II keeping the insurance industry in the mix and their profits is "progressive." Seems to me it sounds like the mandate issue is corporate welfare once again. Keep funneling individual's hard earned dollars to corporate america. That doesn't sound very progressive to me. But, if you cut out the insurance industry, you cut out campaign contributions from the industry to the likes of clinton II. Wouldn't want that to happen now would we.

Nice to see an unbiased observer who is not a clinton II shill attacking obama for not being progressive enough to keep giving corporations handouts. Kind of like the privatization of government and no-bid contracts that started under clinton I. Wow, I am just in awe of this new clintonian progressive idealism. Maybe we can call it clintonism. It almost sounds . . . . republican.

DC wrote on December 19, 2007 4:18 PM:

For me, the overriding issue this election cycle is corporate power in the policies of government. I say that because all of the particular issues we face are a consequence of overwhelming corporate power. Corporate interests are relatively simple… maximize profit. They are profoundly incapable of generating governmental policies that go much beyond their primary interest. I believe that all the particular problems we face, Iraq, torture, global warming, health care, etc, are a function of corporate incompetence manifested in an administration supported by and controlled by corporate power.

The corporate interests in this country must make a choice, it seems to me. That choice will be based upon a simple survival criterion. Their first choice will be Republican. That choice will fail in 2008. Their second choice would be HRC. That too will fail as Democrats; finally, perceive that she is too close to this power structure. The remaining choice is between Obama and Edwards. Obama will clip their wings… whereas Edwards will leave them trussed, stuffed and garnished with bacon! I think they will choose Obama.

bridoc wrote on December 19, 2007 4:19 PM:

My thoughts:

PK is basing most everything on campaign rhetoric and minor differences in health care plans and total hype on the social security issue. It is obvious that Obama's rhetoric about non-divisive politics is as much a campaign strategy as Edwards' populist rhetoric is for his campaign. I haven't seen any examples of where Obama is running to the Right of Hillary, PK should have included examples if he was going to try to make that assertion. Thus far Hillary has stated that both HW Bush and Reagan are among her favorite presidents AND tried to get HW Bush to be part of her foreign policy. Obama isn't the one inviting conservatives into the White House already.

On health care, the differences between each of the frontrunners plans are minor, and they all fall far short of what we really need, which is single-payer not-for-profit universal health care, which is the only way we will ever achieve truly universal results and cut special interests out of the process. That said, I see no reason to suspect that Obama is going to give ground to the conservatives on anything. If anything, him coming into with a cool head, instead of fiery rhetoric like Edwards, will allow him to get more done in the end.

Also, the mandates in the Hillary/Edwards plans are ridiculously impractical and impossible to enforce (not to mention putting extra burden on the poor who have to choose between rent, food and mandatory health insurance), yet Hillary uses this point to unjustifiably accuse Obama's plan of being less universal than hers. It defies common sense and any reporter worth a damn should know better.

I cannot believe PK dismissed foreign policy as an important distinction because is actually one of the MOST distinguishing issues in this primary election. The fact that PK dismisses it shows me he doesn't really realize what is at stake and frankly it kills his credibility in my mind.

Basically it is obvious that PK has a bone to pick with Obama because Obama hit back when PK originally went after his health care policy using HRC talking points. PK had his pride hurt so now he is taking it out on Obama, but it is obvious that he is throwing logic to the wind and just striking out. He is naive (or perhaps purposely disingenuous) to be taking campaign rhetoric and stretching it for all it is worth, and he willfully overlooks many obvious flaws in his arguments. I think the Election Central interviewer did a decent job of calling him on this, so kudos.

blackstar wrote on December 19, 2007 4:19 PM:

I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question.

----

Go Paul K! wrote on December 19, 2007 4:19 PM:

Krugman is right on!

Obama staked out his centrist position early on, no doubt, because he considered it good politics... which is to say winning politics. But the fact is, the whole theme of bringing everyone together is nothing but a bromide and when push comes to shove Obama already owes too much to the corporate Democratic types to genuinely fight for the things liberals/progressives have for so long wanted to see take place. Krugman legitimately points out that Obama's position's demonstrate a naivete that others don't. There's little difference between Obama's centrism and Hillary's except maybe that Obama is more naive and in denial about what he thinks the advance compromises he's already made will mean if he gets elected.

Edwards is truly the only one of the major three candidates who is campaigning on a full blown progressive agenda and who, if elected, will have a mandate for enacting it. If you run on centrist policies and then try to implement policies that are more liberal you will get nothing done. Thus, the hopes of so many Obama people for him to be some sort of great and progressive influence will go by the wayside as with all the rest of the corporate Democrats despite the fact that he looks different and he's younger.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:19 PM:

Krugman needs to STFU!!!

Quite the opposite. Obama is a big man; he can take constructive criticism and grow from it. Your critics are often your best friends, and Obama supporters (like me) ought not to be so small-minded as forget this fact.

Krugman's son works for Hillary.

This rumor seems to be as persistant as the idea that Obama was raised as a muslim. Krugman has no son, so it is quite impossible that he might have a son working for Clinton.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:22 PM:

Let me see if I understand this healthcare debate correctly. According to krugman and clinton II keeping the insurance industry in the mix and their profits is "progressive."

No, you quite definitely do not understand it correctly. Whether or not Clinton wishes to keep the insurance industry in the mix, Krugman does not.

PRN wrote on December 19, 2007 4:24 PM:

Can anyone confirm Michael's Mom comment that Krugman's son works for Hillary? Preferably with a link...

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:24 PM:

Here's yet another well thought out analysis of why Krugman is WRONG and needs to STFU and stick to economics his field of expertise. It is so apparent he is shilling for Hillary when he uses the new symbol talking point Bill used on Rose...Krugman is a symbol too of why folks should stick with their area of expertise in order not to look like idiots.

A far better political analysis of Obama's plan and Krugmans idiocy:

Krugman never explains why a lifelong progressive should support a progressive system for taxation but not health care. The only possible explanation is that—for some inexplicable reason—Krugman wants to make Clinton look good.

"Krugman insists that insurance prices and health-care costs won’t balance unless everyone is forced to participate. But the simple truth is that no one knows. There are too many variables to consider. Most of the studies have been done for political candidates; they are all incomplete, and most have an agenda to pursue.

The devil is in the details. By offering young, healthy workers cheap policies with high deductibles (so-called “catastrophic” health insurance), Obama’s system might get them to participate voluntarily. If Clinton wants to be fair and progressive—i.e., to allow people to satisfy her mandates at reasonable cost—her system will have to offer the same thing. If she forces everyone buy “Cadillac” comprehensive policies, her system will be massively regressive and will encounter massive political resistance. Even if it doesn’t, the very word “mandates” will give opponents a powerful (and unnecessary) tool to demagogue her plan to death once more.

Any system will take some tinkering to get right. The really important goals are five things that Krugman doesn’t even mention...."

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-redux.html

Matt Ahrens wrote on December 19, 2007 4:26 PM:

I have been a Krugman fan for many, many, many years. And, I will continue to support Barack Obama for president.

When it comes offering critique of policy proposals, I can't think of anyone better than Krugman. He is a policy expert far beyond just economics. I'm a big fan and rely on his arguents, insights, and perspectives in formulating my own.

And, he makes good points about political rhetoric too.

So, why is Obama my man?

Number 1 reason: because he is best positioned to win the general election. I have personally spoken to many Republican voters who are supporting Obama. His charisma and message of hope matter.

Number 2 reason: because the campaign he is running will allow him to make the most positive change of any candidate in the race. He is building broad based support and the trust of the people.

Number 3 reason: he will be able to overcome the weaknesses in his policy proposals and experience through his inclusive approach.

I predict that sometime between now and 6 months from now, Barack Obama and Paul Krugman will have a meeting to discuss what changes are needed to his policy proposals and Obama will incorporate some if not all of Krugman's recommendations. He is that kind of leader.

And, like Lincoln, Obama will put together a strong team in his administration.

And, he has proven that he will own up to his mistakes such as he did with regard to missing the vote declairing the Iranian national guard a terrorist organization.

Part of me winces when I read Krugman's critique of Obama because there is truth to it. But I know that Obama is not a perfect candidate (and more importantly, he knows it about himself too.)

His upside is high. His success won't be linear; there'll be spurts of energy and progress followed by times of confusion and inactivity. And those times will in turn be followed by certainty and accomplishment. In the end, he might go down in history as one of our finest presidents. AND, unlike Bill Clinton, an 8 year President Obama Administration will be followed by another Democratic president.

Our country wants a new beginning and Obama seems like the only candidate who can give that to us.

Rooktoven wrote on December 19, 2007 4:26 PM:

In negotiations, if you want a hundred and your opponents want zero, you don't come out and say we'll meet you at 50.

They will then say, "50 is outrageous! How about 10?"

A President Obama would then say "OK, let's split the difference. How about 30?"

"Too high" they say, "how about 15?"

"Can we do 23?"

"Make it 18 and you have a deal!"

"18 it is!"

President Obama then goes on TV to announce the bold new plan achieved through negotiation and bipartisanship.

bridoc wrote on December 19, 2007 4:27 PM:

Nice comments savvy, I agree, he has it all backwards.

PK is a hack, and his hurt pride vendetta against Obama exposes him for what he is, give me a break, he is no "knight of the left" in the MSM. He can kiss my ass.

And the Clintons can pretend they are political gurus all they want (although their history of failures, not being able to control their campaign staff, and most recently the HW Bush plan without asking him first would make me disagree), but they will never have the political finesse that Obama has. He'll get it all done and not cave on principles, and he'll look good doing it. He is no fool.

Geek, Esq. wrote on December 19, 2007 4:29 PM:

Has Paul Krugman heard of filibusters and the Blue Dog Caucus?

And his complete lack of interest in foreign policy is a bit weird too.

I think Krugman is trying to rationalize his emotional dissatisfaction with Obama's tone--Edwards satisfies him with red meat, so that obviously is the superior approach.

Even though Edwards has never gotten a piece of legislation passed in his entire life.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 4:30 PM:

So because Obama hasn't decried all who disagree with him as the anti-christ, he's the anti-change candidate? Got it.

Let me know how that brinksman's approach works for you Krugman.

Andrew wrote on December 19, 2007 4:30 PM:

"I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question."

I respect Krugman as much as the next guy, but what the hell is he getting at here? Has he simply not been paying attention? Has he just ignored Hillary's horrible judgment re: Iraq and Iran?

*shakes head*

dcshungu wrote on December 19, 2007 4:30 PM:

It seems that folks in IA agreed with Paul Krugman :-)

December 19, 2007

POLL: Rasmussen Iowa Democratic Caucus

Additional results to the recent Rasmussen Reports automated survey of 775 likely Democratic caucus participants in Iowa (conducted 12/17) finds:

* In a statewide caucus; Sen. Hillary Clinton runs at 31%, Sen. Barack Obama at 27%, former Sen. John Edwards at 22%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 9%, Sen. Joe Biden at 5%.

* All other candidates receive less than five percent each. The margin of sampling error is 4%.

Tara wrote on December 19, 2007 4:30 PM:

GO KRUGMAN GO! Do your best to educate these people!

dajafi wrote on December 19, 2007 4:30 PM:

I think the central premise of the highlighted critique above gets really to the center of Obama's talk about the "audacity of hope." Sen Obama believes that those on the other side of the debate are not so intrinsically evil that it is impossible to work together with them to arrive at something that is better than that which we have now. To be very fair, it is clear that Sen Clinton believes the same, although she phrases her belief differently. Dr Krugman believes (and not without reason) that those on the other side are so thoroughly committed to their own self interest (even at the expense of the common good) that they will never allow a change in the status quo unless and until they are compelled to do so. In other words, Obama has hope and Krugman has none. Only time will tell whether this means that Obama is a dupe or a visionary, or whether Krugman is a realist or a crank.

Outstanding, outstanding analysis.

I'm supporting Obama (though the soft voice in my head that says "Edwards" is starting to get louder) and I've been dismayed to see Krugman--whom I venerate, probably like most of us--go after him again and again. But given Krugman's analysis of the situation--Republicans represent, and continue to represent, an existential threat not just to progressivism but to America in its best conception of itself--it makes sense that Obama's unwillingness to demonize "the other side" doesn't sit well. Krugman favors the Edwards approach of a frontal assault on the citadels of power.

Who's right and who's wrong here depends on a couple questions. The first is how big, and how monolithic, "the other side" really is. Are there "reachable" Republicans, either in office or among the electorate more broadly? Can President Obama peel off enough of them to make broadly progressive gains? (A related question is whether the activist left would accept a policy solution that maybe gets us two-thirds of what we want, or if the David Sirota types would scream "SELLOUT!" so loudly that the coalition would collapse from within.)

The second question is whether, assuming there aren't enough reachable Republicans, President Obama (yeah, it's fun to type) could use the bully pulpit to make the recalcitrant Republicans pay an unbearable political price. This is the part that interests me--and it's why I'm strongly for Obama over Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation (who lacks both the stomach to take on entrenched interests in the first place, and the broad appeal to change anyone's minds) and less certainly for Obama over Edwards (whom I don't see as politically skilled enough either to peel off waverers or destroy avowed enemies).

Changing that conversation is what great presidents do. Lincoln and FDR, Jefferson and Wilson and TR, saw where the country was, knew where they wanted to lead it, and gradually made their case--ultimately (except for Wilson with the League of Nations) with history-changing success. Of the three leading Democrats, Obama is the only one who strikes me as having the potential to remake the world in that way.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:32 PM:

Can anyone confirm Michael's Mom comment that Krugman's son works for Hillary?

There is this from the "Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page" (URL below):

My first marriage ended in divorce. My current wife and I lived in sin - very sedate, bourgeois sin, I'm afraid - for a couple of years, then married in 1996, and have lived happily ever after. Sorry, but I have no sexual escapades to report. I have no children from either marriage.

http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/Strangelove.html

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:33 PM:

GregLassus,
I believe Krugman needs to STFU because he is wRONG not because Obama does not know how to handle constructive criticism. However, Krugman does have a bully pulpit that Obama lacks. So they are not on equal footing in terms of getting the message out. Krugman is abusing his journalistic role. He provides no balance to his out and out SCREED under the auspices of his economic expertise which is actually a political bashing. Ergo he needs to STFU!

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 4:34 PM:

Ok, greg, it appears to me from krugman's articles attacking obama's plan that he wants universal mandated health insurance coverage with insurance carriers acting as the middle man sucking profits out of the system. Are you telling me that's not his position? If that isn't his position then why is he supporting clinton II's position, which keeps insurance carriers in the mix? It doesn't make sense.

Kansas-City-Dem wrote on December 19, 2007 4:34 PM:

If wonder if Krugman likes the Bloomberg health care plan, because if Obama does not win the Democratic nomination, then Bloomberg will be jumping in the race. Yes, you heard that correctly, if it's Edwards or Hillary, Bloomberg jumps in the race. Could someone get Krugman to quickly assess the Bloomberg plan before Iowa, New Hampshire and Super Tuesday?

vena wrote on December 19, 2007 4:34 PM:

I get the feeling that Krugman wants nothing to do with bi-partisanship. The funny thing is instead of promoting Edwards plan, most of the time he's just talking about how Obama and all of his "failures." Seems odd.

bawbie wrote on December 19, 2007 4:35 PM:

bridoc-

Krugman is NOT a hack, but he's also not a political expert. He's an economist, and I think he should stick to economic issues and leave the political analysis alone.

bridoc wrote on December 19, 2007 4:35 PM:

Rooktoven, that is ridiculous. All based on nonsense with nothing to back it up. You obviously don't get it.

And what about the other candidates? Hillary goes in and doesn't even really want 100 because she is neck deep in special interests and Washington establishment politics.

And what is Edwards saying he will do? 100 or leave? And then they all leave, and it falls apart. Smart.

What you are missing is the fact that this is all CAMPAIGN RHETORIC. If you want to understand how these politicians work, you have to get to know them past what they say on the road. Edwards had none of this fire in him 4 years ago, yet all of the sudden here he is, and you eat that up like it is 100% real and he will stick it to everyone at the table? Naive. And Obama, his ideas of inclusive politics are a campaign message. You can tell he is brilliant at bringing people together and negotiating, but that is an asset, and it is unjustified to assume he will cave on anything.

I'm seriously tired of people not getting politics...it isn't all that hard to understand! People who think Obama is going to sell out or be weak just because of his campaign marketing have zero understanding of how to get things done in Washington. I can't wait til he proves it to everyone (hoping he gets the chance).

gqmartinez wrote on December 19, 2007 4:36 PM:

I don't like posting at EC anymore because there is little substantial discussion. It's mostly attack the messenger. But whatever.

Michael A, you are missing the debate on mandates entirely. The whole idea of a mandate is decreasing the risk. Without mandates, there is evidence that healthy folks won't get insurance, but sick folks will. So, you'd expect the premiums to be higher. If everyone had insurance, then premiums would go down.

I'd recommend reading Hillary's proposal a little more thoroughly as it incorporates a way for a public system like Medicare to actively compete with the private sector, but people probably won't. (It doesn't seem that anyone has bothered to read Krugman's or Ezra's or any number of health care folks reasoning on mandates.) No matter how you break it up, Obama's health care policy is by far the least aggressive and weakest. But I guess if you hope enough that the problems will go away, they necessarily will.

It's pretty amazing that anyone here would criticize Krugman for lacking progressive credentials. he's been the only voice for progressivism in the MSM these last 7 years. No wonder progressives lose--we deserve to. Also, Obama's "fact check" on Krugman was patently stupid and misleading. You can still support Obama despite that (I don't dislike obama), but you have to stretch reality to buy into Obama's critique of Krugman.

John wrote on December 19, 2007 4:36 PM:

It's becoming increasingly obvious that Krugman has some personal problem with Obama. He's clearly not subjecting Hillary or Edwards to the same scrutiny. To be able to elide over their Iraq votes so easily speaks volumes in my book. Obama has been right all along and this somehow means nothing to Krugman.

And where was he when Hillary was calling Obama's plan to raise taxes on upper income people to help pay fpr SS a "trillion dollar tax increase"? If that's not straight from the American Enterprise Institute, I don't know what is.

And what about Hillary's calling him "naive and irresponsible" for saying he would not use nuclear weapons against a terrorist camp? Or naive for saying he'd talk to our enemies? Or Hillary's vote on the Iran resolution?

Hillary is straight out of the DLC and to think that she'll follow through on her primary talk if elected is pretty credulous in my book. She'll be too scared of the GOP calling her weak to take any risks.

Edwards promise that he's somehow going to strongarm the health-care industry is what I call naive.

CT Voter wrote on December 19, 2007 4:39 PM:

Interesting conversation. Thanks, Greg, for posting it.

I am a huge fan of Paul Krugman, and have been for years. His comment at the end, about the Washington Post, however, was a bit surprising.

This:

then you're going to have some problems fending off Republican attacks on health care and The Washington Post's demands that you make Social Security a top priority

For one thing, whoever is President is going to have problems fending off Republican attacks for any number of reasons--mostly the stenography that translates Republican talking points into "legitimate" news.

But worrying about the Washington Post's demands seems to elevate that newspaper more than it deserves. Who gives a rat's ass about the Washington Post? Maybe if everyone treated it as the partisan hackjob it actually is, it would have less influence.

So that's my only issue with this.

Chris wrote on December 19, 2007 4:39 PM:

The reason Social Security was a crisis for Bush was that he wanted to destry SS. Social Security for Obama is a crisis because its an easy win. For Everyone. Yeah its not a crisis, but its already framed that way, why not use it to your advantage to look awesome when its fixed?

bridoc wrote on December 19, 2007 4:41 PM:

John, also very good examples.

Jeremy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:41 PM:

Bottom line: Some people don't understand that it's a good idea to get as many people on your side as you can if you're getting ready for a fight.

along wrote on December 19, 2007 4:42 PM:

I support Obama; I agree with Alter (as seen in Savvy's comment above); I agree with Matt Ahrens above.

I also agree with some of what Krugman says.

But I disagree with his constant attacking of Obama.

I think Obama's Fact Check response (not an attack) to Krugman was weak and misleading. But I don't think it was, or was meant to be, a personal attack.

I seriously think Obama and Krugman should have a real, face to face debate on health care and social security. It would be incredibly more substantial than any other debate we've seen this year, and it would finally clear the air on this whole episode.

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 4:42 PM:

How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Savvy: do you happen to remember how many Republicans in Congress voted for Clinton’s economic recovery package? Zero. They were 100% against everything Clinton did and tried to do.

So, you just made Krugman’s point.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 4:42 PM:

Really, gq, nah, that wouldn't be the case that if everyone BUYS insurance it spreads the risk and decreases the individual cost. Nah, I really wouldn't understand that. The freaking point is the corporate welfare to huge corporations by keeping insurance carriers in the mix. Hello, do you understand what dead weight is? Do you understand what corporate profit means? They won't do it for free and I guarantee that the corporate profits will be more than generous because its a freaking mandate.

bob wrote on December 19, 2007 4:43 PM:

Krugman stills ignores numerous examples of health insurance mandates that have failed in various supposedly universal state health insurance programs over the years. Hillary has said nothing about how her mandates will be enforced, yet she gets a total pass from Krugman.

Krugman also sees everything through absolute partisan blinders today, but there is a time for partisanship, and a campaign for the presidency is not it. That just turns off a lot of voters. Obama is the anti-Bush compassionate conservative. He talks inclusively but has a solid progressive agenda. It should be exactly what we are seeking, but Krugman just wants more partisan red meat, which will win the hardcore liberal vote but will turn off the rest of the voters.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:43 PM:

it appears to me from krugman's articles attacking obama's plan that he wants universal mandated health insurance coverage with insurance carriers acting as the middle man sucking profits out of the system. Are you telling me that's not his position?

I am hard pressed to see how you glean such a conclusion from his op-eds on the subject. Dr Krugman has been quite clear that he favors a single-payer solution. He has made several interesting and worthwhile suggestions about how we might achieve such a desirable end by gradually expanding medicaid on the bottom end of the field and medicare on the top end until eventually the whole population is covered by one of those two.

In the meantime, he has said quite clearly and unambiguously that all three of the major democrats have plans that are better than the alternatives on the GOP side, but he favors Edwards (which Clinton copied) over Obama's because (he believes) that a mandate is necessary in order to achieve genuinely universal coverage. I gather that others dispute that claim, although I happen to agree with Krugman on this point. What my fellow Obama supporters seem often to miss is that Krugman has not been unalloyedly critical of Obama (although, to be fair, Krugman grows more critical of Obama with each passing day). Still, early on, Krugman admitted that while Edwards' plan is superior on the healthcare merits, Obama's might well be more easily passed, which means it might well be the better (read actually achievable) plan in the long term anyway. In any event, Krugman certainly does not favor private insurance middle-men as anything other than a necessary evil to be temporarily endured on the way to a single-payer plan.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:46 PM:

Michael's mom...I think you have Krugman mixed up with Harry Reid whose son DOES work for Clinton.

Geek, Esq. wrote on December 19, 2007 4:29 PM:
I think Krugman is trying to rationalize his emotional dissatisfaction with Obama's tone--Edwards satisfies him with red meat, so that obviously is the superior approach.

I think Krugman's whole schtick and rant about 'tone' is nothing but code for UPPITY.
After all, Krugman is totally politically tone deaf, which is why he works in academic. So, it does not occur to him that you need BOTH intellect and POLITICAL strategy to pass anything. He thinks like Hillary and both accomplish nothing with all their expertise other than a bunch of riled and frustrated folks who refuse to work with them in the end.
So much for their intelligence.

lisa wrote on December 19, 2007 4:46 PM:

"PK is a hack..."?

That's one of the stupidest comments I've read in awhile.

If Obama is so principled, why does he not seem to be around when principled fights are being fought? Where was he when Dodd was fighting the telecoms? Where was he when MoveOn was being attacked for the ad on Petraeus?

He seems to be the last one to take a stand on important debates. He and Hillary are often running neck and neck to see who can wait the longest to make a statement on Things That Matter.

Obama has yet to show much leadership. He talks about it a lot. When exactly is he going to exhibit it?

I haven't been impressed by his campaign at all. And his comments about Social Security were incredibly ill-advised and ill-informed.

Lots of hat. Not much cattle.

Redshift wrote on December 19, 2007 4:49 PM:

I'm impressed with how many on our side have completely internalized the right-wing style of critique that in order to be "unbiased" you must have no opinion at all, any criticism of a favored candidate is an "attack," and furthermore must be the result of some hidden agenda rather than differences that are honestly stated.

I am a supporter of Edwards, but I will enthusiastically Obama if he is the nominee. That said, Krugman articulates much of what makes me uneasy with Obama. I don't believe, as LJ puts it that "we're now supposed to treat them like they've treated us" (nor do I believe Krugman is saying that.) We're better than that, and we actually care about good government, which is a handicap they don't have. But neither do I believe that they are going to stop "treating us like that," and if there are any moderates on the other side, they certainly aren't going to be in the leadership negotiating with us.

But more importantly, this country has been dragged a *long* way to the right over the past twenty-five years, and we need someone who's making a serious push in the opposite direction, not compromising with that. Compromise and conciliation are great things, but they're the process, not the goal. You have to start negotiating by staking out a position that's more than you think you'll get; as we've seen far too often over the past several years, if your starting position is what you think the final deal will be, and you're up against people who are committed to taking as much as they can and still get 50%+1 votes, you constantly lose ground.

I think we're going to win next year, and I want someone who will negotiate with those who are willing to negotiate in good faith, hold firm against those who aren't, and can tell the difference. Until the GOP understands the game has changed, wanting to get along with everyone is a handicap, not an advantage.

little ole jim from red state wrote on December 19, 2007 4:50 PM:

How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Savvy: do you happen to remember how many Republicans in Congress voted for Clinton’s economic recovery package? Zero. They were 100% against everything Clinton did and tried to do.

So, you just made Krugman’s point.

Michael wrote on December 19, 2007 4:50 PM:

Just to reiterate what someone else said above, Krugman seems to be confusing populism, policy, and partisanship. Or conflating all 3. If we tease it out, he's real beef is that he doesn't think Obama is partisan enough.

His POV is that you need to be hyper partisan to get things passed.

Unfortunately, he's exactly wrong on this count.

Alter, at newsweek, breaks it down :

linky

Paul Krugman is a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist for The New York Times who was far ahead of the pack in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. His clarity in explaining what academics call "political economy" is without peer. But his attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea.

Krugman calls Obama "naïve" and an "anti-change candidate" because he favors bringing all of the players in the health care debate around a "big table" and rejects the populist message of John Edwards, who is apparently Krugman's choice for president. "Anyone who thinks the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world," Krugman writes, endorsing Edwards's view that the insurance and drug industries should be excluded from any talks on health care reform because they stand to lose profits.

The columnist and his candidate both believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded by being a polarizing figure. I studied FDR for four years while writing a book about him, and this is simply untrue. It's also untrue of other successful Democratic presidents and for a simple reason: "Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in policy-making.
Click Here

Bear with me for a brief history lesson: The so-called "First New Deal" of 1933-34 came after Roosevelt won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in a campaign devoid of any populist message despite an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent. First, FDR worked with Hoover treasury officials from the other party to rescue the banks under a conservative plan that included steep budget cuts. The rest of his famous "100 days" agenda-which included unprecedented jobs programs, agricultural reform, labor rights, and regulation of financial markets—was achieved with much more compromise than Krugman recognizes. Social Security came in 1935 after a big Democratic mandate in midterm elections and was enacted piecemeal and cooperatively (to the disappointment of many New Deal liberals) with everyone at the table.

During and after his 1936 reelection campaign, FDR—angry at the ingratitude of the rich Americans whose fortunes he had saved—adopted class-based politics. In 1937, with a big victory under his belt, he tried confrontation with his court-packing scheme. It failed badly. So did his effort to "purge" the opposition in 1938. The rest of his second-term was far less productive legislatively than his first. By the end of it, he turned to foreign policy. FDR's third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.
Similarly, Woodrow Wilson's big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson's in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul. You could even include Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. Instead of exploiting the peace and prosperity of the 1990s, Gore ran on a "people vs. the powerful" message. It never ignited.

Read the rest (that's the 1st of 3 pages) in the link above.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 4:55 PM:

Ok, Gregg, so then why is he shilling for clinton II on the healthcare issue? I don't understand that one. To be quite frank I skimmed his op-eds some time ago and they kind of pissed me off due to his clear and unwarranted attacks on obama - "the anti-change candidate." WTF. To claim that clinton II is more progressive than obama or any other dem running is quite frankly laughable. I wonder what the clintons have on krugman or is he shopping for a cabinet post.

Incidentally, the expansion of medicare and medicaid makes the most sense. It is far, far more cost efficient than private insurers. In fact, the medicare part B or plan B, or whatever its called is another corporate welfare plan. They had to increase the corporate handouts to help the private insurers to "compete" with medicare.

Making a clear, concise explanation of the expansion of either of these programs hand in hand with all business that provide healthcare to workers to increase our competitiveness in the world should be a no-brainer sell to the american people. It will take someone with vision to do it. Maybe obama will or maybe he won't, but we know for sure that clinton II would never do it in a million years.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 4:56 PM:

GQM: I agree with your wholeheartedly. There is very little substantive discussion on issue here anymore.

Here's a link to a Kaiser Permanente website where you can compare the candidates plans. It's a side by side of Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=13&c=16

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 4:58 PM:

"Anyone who thinks the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world."

-If I were Edwards I wouldn't want this guy endorsing me. If we want "bitter confrontation" we should look no further to who we currently have in office. Why would we want another 4 years of that? It's unrealistic and naive to think you can fight the drug companies and they'll just roll over. Otherwise, we could be up against with the DC's for years. He's not even willing to go to the table with them and that is the truly scary part.

ohiomeister wrote on December 19, 2007 4:59 PM:

You need 60 VOTES in the Senate to pass healthcare reform. There are not going to be 60 Democratic Senators in the Senate in 2009.

Does Krugman really think Edwards or Clinton are going to have a better shot at getting GOP Senators to vote for their reform plans than Obama? That's really all that matters for passing healthcare reform, and it's a highly suspect conclusion.

Krugman is confusing campaigning with governing and not focusing closely enough on how you successfully pass legislation. He is setting us up for another Hillarycare debacle that sets us back another 15 years.

Prantha Trivedi wrote on December 19, 2007 4:59 PM:

After reading through this entire, totally interesting thread (and having read Krugman's articles on the issue), I do think that it is more Krugman's pride that is bruised. It's personal, rather than logical. So? He's human.

I am frankly so sick of the "fight" approach, which BTW has not worked throughout the Bush/Clinton duopoly. I think we desperately NEED to approach the world differently (this includes the GOP) because too much is at stake this time. Excellent article at UK Guardian today on WHY OBAMA MATTERS: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kevin_mattson/2007/12/why_obama_matters.html

The Iowa Press-Citizen endorsed Obama today. Here's a paragraph that I think says it for me (originally an Edwards fan, but really thinking to switch 'cuz I am sick of the fighting):
Sorry that I don't know html, but here is the quote (testing italics so that I can use it next time:
..."It's true that a single-payer health care system would make the most sense if the U.S. were establishing a system from scratch. But Obama understands that, given more than half-century history of employer-provided health care and its supporting industry, the nation can't easily make a 180-degree turn. Nor can citizens wait around for some ideologically pure system to be developed. Because people need help now, Obama's plan provides the best alternative: Establishing a government system that covers those ineligible for private care and making it effective enough that others might eventually look to join it."
...
Also, the Press-Citizen said this - and I also have to agree (I think this is of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE):

..."Although Obama's fellow candidates scoff that living in Indonesia for four years as a child doesn't prepare him for the complexities of foreign affairs, many people throughout the globe will take comfort knowing that the U.S. president has lived in and knows well the most populous Muslim country in the world. It will help Obama successfully convene a meeting of Muslim leaders within his first year in office."

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/OPINION03/712190310/1018/opinion

I guess that Krugman has convinced me . . . that Obama should be the next president.

Iowa wrote on December 19, 2007 4:59 PM:

Paul Krugman reminds me of G.W. Bush with his "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:01 PM:

savvy wrote:

"Krugman is a symbol too of why folks should stick with their area of expertise in order not to look like idiots."

savvy, what is your area of expertise? Perhaps you should STFU?

me-again wrote on December 19, 2007 5:06 PM:

"It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun"

Bingo! It's the privatization candidate the Dems are going gaga for. WHY?

It's over looking the best guy - Edwards, he really is the ONLY progressive for change. He no Bush and yet with Obama's talk about going after Pakistan, will, he doesn't know what he talking about AND he has outright neo-con veiw points right along with GOP policys - the policy of corporation come first - American voters be damned, who cares what they think.

Hillary is vague with intent to be vague and Obama is just another Repug in Dem labeling. Obams is simply another damn Lieberman for Christ sake.

dajafi wrote on December 19, 2007 5:07 PM:

That Alter piece is fantastic--thanks for posting.

It's probably also worth reiterating that if you think Republican obstructionism is bad now (and it is), under Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation the current period might merit fond recollection as a Golden Age of Congressional Action. Republicans will conclude that there's just no political price to be paid for their principled opposition to that socialist, raging liberal beeyotch lesbian occupying the White House.

Fair? No. But it's real. And it doesn't help that she's a lousy retail politician who can't, or won't, change minds.

Nick wrote on December 19, 2007 5:07 PM:

One theme dominates here among Obama supporters: that he can "persuade" the other side of his essential goodness and righteousness. BULL ... and might I add, SHIT. The other side is FULL OF VIPEROUS SCUMBAGS. How much more evidence do you need? Are you all freaking kidding us? Are you all Broder's Grandchildren? The GOP will steal Obama's lunch money, pants him, and run his underwear up the school flagpole.

BBpd wrote on December 19, 2007 5:07 PM:

Remember when Paul Krugman was an economist? I vaguely do. What is he now exactly?

audiophileguy wrote on December 19, 2007 5:09 PM:

Krugman, as a very well-trained economist, should be the first to understand that politics need not be (and rarely is) a zero-sum game. Yet his entire premise is based on this fallacy. To call Obama the "anti-Progressive" is almost funny. When very smart people like Kerrey and Krugman start attacking Obama, it is clear that the forces of Hillary are pulling the strings. Such desperate behavior makes me even more interested in ensuring that we elect anybody but Hillary. She will say or do anything to win, including sacrificing an honorable young politician who had the "Audacity of Hope" to run against her....

CT Voter wrote on December 19, 2007 5:10 PM:

Keith:

Thanks for the great link!

I agree with you and GQM about the substance and tone of the comments in the last couple of months. Not nearly as much fun as it used to be....

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 5:11 PM:

savvy wrote:

"Krugman is a symbol too of why folks should stick with their area of expertise in order not to look like idiots."

savvy, what is your area of expertise? Perhaps you should STFU?

PK has more than the right to say whatever he wants regarding the candidates on the left or right. He has been the little ferocious dog at the heels of the republicans for the last many years. He was calling them on their garbage before Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator.

PK realizes after all of these years that you can't play nice with the thugs because they don't know how to compromise or to be bipartisan. They know how to cheat, steal and manipulate the system and the American people to make more money for themselves and their friends. Obama is not going to convince the leadership of the Republican party to do anything. Their only purpose is to win back political power so they can do to the country what they've been doing since Bush took the white house.

Obama is naive, and he will never win a national election. I like and admire him, he's a great public speaker. But the next Dem. President has a lot of serious work to do, and that doesn't include holding hands with Rethuglicans singing Kumbaya.

Dave wrote on December 19, 2007 5:12 PM:

Krugman's dismissal of foreign policy as an issue is naive. Krugman forgets we live in an evermore interconnected world. How the next president repairs the damage done by Bush, and changes the direction of American foreign policy matters much more than whether or not a president includes mandates in his/her health care plan.

Clinton has surrounded herself with advisers that the pushed the case for war with Iraq. Obama's advisers almost all came out against that debacle. Issues like climate change, terrorism, foreign trade, and anti-Americanism are going to have to be addressed. That Obama's plan of talking to enemies significantly alters the foreign policy structure of the past 30 years is of no concern to PK.

Krugman simplifies the entire arena of foreign policy by stating "no democrat is going to end this war and no democrat is going to start another."

That is a very naive characterization of foreign policy and the daunting issues the nation faces.

Not a Naive Democrat wrote on December 19, 2007 5:12 PM:

The Press-Citizen's logic was turned upside down from 4 years when they endorsed Kerry- suddenly experience is a liability? As they throw Dodd, Biden, and Richardson overboard!?

And Krugman is right. Obama's attitude about Social Security and using the right wing framing is both scary, and irresponsible.

Obama should have waited another few years to run for President, when he might have had this all worked out. As of now he looks like he doesn't know what the hell he is doing, and I just do not trust the kid.

common cents wrote on December 19, 2007 5:14 PM:

Krugman's vitriol is intersting, as well as the timing ....

I'd like to see Jonathan Alter contacted and offered a rebuttal since he posted his column against Krugman earlier today/yesterday.

I'm not sure I agree with all of his comments - especially how Obama is to the Right of Hillary and the Dems need someone to the left of her in the general.

How about someone who is centrist?

Big ideas and big change requires large majorities in congress and the senate, as well as from the public. You don't get that by going to the left or to the right - you get that by going to common ground.

Too much is lost on what makes us different - instead of what unites us.

Obama gives us a chance to come together, instead of coming apart.

My advice to Krugman?

Stick to the world of finance ...

Leave the big ideas to people who can see them and chart a course - instead of those like himself that can only see to chop them down before they can get started.

bg wrote on December 19, 2007 5:18 PM:

The bottom line is that when both Clinton and Edwards' backs were against the wall facing Republican pressure on the most important policy question of our generation, they offered about as much resistance as wet toilet paper. That Krugman can blithely ignore questions of foreign policy as they relate to the presidency when those matters constitute a touchstone for almost every exigent crisis this nation presently faces--war, lawful government, human rights, energy and the environment, etc.--points to his showing poor judgement, or being completely disingenuous in his representation of the issues.

Uzoma wrote on December 19, 2007 5:19 PM:

Notice how PK doesn't really answer the question (below). I think this man is nonsense. Be nice if he just stuck to what he knows.

EC: What about on foreign policy? You could argue that Hillary is less willing to challenge old rhetorical frames on foreign policy, and that with her rhetoric and stuff like her Kyl-Lieberman vote, she's ceding turf at the outset on foreign policy the same way Obama is on health care.

PK: I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 5:19 PM:

Yes, thanks for the link keith and the alter article Michael, which was very informative. I still don't understand krugman's agenda. It doesn't make sense.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 5:19 PM:

John wrote on December 19, 2007 4:36 PM:

I agree with what you wrote, it really challenges Krugmans credibility and motivations. If his comments were solely economical he would have far more of my respect but he is just off on a tangent ranting on Obama and not evaluating the other positions of any other candidate. Especially how Edwards has been wrong, wrong wrong on his votes. He has switched his positions as much as Romney, yet Krugman is blind to that as much as he is blind to how uncompromising, equivocating and politically not viable Hilliry is.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 5:20 PM:

Nick and others who share this fallacious view of Obama:

Nothing about Obama's positions or rhetoric suggests that he will be able to "persuade" the other side. What he's proposing is pretty radical stuff: he's willing to LISTEN. I negotiate for a living and I can tell you from first hand experience, actually listening to the other side and acknowledging that their position, however much you may disagree with it on the merits, goes a long way towards diffusing a situation and actually making progress. Demonizing the other side, while effective and showing how good of a fire-breathing dragon one can be, does very little in the way of advancing a discussion--especially where the one doing the breathing isn't the 800lb Gorilla in the room.

At the end of the day, all of the interested parties have to buy-in to whatever healthcare system we implement. How you going about doing that is more art than science.

spain1936 wrote on December 19, 2007 5:21 PM:

I hope Paul Krugman is happy to pimp Hillary which is all he's doing by these petty screeds about details which are completely abstract and in the end pretty meaningless. Edwards is out of the picture by applying for Federal matching funds he would be killed if he wins.

Krugman seems to take a great self-congratulatory pleasure in claiming he looks not at personality but at what the candidates say and do. But how well does that work when candidates like Clinton and Edwards just say whatever they want to get elected, in complete and recent about-faces from their previous positions. They say whatever the hell they want and why he doesn't it finding it more terrifying that Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman than Obama saying he's going to raise the threshold on payroll taxes for wealthy people for Social Security benefits is bizarre.

Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the AUMF. Doesn't that say it all? They are expedient politicians, that's it. Nothing more. Five years ago they were for war with Iraq, now one of them isn't, the other one isn't sure. But do people really evolve like that?

And Josh Marshall's breathless outrage over an Obama staffer saying they were the most scrutinized is ridiculous. Who cares? Second of all, for this primary season she's been giving no harsher treatment than Obama; Do you know, Josh Marshall, what she did in kindergarten?; Do you know, Paul Krugman, whether she would consider raising taxes on wealthy Americans to offset future Social Security deficits? More likely she'll chose a regressive option like raising the retirement age. Does that fact that she's not saying mean she's better? Or her healthcare plan. Give me a break, she can say whatever she wants. The nice thing about Obama is he doesn't just say bullshit now to get elected and then wind up doing something completely different. All these plans are just bullshit anyway. They will still have to get them passed and she will get nothing passed with the acrimony she arouses.

Give me a fucking break. Hillary Clinton has the worst policy positions of any of these three and you all are paving the way for her. I hope your happy with the results.

Nick wrote on December 19, 2007 5:25 PM:

'Common Cents' wrote: "Too much is lost on what makes us different - instead of what unites us ... Obama gives us a chance to come together, instead of coming apart." With all due respect, you can't POSSIBLY believe this. Or more properly, you can't possibly believe the GOP gives a shit that you or Obama believe it. Their only plan will be to DESTROY the next President, and they'll start the minute he or she lifts a hand off the Bible on Jan. 20. There is no Peter Pan, so can we all stop clapping?

Daniela, Fremont CA wrote on December 19, 2007 5:26 PM:

the population of illegal immigrants is about 12 million. The plans by Hillary and Edwards do NOT include covering illegal immigrants. doesn't that almost come to the 15 million Crugman is accusing Obama of not covering?

Mr Nice Guy wrote on December 19, 2007 5:29 PM:

PK hasn't really convinced me. From Media Matters:

"...while Obama did sponsor the Health Care Justice Act in 2004, he also sponsored a 2003 bill that expanded KidCare and FamilyCare, health insurance programs for low-income families in Illinois. According to enrollment statistics provided by the Kaiser Foundation, the two programs expanded enrollment by more than 150,000 following the bill's passage."

To follow the links to the Kaiser Foundation click here and scroll down:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712190008?f=h_latest

Sure passing something in Illinois will be a lot easier than the US Congress (i.e. the Senate) but still Obama did get some health care legislation passed while HRC's 1990s plan was a bust.

Does PK, and HRC commenters here, really think Senate Repubs will ever work with Hillary?

Brighid wrote on December 19, 2007 5:30 PM:

Krugman's "credibility and motivations" are "challenged?!" Are you insane? Long before Barack Obama decided to leave his $925,000 mansion to run for president, Paul Krugman was exemplifying 'credibility' and progressive 'motivation.'

Give me a break, John.

That's the arrogance of youth, if I ever read it. Barack Obama is a bright light in the Democratic Party; but let's not forget that there are Democrats who paved the way for him: Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example.

We should be proud of all of our Democratic candidates; a rich slate of candidates who have the integrity and the talent to lead this country. But, please, don't be insulting. No one gets to where they are without leaders who pave the way FOR them.

http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=51

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 5:30 PM:

Daniela:

As I understand it, there are approximately 7 million undocumented workers included in the 15 million figure (both Clinton and Edwards exclude them as well). Also, Obama's plan does cover the 8 million, it just doesn't require them to obtain coverage.

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 5:30 PM:

JFK said that politics is the art of the possible.

Obama is approaching it in the same manner.

It does not matter what the Left or the Right want, because they are not capable of getting either agenda passed on their own, regardless of who wins the White House.

Neither party will have enough of a margin in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, or in the house, to over ride a veto.

Half a loaf is better than no bread. Obama knows that he will have to comprise with the moderate center in order to get anything done.

The Progressives have been playing the purer than The Virgin Mary card for the past forty years, and they have gotten no where.

It is easy for Krugman to talk all that Immaculate Progressive guff, but realists know that politics is still the art of the possible, and you have to accommodate and treat the moderates and independents with respect in order to get anything accomplished.

Obama is a realist, but Krugman is demanding that he campaign from the same losing play book of the past.

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results.

Krugman is complaining that Obama is not willing to stick to the script that allowed the Republicans to own the White House for most of the past forty years.

Mr, Krugman can stay in love with a strategy that has lost over and over, but Mr. Obama knows that we have to try a new, more inclusive approach.

Greg R wrote on December 19, 2007 5:33 PM:

Anybody who believes that the corporate wing of the GOP is going to negotiate in good faith is, indeed, naive.

Forget Krugman and start worrying about the vast right-wing-noise-machine that is bought and paid for with thinly veiled corporate donations.

Any significant change to healthcare policy will have to be **rammed through** - NOT NEGOTIATED.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 5:33 PM:

'Does Krugman really think Edwards or Clinton are going to have a better shot at getting GOP Senators to vote for their reform plans than Obama? That's really all that matters for passing healthcare reform, and it's a highly suspect conclusion.'

There are more than enough republican senators in sensitive districts that voted for SCHIP.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00307

Lott is gone.
McConnell is going to be challenged.
Hagel is gone.

In short:

All this talk of 'bipartisanship' is overrated.

The republicans are on pace to obstruct more legislation than any group in the history of our democracy. This, after a few weeks of sheepishly talking of 'bipartisanship' after the 2006 elections.

It was a game to them.

NCSteve wrote on December 19, 2007 5:33 PM:

Here is where, and why, Krugman--along with most Hillary supporters--misapprehends what Obama is about:

No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side.

The problem isn't that one is right and the other is wrong. The problem is that Krugman thinks Obama is talking to, and about, the elites. If that were true, Krugman would be right. There are no moderates over there on Crazyland's side of the wire who are worth the name "elites."

Obama, however, is not talking to, or about, the elites. He's talking to, and about, the actual, ordinary people who put those elites into power. Obama percieves that at long last, a substantial portion of these people have finally come to realize that their leaders are batshit crazy and that the consequences of their deranged policies have been catastrophic. Those people are willing to give sanity another whirl if we over here on the other side of No Man's Land can just clamp down on our anger and welcome them with respect rather than succombing to the urge to berate them or, worse, clap 'em into reeducation camps until they agree with us on 100% of the issues.

Obama's says(in poli sci major dog whistle code, at least) that these people represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pull off a realignment that will cripple the Crazyland movement. They are the people he's talking to when he talks, among other things, about the "social security crisis" and takes a more incrementalist approach to mandated insurance. If we can pull these people out of the Crazyland trenches and into ours, the hard right finally has to fall back and reassess whether batshit craziness is still a viable political strategy.

As an economist, however, Krugman seems to take a backward-looking and deterministic view of these people. In his view, they are are irredeemable; mind slaves of the right who are, and forever will be, rendered into electoral automotons by Republican fearmongering. If that's true, it means we are forever locked into unending trench warefare where they have 48% and we have 48% and we fight ceaselessly and inconclusively for the hearts and minds of the remaining 4%. If you believe that's how the world is, and forever will be, then, yes, framecopping is essential and anything that looks like an accomodation to the leadership elements over in Crazyland is dangerously naive at best and treasonous at worst.

Krugman was a lonely and heroic standardbearer for sanity during a time when our politics and our discourse were becoming ever more unhinged. In the nature of things, being a lonely standardbearer for sanity can may you a little, well, strident, but when things were at their darkest, I looked to him for guidance and only rarely disagreed with his judgments. Now, however, the night is finally ending and the very characteristics that enabled him to see so clearly in the dark are blinding him as the light of day approaches. It breaks my heart, but I'm not going to get mad about it.

Akonitum wrote on December 19, 2007 5:33 PM:

It's a tone thing. I find it a little bit worrisome if we have a candidate who basically starts compromising before the struggle has even begun.

Krugman, tone does not equal compromise, but it's not irrelevant the results of an interaction.

If Obama wins the presidency, your tone in this weird series of hit pieces should engender a lot of good will. [snark] Indeed, by your rules I think a President Obama should not even give White House access to the New York Times, let alone you. Off to the hinterlands to ya. Of course, if Clinton wins, you'll have hit the jackpot, maybe a cabinet position, eh?

Regardless, I don't regard you as trustworthy anymore. No more than Clinton as a matter of fact, which is not much.

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 5:34 PM:

I don't find this terribly astute. I think Krugman just has a bug up his ass about Obama.

Besides, if he's complaining that Obama isn't a true progressive, argues from the right, would rather work with opponents than stick to ideology, etc. he's describing Bill Clinton in 1992. And as far as I can tell from the pro-Hillary crowd ol' Bill was just swell - despite the fact that he & Hillary totally screwed up on health care.

dajafi wrote on December 19, 2007 5:37 PM:

It's increasingly clear that the Clintons and their supporters share the same ugly, cynical, dismal view of the American public and democracy itself.

If you think Obama believes that he's going to waltz into power and the Republicans and their corporate backers will swoon at his charm and agree to progressive goals, you're fully as naive as you think he (and we who support him) are.

Much more likely--and this should be abundantly clear from the company he keeps, people like Axelrod and Durbin--he's going to offer a carrot in one hand and a stick in the other. His message will be, "I've got a mandate to do certain things. I'd rather do them with you than to you--but if you don't go along, I'm going to break your power. The choice is yours." If they tell him to stick it, he'll go to the country. Unlike Clinton, and probably unlike Edwards, he'll have the confidence that he can convince the country--the voters--to have his back.

There's one truth-teller in the Democratic race. He's the guy who went to the Big Three auto-makers and told them we need higher fuel efficiency standards, the same guy who went to the teachers union and told them that he would work to enact merit pay for educators. In both cases he said he wanted to work with them, not to crush them--but this was what he believed.

It's hard to remember after 20 years of BushClintonBush, but this is how leaders behave. Hillary Clinton's next act of political bravery will be her first. As for Edwards, I like him and would be happy to support him (and the partisan part of me certainly responds to his explicit populism), but I don't think he can win the fight through frontal assault. Let Obama try to walk through the door before we knock down the walls.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:39 PM:

Brighid-
How much do you think Krugman's house is worth? What a stupid comment a 925,000 mansion. Is that even a mansion? In Manhattan that would get you a one-bedroom. I doubt it gets you a mansion in Chicago. I wonder how much it buys in Princeton?
Bill Clinton and Hillary paved the way for him? Try MLK you dumbshit.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 5:40 PM:

'Krugman simplifies the entire arena of foreign policy by stating "no democrat is going to end this war and no democrat is going to start another."

That is a very naive characterization of foreign policy and the daunting issues the nation faces.'

Uh...

How many residual forces does Obama plan to keep in Iraq?

Clinton?

EDWARDS!!!???

And for how long?

And please remember that the Iraq War does not poll as the #1 election issue.

The economy does.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 5:40 PM:

ole jim from red state wrote on December 19, 2007 4:50 PM:

Little oljim...I did not say that. It is a quote from Alter's article found at the link posted on that post.

Olaf Fundersuccher wrote on December 19, 2007 5:40 PM:

Don't be hatin on Paul Krugman. The guy has been a beacon of hope for progressives while our elected officals have been giving away the store to the goddamn Republicans in the name of Bipartisanship. We need to gain back what we lost under this illegal regime. The only person calling for an uprising is Edwards. Therefore he has my vote.

Come on fellow serfsm, are you with me?

DemAC wrote on December 19, 2007 5:40 PM:

The fight for creating universal health care and, someday, creating a modern single payer system, the like of every other civilized, industrialized and democratic nation on earth, will not be anything like a cake walk. It will be a lot of very un-glamorous, tedious and arduous work. It will take political know-how; it will take a President who must display perseverance while taking punches – lots of them – from entrenched special interests; it will take someone who is willing to work within the system to change the system. Simply put: it will take President Hillary Clinton.

Deliberately or not, Paul Krugman makes an excellent case for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. She alone has the tenacity, the know-how and the progressive convictions that is absolutely essential to bring the all-important fight for universal health care to a successful solution.

Obama’s candidacy is all about himself. In the face of harsh criticism and political ugliness we have no reassurance whatsoever that he will not shrink from the task before him. He has never once in his life had to stand up against the Rethugs in earnest. Hillary has taken them on before. She will not budge. With Hillary, and with Hillary alone, we will prevail.

jhc wrote on December 19, 2007 5:41 PM:

I happen to believe that healthcare is an extremely important issue, but I think that historically racism is the most important issue. Krugman has said that racism has been the greatest obstacle to healthcare reform. For Krugman to be attacking the black candidate may not be an actual self-contradiction, but it does at least seem ironic.

dcs wrote on December 19, 2007 5:41 PM:

Krugman is probably the best progressive policy analyst alive. His combination of knowledge and interesting, persuasive writing is unsurpassed by his peers. But on this he is wrong.

We don't need to replace a stubborn, combative, right-wing ideologue with a stubborn, combative, left-wing ideologue. That's oversimplified, but not so far off. Of course John Edwards would make a good president - I agree with virtually everything the man says. But he focuses too much on confrontation and not enough on hopes and dreams.

Americans, like most people, need a dream, a brighter future to imagine. Carter, in 1976, presented a dream of honesty and integrity. Reagan in 1980 presented a dream of power and prosperity. Clinton's 1992 dream was about building and broadening economic fortunes. We need those dreams. We need something better to hope for and work towards.

Edwards, when he talked about two Americas in 2004, sounded more like a visionary, and that was good. But now he's a practical policy fighter, and that just doesn't capture the imagination. To the pure policy wonk, that doesn't matter. But pure policy wonks won't swing an election, even in the Democratic primary.

NJ Lawyer wrote on December 19, 2007 5:41 PM:

Any progressive should have concerns about Obama's positions on Social Security and health care reform. Krugman is right to point out the reasons why.

jjmargolis wrote on December 19, 2007 5:42 PM:

This has nothing to do with policy. Krugman simply doesn't like Obama, and he's using his position to hurt Obama's candidacy. Whether Krugman is covertly backing another candidate, I cannot say, but it's a question that should be asked. For someone in Krugman's position to spend three columns attacking Obama on his health care plan--even as he admits that it varies little from Clinton's or Edwards', and much from the "plans" of all the Republicans, is more than mere commentary; it borders on a vendetta. This saddens me, because I have revered Krugman, but support Obama as the one candidate who can bring the kind of change that JFK did.

David wrote on December 19, 2007 5:42 PM:

Wow...Greg Sargent must be getting paid more than I thought by the Clinton campaign. How many anti-Obama stories has he been associated with on this blog in just the last week? So much for reporting the news....

spain1926 wrote on December 19, 2007 5:43 PM:

Brighid-
How much do you think Krugman's house is worth? What a stupid comment a 925,000 mansion. Is that even a mansion? In Manhattan that would get you a one-bedroom. I doubt it gets you a mansion in Chicago. I wonder how much it buys in Princeton?
Bill Clinton and Hillary paved the way for him? Try MLK you dumbshit.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 5:44 PM:

Actually, this thread is pretty illustrative. For all the partisan rhetoric on here, how much it is persuasive to the other partisans?

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 5:45 PM:

Well Mr. Krugman.

Senator Clinton tried it your way. Tell us how have the American people fared, for the past 15 years, under her great Hillary health care program!

Politics is the art of the possible. Hillary did not accept that, and got health care for the average person set back twenty years.

Now you are demanding that Senator Obama repeat Hillary's disaster.

Get real. You are a dreamer, tilting at windmills. Obama is a realist who sees that you have to have the support of the American center. He is promising to be their President too.

katerina wrote on December 19, 2007 5:46 PM:

savvy writes:
Krugman needs to STFU!!!

It's interesting that someone supporting Obama feels that Krugman should STFU for complaining that Obama is too conciliatory with the corporate powers-that-be.

Let's see if I have this straight:
-progressive voice who's been the most consistent critic of Bush's crap needs to STFU;
but
-corporations screwing over millions of Americans need to have their place at the table because their voices need to be heard.

Wow, that sounds like some great new politics.

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 5:48 PM:

I still don't understand krugman's agenda. It doesn't make sense.

Michael A: I don’t see where this is so complicated. Krugman is long on record as being in favor of universal healthcare that guarantees coverage for everyone. He has written quite a bit on the economic implications, arguing that our current system is wasteful and that the most sensible thing to do, economically and morally, is to cover everyone, period. He does not think Obama’s plan does this, so he is against it.

Krugman has also written extensively on Social Security. He has long pointed out how disingenuous and false are the numbers cited by Republicans who favor privatization. It has become a matter of faith to Republicans that Social Security faces a financial crisis. (They don’t like the program, in case you haven’t noticed). Krugman has engaged them many times regarding the numbers and the financial health of Social Security and has long been disgusted with Republican deceitfulness on the subject.

Thus, it’s hardly surprising that Krugman disputes Obama’s thesis that Social Security faces a financial crises. It’s hardly surprising that when Obama objects to Krugman’s criticism, that Krugman answers back in kind. Obama’s is on the wrong side of the numbers and the facts regarding Social Security, so he will not win this argument.

Where I think Obama is getting a raw deal is with Microsoft Word. I just noticed that the spell checker wants to replace “Obama’s” with “Osama”. I’m not kidding. Now that’s nasty.

PruDog wrote on December 19, 2007 5:49 PM:

you know what's funny? your reactions to Krugman's take on Obama are the same basic reactions people had to his take on Bush.

And for those that are trying to claim that Krugman's stories have changed, I suggest you go reread it and provide specific example and citations that can be checked.

In every piece I have read he has consistently said that in theory Obama had a good plan, but that it hinged on hinged on hinged on a couple details. When the details came out krugman said those details derailed the plan. That is not inconsistent at all.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 5:51 PM:

'Whether Krugman is covertly backing another candidate, I cannot say'

He's OVERTLY for Edwards.

'For someone in Krugman's position to spend three columns'

Krugman has been quite clear in each of his columns what his position is.

Have you been paying attention?

'but support Obama as the one candidate who can bring the kind of change that JFK did.'

Nonsense.

@Liam

'Politics is the art of the possible. Hillary did not accept that, and got health care for the average person set back twenty years.'

It is clear you have no idea what you are even talking about.

Krugman has been clear that ALL THREE PLANS fall short of his desired policy.

The insistence that this somehow has to do with Hillary Clinton is rather insane at this point.

Anyone who bothered to read the pieces in question ought to know better...

one would think?

Zhiyi Zhang wrote on December 19, 2007 5:51 PM:

I agree with Greg's assessment.

Though I agree with Krugman on Obama mostly, I feel Krugman is a bit more ideological. On health care, the industry and the conversative movement can have difference, though they're mostly on the same boat. If the wind blows left, the industry may follow for its own interest. That said, I prefer Clinton to Obama. In Clinton, I know what I get, but in Obama, I have no clue. In addition, I like what Hillary has done and I think she has the best chance to deliver univeral health care.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/40947

Clayton wrote on December 19, 2007 5:52 PM:

As to people who say they don't want a Democrat GWB, we sure need one! This country has had 8 years of incredibly right-wing policy being implemented. If we get a Dem president who is going to always be compromising with the other side, after their term we are still going to be left pretty far right of the middle. If however we get a very aggressive Democratic president they have a shot at putting America's policy back to slightly left of center, which I think is the best place to be.

Its not a matter of being vengeful on Republicans (though that is a satisfying image for a lot of people), its a matter of very aggressively rebooting American policy.

Clinton was right, Obama is a symbol, he is this multicultural image of change and hope. "Hope" however, doesn't get you anywhere, only hard work will. Obama can hope all he wants, but Republicans are not above the dirtiest of tactics. Remember, they accuse Hillary of murdering one of her closest friends. They impeached Clinton out of spite. They are not interested in compromise, the Republican party as it stands (as Krugman correctly pointed out) has NO MODERATE VOICE. They will demonize anyone.

Look beyond how Obama makes you FEEL and look at the FACTS of his policy.

Why is Obama so keen on compromise form the outset? Because he likes this idea of everyone holding hands in harmony. Its all about IDEAS with him, not REALITY.

Don't be fooled by hope.

Susan McCauley wrote on December 19, 2007 5:52 PM:

Krugman is a blow hard who is somehow tied to Team Shrill.

Check out the two most recent pieces from Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek and David Brooks in the NYT on Obama, both unlikely defenders. It is amazing to me how Team Clinton tries to exploit every endorsement these days given that they are few and far between, particularly in light of her "experience" and connection to Bill. She should have it all and be way out in front. But most people sense the truth.

She is not what our country needs right now.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 5:53 PM:

guarantees coverage for everyone

Obama's plan provides this, so if what you say Little Ole Jim, what's Krugman's beef?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 5:54 PM:

Any significant change to healthcare policy will have to be **rammed through** - NOT NEGOTIATED.

Isn't this as much as to say that no change will ever be accomplished? How, pray tell, might either side hope to "ram" anything through. It cannot be done. It will be achieved by negotiation and compromise or not at all.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:54 PM:

If you have any one of the following opinions about the health-care debate, the Republican attack machine, or bipartisan politics in general, you need to rethink your position:
1) If we can sit down at the table with the drug companies and insurance companies, I'm sure that we can all quickly work out an agreeable compromise that will lower health care costs and cover every American, it's just that no one has ever thought of that
2) The Republicans won't tear into and attempt to shred whatever legislation appears to threaten the massive corporate teats they suckle for sustenance year in and year out
3) A coalition of Independents and Democrats is not sufficient to force the changes that everyone in America has been clamoring for for so long...we must bring along the neocons and Christian right and every other fascist group in the name of bipartisanship and inclusion
4)the American public simply does not have the guts to face a fight of the 90 percent powerless versus the 10 percent powerful in the greatest democracy on Earth ever forged in the name of the powerless versus the powerful...they'd much rather all go shopping

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 5:54 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:01

How about you say on topic? Krugman is the topic and his analysis not me. Get focused on the thread issue and stop with the personal attacks on posters, OK?

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:55 PM:

Michael's Mom wrote on December 19,
Krugman's son works for Hillary;

The Krugster doesn't have a son, so lay off that one.

dennisS wrote on December 19, 2007 5:56 PM:

Krugman's "attacks" are toward the likely next president of the United States, not just any candidate, and they're about very legitimate policy differences between them. On this I side with Krugman. He's trying to warn his party's nominee against writing off a mandate for health care reform. Also, Obama is wrong wrong wrong about Social Security. Both of these topics are very much within the realm of economics so for the several on this thread who think PK is out-of-bounds... ...how silly can you get. Above I put attacks in quotes because if you think Obama can't deal with this as it is, as a legitimate criticism among friends than you don't think much of Barack.

We've got great candidates. One of them is extremely likely to win. It's time to create a mandate. Healthcare reform is on the shortlist.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 5:57 PM:

Why is Obama so keen on compromise form the outset? Because he likes this idea of everyone holding hands in harmony. Its all about IDEAS with him, not REALITY

If you don't understand Sentor Obama or his proposals, perhaps you shouldn't try to speak for him or misrepresent his approach.

From what I understand of his policy and approach, he's proposing not demonizing the other side at the outset. I know, controversial stuff. Nothing about conceding points or going to the halfway point. Just acknowledging that while he may disagree with the merits of their position, he's willing to listen.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 5:59 PM:

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 5:11 PM:

MonaL how about you focus on the thread topic?. I am not it. Krugman and his analysis is the topic, which is what my post was about. Krugman. Not any posters on the thread. If you focus on the topic your remarks will be of greater interest and contribute to the content and leave the 90s bickering and politics of personal destruction out of this, OK?

Great minds talk about ideas.
Average minds talk about events
Small minds talk about people.

surely you have a great mind, dontcha?

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 5:59 PM:

Ok, little ole jim, but the problem is that on its face obama's plan covers everyone. Obama is steering clear of the mandate issue, which actually makes sense. The current system is incredibly wasteful and requiring a mandate just increases the waste and helps line insurance company profits. By the way, I can't stand insurance companies. They are the biggest rip off artists ever created. Keeping them in the mix is a huge, huge mistake.

On the social security issue, I agree that obama shouldn't have raised it, but I also think he is right. The cap should be raised. It makes no sense to have a cap and it is a regressive tax. The people most able to afford the tax pay the least. At a minimum, if there is no crisis, which I think is debatable, reduce the tax and raise the cap.

Your post still doesn't answer the agenda issue. There is obviously an agenda on krugmans part, which is sad. I personally like robert reich, he has largely kept out of the fray, but he did weigh in when clinton II started attacking obama. He thought that it wasn't right and voiced his opinion. What is krugman doing, he is attacking obama? Why is the question.

bruce wrote on December 19, 2007 5:59 PM:

What is lost in all of Krugman's (whom I admire to no end as the rare progressive voice in mainstream punditry) protestations is the fact, yes fact, that if Hilary Clinton is nominated (and wins, as she will) absolutely every last person in the Country who doesn't want her to be President for all of the numerous reasons that people don't want her to be will turn out to vote and there will be at best nominal gains, if not losses, in local, State and other Federal races to Republicans who garner votes in a "no way Hilary" draft.

If Obama, who seems to be appealing to independents and moderate Republicans much more than anyone ever would have dreamed that he would, is nominated (and wins, as he will) large numbers of those Republicans will vote for him and at least consider and possibly vote for other Democratic candidates in those races. Another sizable segment of Republicans will simply stay home. In the end, substantial Democratic gains in the U.S. Congress would quite likely accompany President Obama. It is quite possible that those gains would be substantial enough that legislation and policy would be driven by Congress and President Obama could carry a signing pen around in his pocket as he set about to repair the U.S. product image and pitch progressive reforms to his fellow contrymen.
I sense that he senses the "necessariness" of his being elected and that there is a certain amount of calculation involved in his moderate posing on big progressive issues. We'll be better served with a moderate President Obama working with a more progressive Congress than by a beleagured 51% winner, social liberal, foreign policy hawk President Clinton trying to work with a Congress that mirrors the Congress of today.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 6:00 PM:

Anon @ 5:54:

If you really believe that, then none of the Democratic candidates will ever implement their plans, no matter how much they "fight".

phil james wrote on December 19, 2007 6:01 PM:

The one thing Krugman is wrong about is his notion that every one of the Democratic candidates would end the war in Iraq. The closest any come is Edwards. Obama and Hillary allow for major troop levels in Iraq until kingdom come.

phil james wrote on December 19, 2007 6:01 PM:

The one thing Krugman is wrong about is his notion that every one of the Democratic candidates would end the war in Iraq. The closest any come is Edwards. Obama and Hillary allow for major troop levels in Iraq until kingdom come.

lambert strether wrote on December 19, 2007 6:01 PM:

Poster "No personal attacks" Savvy writes:

> Krugman is WRONG and needs to STFU and
> stick