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

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

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

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

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

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

Krugman needs to STFU!!!

Here is what Alter has to say:

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

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

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

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

snip

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

Krugman needs to STFU!!!

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

Krugman's son works for Hillary.

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

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

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

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

And, he makes good points about political rhetoric too.

So, why is Obama my man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*shakes head*

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

December 19, 2007

POLL: Rasmussen Iowa Democratic Caucus

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

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

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

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

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

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

bridoc-

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting conversation. Thanks, Greg, for posting it.

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

This:

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

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

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

So that's my only issue with this.

John, also very good examples.

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

I also agree with some of what Krugman says.

But I disagree with his constant attacking of Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"PK is a hack..."?

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of hat. Not much cattle.

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

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

So, you just made Krugman’s point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

savvy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Keith:

Thanks for the great link!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about someone who is centrist?

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

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

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

My advice to Krugman?

Stick to the world of finance ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a break, John.

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

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

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

JFK said that politics is the art of the possible.

Obama is approaching it in the same manner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short:

All this talk of 'bipartisanship' is overrated.

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

It was a game to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh...

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

Clinton?

EDWARDS!!!???

And for how long?

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

The economy does.

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

Come on fellow serfsm, are you with me?

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

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

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

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

savvy writes:
Krugman needs to STFU!!!

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

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

Wow, that sounds like some great new politics.

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

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

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

I agree with Greg's assessment.

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

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

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

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

She is not what our country needs right now.

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

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

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:01

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

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

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

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

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

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

surely you have a great mind, dontcha?

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

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

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

Poster "No personal attacks" Savvy writes:

> Krugman is WRONG and needs to STFU and
> stick to economics his field of
> expertise

Yeah, with Atrios, I used to like Paul Krugman when he wrote about economics, but lately he's been getting too shrill.

[rimshot, laughter]

I'm going to be so glad when primary season is over and all the paid trolls go back to whatever rocks the crawled out from under.

Did Billary promise Krugman he could be Treasury Secretary, or what?

WTF? Who are you and what have you done with the real Paul Krugman?

Seriously, I've been a HUGE fan of Dr. K for quite some while. But he does seem to have gone off the deep end vis a vis Obama.

It's interesting to note the position of another of my faves, Robert Reich. It's fair to say that Reich is to policy as PK is to economics. Reich has been writing rather glowingly about Obama (and not incidentally, somewhat caustically about HC).

Jonathan Alter
Why Krugman Is Wrong
Why Obama's approach to health care isn't naive.
Dec 19, 2007 http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/

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

Krugman is an economist and I trust his forecast that things are going to get even worse for working-class Americans in the months ahead. The middle-class squeeze is real. Predatory lenders and CEO greedheads should be called out. So should insurance and drug companies. But it needs to be done in a way that produces results, not just spleen-venting.
How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

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

his attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea.

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

Ideally, health insurance companies should be eliminated altogether. But a single payer plan isn't viable politically, as Edwards readily admits. The only option is to curb their power and expand coverage through more regulation.

"""When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings? """

'''"They have to feel the heat to see the light," LBJ liked to say. ..... That heat is best applied up close..... In public...... Across the big table."''''

I used to be a huge fan of Krugman, and I will still continue to read his columns, but it is pathetic to see him so personally obsessed with Obama. Obama is much more of a progressive than HIllary could EVERY wish to be. She is the ultimate insider, and if you look at her past and even her present campaign she is very proud of the fact that she works hand in hand with the special interests. Notice how many of her ads will have her supporters claiming that she has all of the "connections" to get things done. Krugman needs to stay out of electoral politics - he is sounding like a scorned woman. Maybe b/c Obama didn't fall on his knees begging Krugman for his support. It's pathetic.

yeah Nick - I do believe that ...

You see - the public has had a long period of being fed a steady diet of fear and cynacism. It's been a self propelled cycle that both sides of the isle must take responsibility for.

Its sad to see, that people can't see past their own egos, their own need to "win" and in doing so ... accomplish little if anything, and mostly fail.

You say "hope" is a joke, and you compund this by implying in your message that I and others that seek to break the deadlock of partisanship as naive.

This is probably why you won't support Obama. It's unfortunate, because all that you see in him is probably naivete, and discount the pragmatism he espouses.

When we look bback at great leaders, we always choose those that had a message that was counter-intuitive, and found a way to generate the populace and its leaders to accomplish great things.

To get a man to the moon - took a dream, took hope, took hard work, and took a nation to the stars ...

Sure - the soviets and sputnick gave inspiration, but it was a man, a message, and his vision, that led the charge.

You want to discount what people abroad used to be most enamored about the US and it's citizens - our unwilling ability to achieve those dreams we set out to accomplish.

Our "hope" protected us from the aspirations of our enemies, and befriended us with those interested in achieving peace, and a common good.

Today - we can't even accomplish that in our own country, and your sense of cynacism, unseen probably by your own eyes, is why.

Call me naive, flame away ... but as you do - you only prove my point.

Obama 08

I think that all of the Democratic candidates have developed a short term tactical plan for the primary season and a long term plan for the general election.

Paul Krugman is focusing on the political strategy of the next Democratic president.

Obama's short term plan for the primary season is to run to Hillary's left on foreign policy and to her right on domestic policy issues.

Obama has the anti-war voters in his pocket, he needs to rip away Hillary's new economy corporate base voters. That is why he is running on the right of Edwards and Hillary on health care.

Obama can calibrate his long term political strategy to combat the hard right on fixing the health care system, but first he has to knock out Hillary in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Krugman wants to debate long term political strategy while ignoring the fierce short term political tactics of each candidate.

Krugman is WRONG, here's why.

"Any system will take some tinkering to get right. The really important goals are five things that Krugman doesn’t even mention. First and foremost, we have to get all the people who want insurance and can’t find or afford it insured. Second, we must make sure that everyone’s insurance is “portable” and employer-independent. Third, we need to get rid of “pre-existing condition” exclusions so that everyone can buy insurance, whatever their current medical condition (this will, of course, require some adjustment in cost). Fourth, we have to put in place uniform national rules preventing private insurers from gaming the system through misleading sales practices or “cherry-picking” customers from limited insurance pools. Finally, we must make sure that all medical insurance covers all medically indicated care (within the dollar limits of the policies), so that doctors, not insurers, regain control of the practice of medicine.

These are the problems that trouble the vast majority of American families. Most of them don’t give a damn whether young, single healthy workers are gambling with self-insurance or not paying their fair share. That’s why Obama’s plan is far smarter politically than Clinton’s.

Obama’s plan will solve these problems more quickly and easily than Clinton’s because he’s given some thought to how to sell his plan to the nation. He eliminates mandates because he knows that they killed Clinton’s 1993 plan and are a red flag to conservatives and even some independents."

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

What exactly is the benefit of TPM/EC who is suppose to be an alternative source to the mainstream media "interviewing" NYT establishment columnist Krugman. I can read Krugman's opinions in the NYT.

If the real news isn't favorable for Hillary, TPM now will create "news" by interviewing op-ed types who will help attack Hillary's opponents.

TPM JUST BE HONEST, forego the pretense of even-handedness and rename yourself "Hillary's Talking Points Memo." You would be labeled what you are and could pursue it without contrivance.

Yes, Obama is for HOPE. Oh my God, I HOPE that he is not bad as GWB.
However, If so, we hope that God will help us.

'If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993—instead of convening a secret task force—she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.'

Jonathan Alter FAILS for simply uttering those words.

LOL.

Sounds like it came directly from the mouth of a republican.

@savvy

from your link

'Mandates impose a regressive health-care tax because they force young, healthy workers—mostly blue collar, poor and near poor—to pay a higher proportion of their income for insurance so that more highly paid workers can pay less.'

Uh...

That is NOT even the case?

Furthermore, it's a REPUBLICAN meme.

Which is Krugman's ENTIRE point regarding Obama's rhetoric.

Get it now people?

First of all, 'poor and near poor' people already qualify for coverage under Medicaid and or SCHIP.

I don't know where you got that link from, but it entirely twists Krugman's intent. (which everyone criticizing Krugman seems to be doing)

So...when wil an interview of equal weight and prominence be given to former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich by tpm?

I cannot hold my breath very long waiting. Don't waterboard me bro.

LIAM - RIGHT ON, BROTHER! THAT'S TELLING IT LIKE IT IS! (as we used to say...)

Congratulations, Krugman. Well done. Why, you're the Ralph Nader of 2008!

Krugman is mostly wrong here, and is evaluating this whole situation emotionally rather than logically. Obama's record is ignored, and only selective parts of his rhetoric are focused on. Krugman first of all simply assumes the Dem will be elected. this is a major mistake to start things off, and a Clinton candidacy is absolutely our worst bet to win, poll after poll after poll bears this view out.

Krugman listens to her 'yes' vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring an officially commissioned branch of Iran's government "terrorists" and linking them directly to attacks on our troops in Iraq, and says "no Dem will start a new war". well, how does she then defend her position to NOT go after a country she herself believes is attacking our troops and which she says is trying to acquire nukes. and think about HOW wrong she has been about all of that! if she had had her way, there would already be increased military tensions between our countries. Hillary is a failed Senator, in my view, due to her vote to support Bush's war and her right-wing rhetoric reinforcing it. there is certainly much to be worried about in terms of Clinton's need to overcompensate on the hawkishness.

on health care it does seem that Edwards has the best plan. Krugman picks Obama's particularly to focus on because instead of forcing everyone by law to buy into it, he wants to make it more affordable. ignored is the fact that Hillary does not, in any way, explain how people who can't afford coverage now will suddenly be able to once required to by law. nor does he even take her plan to its logical conclusion and examine what would happen when people eventually do not get that insurance and are penalized under Hillary's system for their failure (to have enough money). funny, that. also, in discussing Obama's plan, Krugman doesn't take into account at all Obama's proposed cost-cutting measures, simply leaves them out of the picture because doing so reinforces his own claims. funny that, as well. hm, why would he do this? as far as the "Social Security Crisis" question, this is where Krugman started to fall into genuine disingenuous-ness. in order to believe that Obama meant the same thing by speaking in this manner as Bush did, which is exactly what Krugman did, you have to willfully, intentionally misinterpret Obama. this is blatant dishonesty, it was an excuse for Obama to bring up the need to raise taxes on the wealthy, and as an economist, Krugman should know this. and guess what? he does. instead of engaging the possibility that Obama doesn't want to privatize and gut Social Security (which he has repeatedly said he does not want to do, nor does anything about his record suggest he has any intention of doing so), Krugman relies on this basic fallacy to wander on to subsequent, even more bogus conclusions. what a mess!

Edwards'rhetoric is spot-on, and apparently Krugman cares about rhetoric and rhetoric alone in evaluating the candidates. problem is, John Edwards has a history as long as his political career of talking all pretty and doing pretty much nothing. I find it very difficult to believe that he really, truly believes what he says, since he has changed his mind so drastically and about so many things during his political career. a great guy, for sure, but his track record isn't just sketchy - its BAD.

but to then descend into this murky bullshit of calling Obama the "anti-change" candidate - is disgraceful. Krugman is fine to argue policy based on numbers. but here he is trying to be a Godhead, and I don't like it at all. makes me think less of him. whatever has stuck in his craw about Obama is taking over his otherwise very useful mind and he is saying increasingly irrational things. he, like many other pundits, seems to blame Obama for other people making him into a "mulitcultural symbol", as if Obama could help that! immature. he ignores pretty much everything Obama has said he wants to do as President and simply proclaims himself a mind-reader who can really tell what Obama is thinking whereas us mere mortals cannot.

As posted above, this really cannot be improved:

"Krugman is an American hero. He's just calling it like he sees it. Obama's a corporate media creation: a nice-sounding non-threatening black guy. But when you look deeper, you see there's nothing there."

As opposed to Hillary who is for Hopeless.

The Republicans on the Hill already steamrolled her during her first year in the White House, and she crawled into her shell, and did nothing more about it. They know that she does not have the right stuff, and will wilt again.

Look at which Candidate has had to get rid of several senior campaign aides because they were out of control. I guess that were not getting much leadership from the all so experienced Hillary.

She is not a leader, and her failure on health care, and her current campaign staff turmoil prooves it.

Our Ivy League elitists would rather have a car fueled with liquid coal than a single-payer healthcare system.

Krugman is compromised - he has picked his candidate and will frame his column based on his own bias.

as former clinton secretary Reich said recently, "the differences in the health plans are minimal compared to the republicans".

Edwards is too polarizing and is too weak a debator to represent the Democrats (see his terrible performance against Dick (al quaida in Iraq) Cheney in the VP debate in 04).

We can't afford another weak debate like that.

Wow. "Audacity of Hope" as the central pillar of Obama's candidacy. Yup, that's a nice, detailed, meaty progressive platform that we can all sink our teeth into.

'Maybe you should ask the gravel campaign willy. '

What does that have to do with anything.

No evidence to back up your claim? I see.

'Also, you could actually read some of the posts on this thread'

Um...

I did.

'as opposed to skimming to throw in one liners to support clinton II.'

Uh...

I haven't.

Why don't you take your own advice and 'read some of the posts on this thread'

I've said plenty. And you, along with others, continue the echo chamber effect of repeating the same falsehoods over and over again.

One more time:

Krugman said all three plans fall short of truly universal healthcare.

So to continue to suggest that Krugman is 'compromised' or 'shilling for Hillary', means you are intellectually dishonest, or so emotionally caught up in your support for Obama that you simply cannot be reasoned with.

You decide?

I'm Paul Krugman's newest fan.

I have never, ever read anyone articulate *exactly* how I feel about all of the issues he's raised in this interview.

Thanks, TPM for sharing this interview - fascinating!

Susan McCauley wrote:

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

Check out the two most recent pieces from Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek and David Brooks in the NYT on Obama, both unlikely defenders. "

WAIT! WAIT! WAIT a GDAMN minute here! I should pay attention to Brooks and Zakaria before I listen to KRUGMAN?! Are you effing serious?

The likes of David Brooks tells you that Obama is the better candidate and we should believe him? Where did you come from?

Mr. Krugman:
Perhaps it's time to consider a little therapy. Your becoming obsessed. Read Jonathon Alter's latest column and move on.

We don't need another Democrat who walks and talks in right wing frames. All Obama brings to the party is the ability to talk pretty. In terms of policy and his approach to the Democratic Party, he's closer to Joe Lieberman than anyone else. No, thanks.

What a bunch of cry babies!!

So what. Krugman has some serious criticisms of Obama. Get used to it. The campaign has not really even began. There will be a lot of criticism to go around. Perhaps, there is an air of truth to the remarks and it has struck a nerve in the Obama supporters.

In any case, as a fellow liberal, I am not only interested in electing a Democrat for President. I want a Democrat how can swing the country away from the radical ideas implemented by the Bush administration. I tend to agree with Krugman that it is going to be a down and dirty fight. If Obama is not up for a fight, he should withdrawal now. Stop wasting our time.

I find it remarkable that liberals have not learned that winning is the only thing that counts. As losers we have watched the country take a terrible turn for the worse. It does not make me feel any better when the liberals play fairly but lose.

Stop trying to shoot the messenger. Just change the message!!

Paul is right as always.
I wish Bob Cesca who endorses Obama today over at HuffPost read it.
The idea that Obama's presidency would magically make America a big loving family where everybody respects other's needs and compromises to accommodate them is a pure lunacy. In today's political climate we need a fighter and, yes, a partisan, which Obama is neither.
Obama's presidency, if it happens, will be a mess, potentially worse than Bush'e (if it is possible).
But most likely he will never get there. If nominated, GOP machine will destroy him and he, of course, will be too high-minded to respond to swift-boating.
I am terrified that Dems will find a way to lose even this presidential election.
Nominating Obama will make it certain.

Krugman has no children. He has two cats. The cats say that they're not working for Hillary.

I'm not sure I trust the cats though.

The most rational analysis of Senator Barack Obama without sentiments.

My question is, what has Obama done as a senator to prove that he can perform?

Political Campaign speeches are worthless if Barack Obama has no previous record of accountability.

Can he be rated on his work ethic as a
senator?

He is a man ideas?
Which ideas?
When, where and how has he proved that he is indeed an idealist?
In Congress or on Campaign 2008?

Barack Obama is playing to the gallery to win votes.
Barack Obama is a political smart alec.

He should be rated by what he has done and not by what he says he is going to do.

A smart politician can say anything to win an election.

Compare the progress reports of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Senator Barack Hussein Obama since they became senators and stop using deceptive public appearances and good speeches to to rate the leadership qualities of the presidential candidates.

I think the People's Front of Judea is far superior to the Judean People's Front or the Front for the People of Judea. Follow the gourd! The holy gourd!

Nice to see that so many disparate Democratic voices out there share the same vituperation for the aspiring candidates as they do for the crooked Prezimident.

Also, the analysis is naively and charmingly pat, like a game of Prisoner's dilemma, and likewise deceptively simplistic when applied to real world problems. Even with a majority now we have gotten none of the things we sent Democrats to Congress to do, and all we hear is equivocation and excuses. What will we get with a Democratic president? More disappointment and heartache while the corporate master class runs roughshod over us. And judging by the spittle flying here, we will have deserved it.

Just wondering...those who have been at an HRC rally...
At what point were you compelled to stand, without regard to the person next to you,
because her passionate point gave you no choice?
Because you felt "Yes, this is what is needed!"

If you could share those moments it would go far in reaction to those of us who have been driven to stand for other candidates..

For me it was Edwards last winter in Denver when he said "It is not me, but you, that will make the difference."

'Talk about intellectually dishonest, virtually every one of your posts have been intellectually dishonest.'

Laughable.

Please provide specifics?

'Well, I'll bite on one issue, that reveals how not progressive clinton II is. Check out her war votes'

If the war is your singular issue, then you are right to support Kucinich. What any of that has to do with Krugman and Obama is neither here nor there, and isn't the issue.

Again, (for the second time today) Clinton outscores Obama over at progressive punch.

So where is this evidence that Obama is more progressive than Clinton in regards to policy overall?

You have none.

'By the way, I don't see anything in the original post discussing krugman's "analysis" of the other health care plans critical of clinton II's plan.'

LOL

Then OBVIOUSLY Michael A...

you didn't read Krugmans original column.

'And the question was whether those plans would be as bold and comprehensive as the Edwards proposal.

Four months have passed since then. So far, all Hillary Clinton has released are proposals to help reduce health care costs. It’s worthy stuff, but it’s hard to avoid the sense that she’s putting off dealing with the hard part. The real test is how she proposes to cover the uninsured....

Senator Clinton, we’re waiting to hear from you.'

From June 4th.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Did you read the other columns as well Michael A? Must not have, huh?

LOL.

nogo war wrote :

Just wondering...those who have been at an HRC rally... At what point were you compelled to stand, without regard to the person next to you, because her passionate point gave you no choice?
Because you felt "Yes, this is what is needed!"

If you could share those moments it would go far in reaction to those of us who have been driven to stand for other candidates..

For me it was Edwards last winter in Denver when he said "It is not me, but you, that will make the difference."

NOGO: People stood up when Hitler spoke too. Don't let yourself be fooled by an emotional speech.

Think, it's not illegal yet.

Let me get this straight: We are now lynching Obama for refusing to take the ONE approach that has a PROVEN record of FAILING.... Greeeaaat!!! Brace yourselves, Ladies and Gentlemen, for another decade of partisan bickering while millions are denied health CARE. No worries though. Placating our PROGRESSIVE sensibilities, is definitely a much much bigger issue....

Keith wrote:

"The number of misinformed people on this thread is just absolutely breath-taking."

Congrats Keith, the misinformed aren't usually capable of such insight.

Orikinla:

You have a website but don't know how to use Google? http://www.google.com.ng/

If memory serves, Obama has spearheaded ethics reform, Obama-Lugar nuclear proliferation and Obama-Coburn government accountability. I'm sure an HRC supporter like yourself has a laundry list of bills that she's spearheaded and pushed through in her senate career. Same for an Edwards supporter. Though I had trouble find either for both. And the funny thing is the only one of the frontrunners to pass any healthcare legislation is Obama. Funny.

Wait, was this one of those pesky rhetorical questions that you didn't want anyone to actually answer?

Bridoc sez:

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

Help me out. Who died so that bridoc could be anointed arbiter of who is a political expert and who is not? Perhaps bridoc can share with us his/her short list of, say, three names of individuals -- other than himself/herself, of course – whom he considers political experts?

But thank heavens for small favors. I'm sure PK is breathing a great sigh of relief that he can now report back to his wife – but not to his non-existent kids – that bridoc has absolved him of being a hack.

Geez. Some people just have no idea of how fatuous they sound.

One other thing: Could someone please explain to me how we are going to deal with the "traitors" who cannot AFFORD these mandated health INSURANCE plans? Heavily fine them? Lock them up? What, pray tell, are we going to do about these "felons"?

Paul Krugman, a fraud, a racist, a nazi, a killer of blue-eyed Christian babies, a Hillary supporter, whatever. It must be 2 for 1 Koolaid night. With few exceptions, you people are embarrassingly ignorant, clinically delusional or both. Quite the little wasteland you've got going here, TPM.

Gosh, I have read all the comments so far and not once has a commenter used the basic 'feet on the ground' common sense of reviewing the records of what each of the leading three have actually done on health care.
Even Krugman in his column referred to the Boston Globe article which described how Obama did in fact increase health care availability in Illinois, and did so with his negotiating skills. Krugman gave some credit to Obama, then chose to denigrate Obama's half a loaf result [which came from Obama actually dealing with the insurance lobbyists and then pragmatically watering down the more comprehensive original plans in order to get passed into law at least that half a loaf].

Contrast that record with Hillary's big attempt at health care reform which resulted in no loaf at all. And as far as I know, Edwards has never achieved any measure of health care reform anywhere.

So to DemAc who said above, " It will take political know-how", let me agree. I submit that Obama has already demonstrated that political know-how, Hillary has already demonstrated complete political not-know-how, and Edwards has demonstrated nothing to date but a 'plan'.

A couple of other comments.

NCSteve at 5:33pm, that was one of the best comments I've ever read on these threads.

To all the quaking in your boots scaredy cats who see everything political in terms of war footings and ugliness, I would offer you baby pacifiers and baby blankets if I could. You have so obviously regressed yourselves out of adulthood, amazingly similar, when I think about it, to those who blindly followed Bush because they were conditioned by rhetoric to cower at every noise.

And I would also like to announce that I'm also offering 'Universal mandated health INSURANCE'. If you can't afford to enroll, we will surely lock you up,you good for nothing felon! If I were you, I would sell that house and sign up!

I posted in Huffpost in reference to this article, but didn't see the option to post here originally:

Obama has worked as a community organizer and in doing so, even before becoming a politician, he had to have learned a lot about how things work if you want to get as much as you can from the system for the people you're trying to help.
As a local and state organizer myself, the most valuable lesson I learned, from a national organizer, was "move the middle." You will not get anywhere if you don't do that.
I don't know Krugman's background in progressive/populist grassroots work or with legislatures, much less congress. But the old adage "half a loaf is better than none" definitely applies here. I like Edwards a lot, but it isn't realistic to think the influence of corporate lobbyists on congress will melt away with a populist or progressive president. The president can't make significant changes in the system without congressional support. (Remember "don't ask don't tell"?) The candidates' rhetoric is only as good as their ability to get their ideas through congress.
If Krugman is fond of Hillary's plan, he needs to look at her ideas of implementation and what she means by "mandate." NCLB is a mandate. The word itself is meaningless without details on how it will be achieved and funded (add the word and any plan, however poor, automatically becomes universal--again, look at No Child Left Behind). It has the potential to be openly and even aggressively punitive against the poor if it's not FULLY funded, as NCLB has repeatedly shown. Krugman also needs to take a look at Hillary's donors list before asserting his confidence that she will get the job done with healthcare reform.
With Edwards' plan, which I like, we run a real risk of getting nothing. With Hillary's, unless she makes clear how these mandates will work, who will be providing the coverage, and how well private providers will be regulated by the government, we could end up with less than nothing, especially if the program funnels government money directly to private businesses at the expense of those who need the services.
If you want to get things done, work in ways to see that it happens. Move the middle. True progressives and populists know that through cold hard experience, because they've done it. There's no more frustrating or rewarding experience than real, grassroots community activism. Edwards did most of his work in the courts, which is very different from doing it at the grassroots level by connecting the people directly with local and state governments. The former requires hard fighting and the latter requires a bigger table and a willingness to listen. That's the reality those who want reform will have to deal with. It doesn't mean compromising principles or bowing to corporate pressure or money. It means understanding the circumstances you cannot change just by willing it and working most effectively around them.
Corporate interests have full time, well paid people working day and night to get them their way, and a slew of congressmen in both parties who will want to give it to them when the new president takes office. Which candidate can best deal with that reality is more important than the healh plans themselves for those who truly want healthcare reform.

I would like to announce that I'm offering universal health coverage to all Americans. Just send me whatever you think you can afford. No mandate, mind you, totally voluntary.

Later, we'll work on what you get for this. After all, I can be sure everyone will sign up. But trust me, the costs will be divided up fairly and, even if only a few participate, I'm sure the costs will not be prohibitive.

Contributing to the ignorance of America one post at a time. Thanks for advance the ball Little Ole Jim.

Nan:

Obama's message boils down to; lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya and the GOP will cooperate with us. He is either naive or a complete fool or utterly dishonest. It is going to take bitter divisive battles to push through any kind of progressive agenda. It is going to take a president with a backbone, willing to fight and above all not afraid to offend. Someone like FDR. Not afraid to take the fight to the GOP and be partisan.

Perhaps things boil differently where you are from, but nothing in Senator Obama's rhetoric or past remotely suggests the conclusion at which you have arrived. All evidence suggests that he's not interested in demonizing Republicans or his opponents; that he's willing to listen and acknowledge the validity of the position even though he disagrees with the merits of their position. It's called listening folks. I'm not sure many of you've actually heard of it, but it is a necessary part of good communication.

Do I sell a Sister Soulja moment?

Krugman should stick to writing textbooks.

Lillian,

The problem of how to deal with non-compliance comes up in every system of mandates. The fact that there will inevitably be a certain level of non-compliance, however, is hardly a reason for doing away with mandates. Apply that sort of logic to automobile liability insurance, for example. Does the fact that there will always be people who try to duck the mandate – and even argue that they cannot afford it – does not mean that we should do away with mandated automobile liability insurance.

But now to your specific question. What about the people who any reasonable person would agree cannot afford a sufficient level of insurance coverage?

Well, if you begin with the premise, as I do, that in a modern democratic (small d) society you regard an adequate level of health care – and the insurance to support it – a right and not an income-based privilege, then there are various measures you can take to see that everyone, even the poorest of the poor who might not otherwise be able to afford it on their own, have the coverage.

Why we do that right now. It's called Medicaid. No doubt Medicaid is an imperfect approach to the problem, in part because it operates within the framework of our current, highly fragmented insurance pool system. But most of these problems can be significantly ameliorated in a universal health care system, and one, in particular, which recognizes that, however flawed a system of mandates might be, it is less flawed relative to the goal you are trying to achieve than any of the other options.

Thus, in a system of universal health care, we would take, in part, the money that now goes for Medicaid insurance – and Medicaid is insurance, though people sometimes elide the difference between health insurance and health care – and apply that money as subsidies to assist people who might not otherwise be able to afford insurance. And notice, though you appear to have an aversion to the notion of a mandate, we would mandate that those subsidies be spent for insurance and nothing else. We would not, in other words, as some other candidates, principally Republicans have argued, provide subsidies in the form of vouchers or tax credits which could voluntarily be spent on anything the recipient chooses to spend it on.

Think about mandates, for example, in the context of coverage for children. Even Senator Obama's plan mandates – and there is no other word for it – insurance for everyone under 18. Are you against mandates for this class of individuals?

Are you against the mandate that exists for everyone 65 and older to be enrolled in Medicare? How many people on Medicare do you know who think that Medicare should be made voluntary – other than a few ideologically charged and presumably wealthy social Darwinists?

Would the simple transfer of current Medicaid dollars be sufficient to cover everyone in a new universal health care system who could not afford the coverage? I think most health economists would say "probably not."

But that is hardly the end of the story. We all know that the cost of care has been artificially inflated by quite a number of factors in our current system. And that a lot of these factors would be mitigated in a rationally constructed universal health care system, with the effect of bringing down the cost of premiums – and in the case of subsidies for these premiums, those subsidies themselves. For example, doing away with the adverse selection policies currently rampant in our systems would save very significant dollars in terms of unnecessary administrative costs.

This is not the place to go into all the detail on these matters. But the fact that there are significant cost savings to be wrung out of our current very inefficient health insurance system and applied to lowering the cost of premiums for everyone, including subsidized premiums for those who cannot, fully or at all, afford adequate coverage, is not something that anyone who has the slightest knowledge about health care economics disputes.

Indeed, we already know that there are many quite developed countries whose health care insurance systems deliver equal or greater quality of care to their populations – already on a universal basis – at far less of a per capita cost than our own health care system does to considerably less than our entire population. These statistics are a matter of public record.

Now I know there are people with an agenda who will try to scare you with horror story anecdotes and false statistics about those other systems – Rudy Giuliani for one. But if you want to start off the debate with horror story anecdotes, we, as Americans, lead off with roughly 47 million horror stories from the get go, that number representing the numbers in our population who do not have health insurance. Our system looses the anecdote wars before the battle has even commenced.

I could go on, but I am sure anyone who is reading this knows all of this already. So I'll stop at this point. But I hope, Lillian, that this has provided some perspective on mandates and how we might offer subsidies to those who cannot afford adequate health insurance in a new universal health care system. I don't think any reflective person would ever refer to such people as "traitors" or "felons." Rather they are to be regarded as our brothers and sisters who need a bit of help to be able to enjoy the health care that those of us who are more fortunate for whatever reason already enjoy. And there are myriad ways to supply them with this assistance in a way which redounds to the benefit of everyone who is in the system.

Obama's message boils down to; lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya and the GOP will cooperate with us. He is either naive or a complete fool or utterly dishonest. It is going to take bitter divisive battles to push through any kind of progressive agenda. It is going to take a president with a backbone, willing to fight and above all not afraid to offend. Someone like FDR. Not afraid to take the fight to the GOP and be partisan.

Actually, that would be the message of the wooden caricature Obama invented by Hillary's supporters. But, hey, if that's what it takes for you to convince yourself that your evident cynicism and dispair is something less pathological and destructive to yourself and the country, go for it.

"The nice thing about Obama is he doesn't just say bullshit now to get elected and then wind up doing something completely different."

This sounds like a typical Obama cultist.

It is not bs when Obama says he had no presidential ambition until this year and then one morning he woke up and decided he had to run for president?

His supporters think he is some kind of Messiah, here to save humanity and when he is elected president the GOP will cooperate with him because he is so civil and wants to be their friend and we will all live happily ever after. You see Clinton/Gore/Kerry and all the other Dems were rude, unfriendly, uncompromising. Which is the reason why the GOP wanted to lynch them. It is going to be different with Obama because he is such a nice guy that Rush/Coulter/GOP leaders will embrace him for the good of the country.

This is the mindset of Obama cultists.

It bothers me when people like Nan impugn the motives of Obama's supporters. You may like another candidate better and that is your right. However, the fact is that Obama is an excellent candidate and has been endorsed by some very intelligent people, including Cornell West.

Calling Obama supporters a cult is a tactic that should be reserved for bigots like Pat Robertson.

Robert Reich says the health plans of Obama, Hillary, and Edwards would all be a big improvement over what we have now and accuses the Clinton campaign of talking up a big difference when there is none, or very little.

Of course, the other candidates LOVE to talk about issues, but only if they get to pick and choose them (kind of like Hillary's selective memory about the White House--she gives herself credit for the successes of the Clinton administration, but as for the failures such as NAFTA, she was just First Lady).

Obama is one of the rare Democratic candidates who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, along with Kucinich. He has been remarkably consistent in his approach to politics and his positions on issues. Based on Senate votes, Obama has better ratings on the environment and liberal issues in general than either Edwards or Clinton. Edwards likes to say he is a figher, but how did he vote when he was a Senator? Where was the courage then? And for Clinton, where is the courage now?

Krugman says:

"On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests."

So, is that why he is refusing to take lobbyist money while Hillary tries to convince everyone that she takes money from a variety of lobbyists but only listens to some of them? Edwards worked for a hedge fund--is he as committed as he says he is?

More Krugman:

"On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling..."

So it comes down to tone--I thought it was about issues. But the problem, it turns out, is that Obama isn't out there throwing a lot of red meat.

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

Is that why his lifetime voting record is more progressive than Hillary, Edwards, or Kucinich?

I'm confused.

Billyblog,

Thank you for taking the time to succintly make the case for mandates, without the theatrics displayed in some of the posts above. I was actually being sarcastic, in a bid to draw attention to the fact that mandates may in fact, criminalize many of the very people who are supposed to benefit. Now, I have no issue with mandates in general, I just think it is a little disingenuous to lynch Sen Obama, and at the same time look the other way when both Senators clinton and Edwards refuse to address this crucial "enforcement" aspect. I think all 3 front runners have relativeley similar plans, but the devil, like they say, is in the details- for all 3 of them!

The truth is that the most important MANDATE in this health care business is a political mandate from the public for the next president of the United States to pursue a national healthcare plan because before anything can change whatsoever we need 60 votes in the Senate. Since America is not getting 60 Senate seats this election, it's important to elect a person who can bring Republicans to his side so we can get something, anything, on healthcare accomplished.

That person is not the widely despised Hillary who has a track record of failing on healthcare, nor do I think it's Edwards and his plan to beat the Republicans into submission with all of his fighting. The only person with any chance of coopting the other side is Obama with his popularity and individual choice nature to his plan.

I think Krugman is the naive one for not seeing the forest for the trees and focusing so much on particular details within healthcare plans rather than considering what candidate is best positioned to get the 60 votes in the Senate needed to make any change at all.