home

Krugman Again

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Why won't Paul Krugman just shut up about Obama? Does he not not know of the power of UNITY? Apparently not:

After their victory in the 2006 Congressional elections, it seemed a given that Democrats would try to make this year’s presidential campaign another referendum on Republican policies. After all, the public appears fed up not just with President Bush, but with his party. . . .

. . . But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2008 election. Unless Hillary Clinton wins big on Tuesday, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. And he’s not at all the kind of candidate one might have expected to emerge out of the backlash against Republican governance.

. . . Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state. And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity.

Clearly, Krugman does not agree with Mark Schmitt on Obama's theory of change.

< Zogby Predicts Obama Sweep Of Texas And Ohio | SUSA: Clinton Widens Ohio Lead To 10 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Krugman Again | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Remember how popular Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM EST
    was in 2000 when he was calling out Bush for his lies? How ironic that he's playing the same role---and to just about as much opposition---against the likely Democratic nominee.

    Hey (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:10:12 AM EST
    In my own micro way, I am just as unpopular as Krugman.

    And proud to be so.

    Parent

    Do you let your wife edit your posts, too? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:11:53 AM EST
    I have read that Krugman's wife goes over the columns before they are submitted. His writing is awfully punchy, for an academic, so I can believe this is true.

    Parent
    That's Tom Friedman's Schtick (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:16:22 AM EST
    But I really don't read him anymore.

    Parent
    Hmm... well, I thought I read it (none / 0) (#11)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    about Krugman.
    Perhaps it's the wife who mixes the metaphors for Friedman? That could explain the atrocious writing.

    Parent
    In person (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:22:56 AM EST
    he's slightly "rough" too (IMHO).  But his points are excellent!

    Parent
    Wear it like a badge of courage (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:12:44 AM EST
    It's an honor to stand up.  No one here said we would not support the Dem ticket,(well, not you or Jarelyn)  you are even Tepid O supporter.  

    Parent
    No Time for Post-Partisan (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    Clinton is the only Democrat left in the race.

    Why should the Democrats be conciliatory after 8 years of unconstitutional goverance and institutional wreckage?

    thank god for Krugman and BTD (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    and Jeralyn and my dog and my cat and all the commentors on this blog.
    And Diane Feinsten (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by tek on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    who has endorsed Hillary!  Feinstein's not running again, so I guess the Dem Dinosaurs couldn't intimidate her into supporting Obama.

     Just read a REALLY interesting piece on Bill Richardson being a sexist who harrasses the women on his staff.  I finally realized that's what this whole race is about.  If a woman got in the WH, the men would have to curb their lewd behavior toward women.  They'd rather have an inexperience, questionable candidate than risk having to behave respectfully.

    Parent

    Di Fi (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    I'm glad she's speaking up for Clinton, but she embodies all that is wrong in the bipartisan Unity approach.   She will not be missed in the Senate.

    Parent
    Let it be said that DiFi made history (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    with Barbara Boxer in '92, the first time that one state's senators both were women. (There are three or four of those now.) That was the year that the media had dubbed "the Year of the Woman," when all sorts of barriers were to be broken. Well, it was the year of a couple of women, anyway. And both Di Fi and Boxer helped each other in an amazing campaign, so I give her credit for giving us the great Barbara Boxer, too. :-)

    Parent
    DiFi is not a good endorsement for Clinton or (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jerry on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    other living Democrats.

    When DiFi retires, I am hopeful that California can finally elect two Democratic Senators.

    Also, wanted to point out that in his op-ed Krugman was referencing Barack Obama and Me when he mentions that Illinois State Senators complain that Obama took credit for bills they initially sponsored and did most of the work for.  That article is pretty interesting stuff.

    Parent

    Greg Sargent at HorsesMouth (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:44:26 AM EST
    has been pretty good too:

    The fact that the week-in-week-out anti-Clinton jihad being waged in tandem by the Terrible Two of the Times Op ed page, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, has become mind-numbingly tedious and predictable.

    As Halperin puts it, in a droll reference to their columns today...

        Another Sunday, Another Round Of Anti-Clinton Shots From Rich And Dowd

    Yeah, seriously. Here's another way to put it:

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Parent

    Wasn't the 2006 election (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by AF on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    A rejection of the Iraq war as much as the Republican party?

    Yes. Neither Clinton nor Obama (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    provided leadership on ending the war funding.  The democrats failed to follow through on 2006 in a big way.  

    Parent
    The Obama Supporters (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:12 AM EST
    Must be going crazy today.  And if he thought he got hate mail before, wait until he sees it after publishing this one day before the March 4 primaries and in the midst of the great Obama push to get Clinton to drop out.

    Gotta love Krugman, a man who still cares more about his principles than any one politician.  Which is the best kind of progressive commentator, IMO.  Otherwise, you just end up looking silly like poor Josh Marshall.

    Krugman is spot on (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Polkan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    1. The message of unity and the respect for conservatism that Schmitt notes is triangulation (and I'm not judgding). In the context of this year's primaries, it is indeed a campaign tactic - but it has nothing to do with breaking conservative block (as Schmitt says). Obama simply he had nothing else to run on. "Change" has been a constant theme in US elections for ages.

    Mr. Bush was the last successful "change" candidate to win.

    2. Even campaigning on the change tactic, there is no evidence to suggest that Obama is better equipped than Clinton to execute this kind of change if elected President, again contrary to Schmitt's assertion. In fact, Clinton has a stronger record for her ability to work extremely well with her worst critics during the Lewinsky scandal.

    On a personal basis, however, I think this whole theory of change is based on a big assumption that there is a unified conservative movement (There isn't any, just like there isn't any unified Democratic movement).

    I think Krugman is spot on because Obama's "tactic" is fast becoming his whole identity and promise.

    oddly enough, (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    the politician reagan most resembled, only in terms of his public speeches, was adolph hitler, post mein kampf, pre wwII and the "final solution". hitler spoke to a defeated, economically downtrodden people, telling them how great they were and how great they would be, with him as their leader, again.

    reagan used his "morning in america" approach to woo a population suffering post-vietnam ennui, and the embarrassment of having our embassy in iran overrun by a bunch of "ragheads", holding our diplomats and staff hostage. he promised to make america great again and improve our national self-esteem the same way hitler did in 1930's berlin; expand and improve the nation's military.

    again, this is in no way meant to suggest any comparison between hitler and reagan in their overall policies. reagan was a lot of things, but not a brutal, murdurous thug.

    that said, reagan's real legacy was a 600 ship navy, financed by huge budget deficits and a nearly doubled national debt. he halved the tax rates on the rich, while doing everything possible to pull the social safety net out from underneath the poor.

    were i sen. obama, i'd be very wary of using reagan as some kind of litmus test of unifying politcs, unless he means the politics of "i got mine jack, screw everyone else!"

    Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:10:07 AM EST
    Was and is brilliant.  He questions whoever has power, that is his job.  He will question Hillary if she wins.  He will question Obama if he wins.  Take a look at WAPO, they are gunning for Hillary, it's impossible to even go there anymore.   I guess Kurgmans judgement is being questioned amidst a world where they all see it one way, the Obama way.  

    The WaPo has hated the Clintons (none / 0) (#94)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    since Bill came into "their town".  BC was considered low life trash to them.  The Bradlees' and Quinns' only dealt with the upper crust of the GOP, not the razorbacks of Arkansas, and certainly not ones who were going to speak for the poor.

    Parent
    Krugman Has Been Right (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by bob h on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    about a lot of things over the last eight years.  If he says there is something Rotten in Denmark about the way things seem to be going in the Democratic race, then there probably is.

    Like Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    I am also bothered by Obama's talking like both parties are about equally at fault for the situation we are in and the attacks. As Krugman states:

    "... Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party's rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state. And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity."

    I cannot think of a better time to tell the public how bad so many Republican policies have been. Considering how awful the economy is and how large our debt, now is the time to drive a stake through the heart of supply-side economics. We tried trickle down and tax cuts in the eighties and again the last few years. Both times the deficit ballooned and the wealthy benefitted at everyone else's expense. Republican obsession with privatization has given us Blackwater and an out-of-control health care system among other delights. They have had their shot and failed abysmally - TWICE. In between we had a Democratic president for 8 years and the economy boomed, record numbers of people moved out of poverty, and we balanced the budget. Our leaders need to make this clear to the public. With Obama's gift for oratory he should be a powerful force for reframing the American view of what works. Instead he talks like both sides are to blame for the rancor of the last few years. He needs to start defending the Democratic Party's values and selling them to the public. If not now, when?

    Yup (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:14:45 AM EST
    gotta love him.

    and it has been fascinating (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    to watch Krugmans change from profit to pariah.

    Makes me think of that great (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    book so popular in my generation, Stranger in a Strange Land. (And a commenter here recently, actually used the verb "grok" -- and a derivative new to me, "grokable." Btw, I think it calls for two "k's," but then, I never mastered the language of the strange land.)

    Parent
    and what is the difference between (none / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    prophet and pariah?! :P

    Parent
    My only problem with Krugman (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:33:43 AM EST
    is that he has become a one trick pony.  

    Parent
    That's an odd criticism. Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:56 AM EST
    writes on a wide range of policy issues, although he shows the good sense to stay away from areas outside his expertise.

    Parent
    I should have said (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    his political missives have been a one trick pony.  

    Parent
    What do you think of Rich and Dowd (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    Krugman's commentary on Obama has been mostly fair, issue orienrted and substantive (health care, unity).  He has stayed away from personality.

    Parent
    Perhaps it is Obama that has one trick (none / 0) (#83)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:26 AM EST
    to criticize, eh?

    Parent
    I agree that Krugman has largely commented (none / 0) (#95)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    on economic issues of health care and other programs which is what he should be writing about.  On the other hand, Frank Rich, whom I used to enjoy, has become the one trick pony.  He is an art critic by trade, but feels compelled to criticise Hillary most brutally.  Much of his criticism is distorted and personal invective.  Sad.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:21:04 PM EST
    Check out his blog. He has a lot of interesting economic info that you won't find anywhere else. He is also good about giving both sides of issues.

    Parent
    perhaps he thinks (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    it is the most important issue in the country at the moment.
    actually, so do I.
    and since he is pretty much a lone voice he sees it as a responsibility even more than usual.
    so do I.

    Parent
    You've got to be kidding (none / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    This whole the world vs Hillary shtick is getting tired.  

    Krugman is more outspoken and forceful in his partisan rhetoric but he is hardly alone in his support of Hillary amongst the mediatocracy.

    Parent

    Name the other pundit for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:56:13 AM EST


    Parent
    crickets (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:59:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Larry Johnson (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM EST


    Parent
    who? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:01:27 AM EST


    Parent
    TPM writer and occasionable (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    NatSec pundit.

    James Carville if you want a more obvious example.  Of course he doesn't count I'm sure.

    Or we could just look at the regular New York times writers for some fine objective journalism.

    Parent

    Carville was disappointing on MTP yesterday (none / 0) (#82)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM EST
    Of course it looked like he was outnumbered 4 to 1 but he didn't sound like a true advocate.  In fact, he joined in disagreement with the campaign strategy.

    Parent
    Larry Johnson? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    Oh well, that changes everything.

    He's worth Brooks, Dowd and Rich COMBINED.

    Heh.

    Parent

    David Brooks? (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    Did you seriously just say that David Brooks is in the bag for Obama?

    And with friends like Maureen Dowd, Obama doesn't need enemies.

    Parent

    what I would say (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    is that they are only until he gets the nomination.
    then it will be a hard 180 most likely.
    they do not love Obama.  they hate Hillary.
    particularly Dowd.


    Parent
    his worth (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    and his circulation are not necessarily in any way related.


    Parent
    He's a Republican (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:10:12 AM EST
    that will never vote for a Democrat.

    He may hate Hillary, I have no idea.  But he certainly isn't a fan of Obama.

    Parent

    And before you (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:02:15 AM EST
    go to far with whatever criticism you are planning to respond with.

    Paul Krugman has essentially bagged any semblance of objectivity.  There are few pundits out there so overtly biased as he is, at least in the print media.

    Parent

    Krugman is on the opinion page (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:06 AM EST
    I thought that meant he was supposed to write, you know, his opinion. You call it "bias" but he's expressing his opinion--and, unlike MoDo, Krugman's opinion is not based on whether Obama has laugh lines, or a shrill voice, or dresses poorly. MoDo is entitled to her opinion too, but her opinion seems to be based on things that are considerably less important than the bases for Krugman's opinion.

    Parent
    Do you see me (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    asking for Krugman to quit his job or be reprimanded?  

    His can have whatever opinions he wants.  And I can choose to discard his opinions that are based on nothing more than his own personal feelings.

    Parent

    Which opinions are those? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    You say that you discard his opinions that are based on his own personal feelings. I don't understand what that means. Do you think he's making stuff up because he has a personal dislike for Obama? Or maybe he doesn't like Sen. Obama's haircut or choice of tie and so he trashes Obama's post-partisan rhetoric? No, Krugman believes, e.g., that health care reform is important, his judgment is that mandates are necessary to acheive meaningful reform, and from those two things flows his opinion that Obama's health care plan is inadequate. Is that what you mean by his "personal feeling?"

    Parent
    Show me the link that has Hillary asking (none / 0) (#97)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    for Shuster to be fired. The Clinton campaign called out MSNB on its "pattern of behavior" which refered to the network press but nowhere did it say that he should be fired.  Her outrage was justified but the opponents parsed the words to make it sound like she was not the aggrieved but the agitator for his firing. Typical Clinton bashing, first from the right wing, now from the left wing.

    Parent
    Show me a link (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    to the average windspeed velocity of a swallow!

    Parent
    He always backs up his (none / 0) (#102)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    opinions with facts. He gives the reasons why he disagrees with Obama  - like the fact that his plan will leave a lot of people uninsured.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    Red State says that too.

    Parent
    that is true (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    they feign objectivity.


    Parent
    It's OK to bag objectivity (none / 0) (#85)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    What isn't OK is to bag substance and resort to personal attacks.  He writes an opinion piece.  He is not supposed to be objective.  He makes an argument and you can accept or reject it.

    Parent
    I also like that you said the other pundit (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    as opposed to the other pundits.
    btw
    never heard of Larry Johnson.  probably my bad.  I will use the google.


    Parent
    That other pundit (none / 0) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    Larry Johnson is at No Quarter.  They are not fans of Obama there.  Discussions of substance, but quite a few vehement personal opinions.

    Parent
    The Other Pundit (none / 0) (#91)
    by Raoul Duke on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    Tina Fey

    Parent
    That is what Right bloggers used to say (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    when he was blasting Bush.

    Parent
    Most Republicans I know (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    Despise Krugman with every ounce of their being.  This is especially true of the Right bloggers.

    If you think that my comment equates to anywhere near that level of hostility, I don't know what to say.

    Parent

    So do most Obama supporters I know (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM EST


    Parent
    I guess we're all (none / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    just Republicans in donkey clothing.

    Parent
    No, not all of you (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:52:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    Ann Althouse in the house?

    Parent
    pfft (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:16:43 AM EST
    I guess that would be prophet.
    its real early.
    probably not much profit in what he has been doing lately.
    What exactly is Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#16)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    saying that is so divisive?  Just because she is a divisive figure doesn't make her rhetoric anymore partisan that Obama's.

    They both take shots at Bush pretty regularly.  But neither is notably hostile to Republicans in general.

    According to Obama (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    She's polarizing and more recently, he's said

    "Her natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated," Obama said during a telephone interview from Texas with the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board. "It's not entirely her fault. She's been the target of some unfair attacks in the past."

    Gotta love that last tag, by the way, "not entirely her fault" and "the target of some unfair attacks in the past".  

    Whereas, according to Obama

    I'm not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom

    I really wish someone would ask him to name three things the Republicans have been wise about in the last eight years.  

    Parent

    name three things (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    I bet he could do it.


    Parent
    As a psychologist, (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    I have been fascinated by Obama's use of language.  He is extremely passive-aggressive, in my opinion. This quote about Hillary is a very good example.

    "It's not entirely her fault. She's been the target of some unfair attacks in the past."

    He always tries to have it both ways.  He said something "supportive" at the same time that he digs in the knife.  He does this all the time.  

    I would love to know more about Obama's relationship with his mother.  Does anyone know if he talks much about her in his first book?


    Parent

    I've noticed that, too, and it is (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    maddening. (Maybe I noticed it because I've dealt with too many passive-aggressives in my time, men and women, and they make life just miserable.)

    Parent
    I haven't read either of his books (none / 0) (#75)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    The Chicago Tribune has a series, Barack Obama: The making of a candidate, that might cover some on his relationship with his mother.  

    Parent
    it seems to me (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    that Hillary takes a lot more shots than Obama.


    Parent
    Obama disagrees with you (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST


    Parent
    lucky for him I am not a republican (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:37:32 AM EST
    so he can keep up the happy talk with them at least.


    Parent
    Happy talk, keep talkin' happy talk, (none / 0) (#96)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    Talk about things you'd like to do.
    You got to have a dream,
    If you don't have a dream,
    How you gonna have a dream come true?

    Yeah that last line has me wondering the same thing.

    Parent

    Here's what (none / 0) (#20)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    Obama's unity strategy has done so far. It's pushed Edwards out of the race. It has shattered Clinton's aura of inevitability. It's been a shrewd gambit at the primary stage.

    In the GE, it could well kneecap McCain's appeal to independents. If it does so, it could have substantial down ticket effect.

    As a campaign strategy, it's been very effective. However, many on this blog suggest (to put it mildly) that there's no there there. I'd suggest to Krugman and others that after the Reagan rev, and in particular after the 7.5 years of misgovernance under Bush II, that we've become accustomed to campaign strategies also being templates for government.

    Will this be the case for Obama? Will he roll to the right after election, as Clinton did before him in an attempt to appeal to the mushy middle and to stave off the inevitable malicious president hunting of the republicans?

    In short, I see the so-called unity schtick as a campaign strategy, not a plan for his presidency.

    Just like bush? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by english teacher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:42:12 AM EST


    Parent
    your comment is nonsensical (none / 0) (#32)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST


    Parent
    who is non-sensical? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by hue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    unity shtick as only a campaign strategy?

    we've been down this road before with Obama supporters. you're dreaming. if you appeal to independents and those right leaning voters, you can't ignore them once you are in office and try to pass an all liberal agenda. it's the same as taking money from the special interest, you can't ignore those interests once in office. money and votes work the same way.

    you can be really cynical about Rove going after the Religious right only to win. But that also brought us Schiavo. They gave the RR real power by appealing to them.

    Parent

    right (none / 0) (#42)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM EST
    that's why Clinton is losing, because Obama offers empty but tasty political calories.

    When you stop patting yourself on the back, you might want to stop and  think about why Obama is succeeding--especially in this political environment-- and not simply indulge yourself in your fashionable moral outrage about the travesty of it all.

    Parent

    fashionable moral outrage (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    who is outraged? not me.

    i'm a Clinton supporter who will support Obama if he wins the nomination. i never said the unity message is not working "in this political environment."

    i just don't have a secret Obama decoder for his unity shtick, i.e. he's really, really liberal just wait and see. and i don't play what Obama meant to say.

    Parent

    He's not (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    really really Liberal.  If he was really really Liberal he would have no change of becoming President.

    Hillary isn't really really Liberal either.

    Parent

    my fear isn't that he is not really really liberal (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:15:30 AM EST
    it is that he is a liberal at all.


    Parent
    You've got it right (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:02:56 AM EST
    when you say:

    that's why Clinton is losing, because Obama offers empty but tasty political calories.

    That's EXACTLY what's happening. But you could also add that he's aided be a fawning press that loves him and hates Clinton.

    That about sums it up.

    Parent

    unfortunately (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    I think the hate is far more to the point than the love.
    something we will no doubt find out for sure if he becomes the nominee.


    Parent
    if that's what you think (none / 0) (#62)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    then McCain gets the WH and you and the myriad Obama-phobes on this site have four years to tell everyone "I told you so."

    On the other hand, you may be wrong.

    But tell me this, why would someone vote for the imitation if the real thing were right at hand? If Clinton and Obama were in fact that distinct from each other, I'd frankly expect to see more distance between them at this stage.

    Parent

    Because (it's perfectly obvious) (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:17:40 PM EST
    'the real thing' is female.

    Have you noticed how THAT fact has been playing out in this campaign...from the blogs to the talking heads to the columnists?  Blatant sexism as BTD has pointed out many times.

    In future 'women's studies classes,' this campaign will be a case study.

    Parent

    that seems like an entirely reasonable (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    think to expect to see.
    its a mystery to me.
    I suspect the endless barrage of hate from the media and left leaning blogs has something to do with it.


    Parent
    That's right (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    Obama supporters are naive and foolish and deluded.

    This place gets worse by the week.  

    Parent

    Nah! Clinton is losing (none / 0) (#87)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    because her campaign has made several strategic and tactical errors and because the DNC screwed up FL and MI.

    Parent
    It's the media (none / 0) (#103)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    The media's hatred of Gore was a huge factor in his defeat. It is with Hillary, too.

    Parent
    The media is a big factor (none / 0) (#107)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    but not the biggest factor and not the only factor.  Don't forget that Gore won the election in spite of the media.  In that election, Nader was a bigger factor.

    Parent
    Can you tell me (none / 0) (#45)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    who was the last non-incumbent President whose Administration governed in line with their campaign rhetoric?

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by hue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    Clinton only tacked to the middle once he lost Congress after 94. Triangulation was a method of survival, not a tactical choice. Welfare reform wasn't something Clinton pushed, it was something he signed.

    Bush said he was a united not a divider, but he never said Democrats have all the great ideas, or that he praised Clinton (whereas Obama talked about the good things about Reagan.)

    Parent

    Reagan (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:00:55 AM EST
    his name keeps coming up doesnt it?


    Parent
    Yes it does (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:13:29 AM EST
    because, regardless of the impact of his policies, he was a tremendously effective politician who managed to redefine the American political landscape for 20+ years.  

    Parent
    ronnie rage was the biggest phony (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by hue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    he redefined the American political landscape in the wrong direction.

    by your way of thinking Dubya was also a tremendous effective politician. He was able to use 9/11 to launch a war on Iraq and the entire country and Democrats followed him. Then in 2006, when he lost both houses of Congress and with 70% of the population against the war, he accomplished the surge.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    I don't even get how you reach such tortured logic.  

    Whether he took us in the wrong direction, something  I agree with, is irrelevant to the point.  He took us in the direction he was going even with the liberals kicking and screaming.  

    George Bush pushed through policies but has, if anything, it had the opposite effect on the country.    Democrats have retaken Congress and are almost certain to take the White House.  Most of his policies are discredited.  Not a very good example.

    Parent

    it seems to me, looking back at the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    carnage and wreckage of the last 7 years that W has not been effective.


    Parent
    one thing you can't call W (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM EST
    is ineffective. With the Rep in lockstep supporting him, and with Blue Dogs chiming in routinely, W has gotten virtually everything he wanted, from judges to wars to vastly expanded presidential power to a politicized federal bureaucracy that's handed over huge amounts of its power to the worst elements of big business.

    Effective, yes, laudable or even humane, not so much.

    Parent

    "He took us in the direction he was going (none / 0) (#84)
    by hue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    even with liberals kicking and screaming."

    This both applies to Reagan and Bush. If it weren't for the war in Iraq, Dubya would still be maintain his agenda on limited government, anti climate change, politicizing the Justice department, moral values.  The only reason all of Reagan's terrible policies have not been discredited because they weren't as obviously malicious like the war in Iraq. (Even the war in Iraq wasn't obvious to the voters, otherwise, he wouldn't have been re-elected in 2004.) Reagan's economic policies were terrible, tripling the deficit in 8 years. Reagan had to raise taxes midway through because the deficit were so out of control.

    You seem to say that Reagan had bad policies, which the country embraced, and that's a good thing about Reagan. Bush had bad policies, which the country recognized. Bad policies are bad policies in my book.

    "Whether he took us in the wrong direction, something  I agree with, is irrelevant to the point." Whether he took us in the wrong direction is entirely the point.

    Parent

    I have seen (none / 0) (#104)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    reports about how many campaign promises Clinton kept and his record was actually very good.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    what I meant was saying he "has not been effective"
    seems a little hard to sustain.
    looks like he has been damn effective to me.
    sorry (none / 0) (#80)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    I type so slow you beat me to your own punch, so to speak.

    Parent
    me and Paul (none / 0) (#108)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    Well Paul was my economics professor a long long time ago. Why does he still look the same and I look older?

    It is funny how much influence certain people can play in one's life and others not so much. I also took two classes from Condi Rice. But she is a different person now than she was back then. Paul isn't. He lectured us on economics is really politics, and as in life, the sum of all our choices.

    I read his columns religiously and no doubt he still shapes my views.

    I was speaking earlier today by phone with a friend who teaches at Wake Forest. We were talking about our experiences on the blogs and how bitter we are. Then he said something quite brilliant.

    You see when you criticize Obama, you're not criticizing Obama but rather his supporters' own persona. You are telling them that their conversion narrative is false because their connection to Obama is a personal one. Say something bad about Catholicism to Bill O'Reilly and you have attacked him, not Catholicism. Obama is a substitute for a religious experience but that's not uncommon in American politics.

    Krugman Again | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment