Krugman Hits Obama Yet Again -- This Time On Battle With Edwards Over 527s
In his column today, Paul Krugman hits Barack Obama yet again. He expands his indictment of the Illinois Senator to argue that Obama's attacks on John Edwards over the 527s running ads on Edwards' behalf are of a piece with Obama's distaste for the sort of partisan confrontation that Krugman says will be essential in our next President:
Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.
First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?
Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?
Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
Comments (108)
Keith wrote on December 24, 2007 10:07 AM:This is the first I've heard of Obama objecting to 527's because they are special interests. I thought the whole flap was about Edwards' claim that he didn't like 527s a day before the announcement of the 527s spending $750,000 on his behalf (ad buy). Ben Smith, who was traveling with Senator Obama over the last couple of days didn't quote any language supporting Krugman's claim, so until we have a more unbiased source, I'm inclined to think Krugman is misinformed and working hard to stuff Senator Obama into the narrative he has settled on.
Also, from Ben Smith, here's what Obama said about disavowing 527s (independently) all together:
"I'm not going to endanger the Democratic Party's ability to win races," he said."
This is just one more example of Obama's abysmal judgment. His he really that tone deaf? Or is his campaign staff just that stupid?
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 10:16 AM:Can someone please explain why Krugman, who is a staunch defender of free-trade, seems so enthusiastic about Edwards who appears to be the staunchest opponent of free-trade?
AJ wrote on December 24, 2007 10:23 AM:Obama seems willing to accept any Republican frame as long as it serves Barack Obama, the progressive movement be damned. We can't accept another self serving triangulator.
Greg wrote on December 24, 2007 10:23 AM:Keith, it's a fair question. Here are two grafs from the AP write up:
Former Edwards advisers Nick Baldick and Jeff Link have been advising labor-backed groups that are putting up hundreds of thousands of dollars in issue ads supportive of Edwards. Obama says these efforts amount to "huge, unregulated contributions from special interests" of the kind Edwards talks about bringing under control.
"I've got a track record," Obama said of restraining special interests. "I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk."
...I'd like to see a fuller transcript, though.
Obama "...either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee..."
Can't the same can be said of Krugman, relative to his continuing attacks of Obama?
brewmn wrote on December 24, 2007 10:25 AM:"Can someone please explain why Krugman, who is a staunch defender of free-trade, seems so enthusiastic about Edwards who appears to be the staunchest opponent of free-trade?"
Because he views himself as the lone voice preaching "sanity" (i.e., Obama must not be nominated).
I will never read Paul Krugman again. Fuck him. He is dead to me.
All of this in the context of the AFSCME running its first negative ad against Barack Obama in Iowa about (what else?) health care.
Keith wrote on December 24, 2007 10:34 AM:Thanks Greg, that at least gives Krugman a jumping off point. We will see how much impact this has in Iowa or the MSM, especially on what I suspect will be a really slow news cycle (with very few paying close attention).
Happy Holidays!
brad wrote on December 24, 2007 10:42 AM:So I guess Krugman is going to shred all of his credibility in this little jihad?
Sad.
Keith wrote on December 24, 2007 10:44 AM:Sorry one more post. It seems that Edwards asked for the 527 to stop running the ads as well.
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071222-stop-these-ads/
Krugman just seems way over the top in his animosity toward obama. Kind of like dowd vis a vis clinton II. Both appear too shrill to be taken seriously. They may have some valid points, but it gets buried in the venom each spew to the targets of their animosity. Kind of bizarre.
Also, alot of people disagree with what he claims are truisms, like the social security issue. He is not God and knows all. Am I willing to blindly trust him concerning social security, nope. It seems kind of strange that krugman brings it up at every opportunity. What is that what he got in a memo from Penn? Very strange.
Shawn wrote on December 24, 2007 10:48 AM:So Krugman's a relativist. Who would've guessed?
Right Fools wrote on December 24, 2007 10:50 AM:It's the same type of NYT op-ed writing (Dowd in 2000) that sank Gore. Isn't there more than enough to write about on the Republican candidates. It worries me a lot.
Stuart Wilder wrote on December 24, 2007 10:51 AM:Paul Krugman sometimes writes like he thinks Democratic politicians are competing for Miss Congeniality. My worry about Obama is that even if he can take a punch, he can't throw one, and stuff like this alleviates my worries. I have no problem with a confident candidate telling people when the train's leaving the station. That's the kind of person we need to win. There are Democratic candidates in real contention whom I would prefer not be elected President, but none so much that I would ever vote for any of the Republicans now running, and I suspect the public employees unions feel the same way. Paul Krugman can look at his navel while the rest of us elect a President. Maybe he'll find Dennis Kucinich there.
DonnaG wrote on December 24, 2007 10:51 AM:After awhile, one does want to ask , "What is Krugman's problem?"
AJM wrote on December 24, 2007 10:52 AM:It is one thing to recognize that a 527 is a potential loophole. It is another to unilaterally disarm. Recognizing the first does not require you to do the latter and it is a stretch to call it hypocrisy as Obama does.
Both Clinton and Hillary are getting support from union run 527s. Obama has no 527 supportin him. Sour grapes.
If you persist in calling the sub-groups of the coalition that is the Democratic party special interests it is not suprising that they refuse to support you.
john mccutchen wrote on December 24, 2007 10:55 AM:Paul Krugman's War opening Dec 24 a theater near you
Neither Edwards nor Krugman are being honest about the surreptitious special interest funding of the Edwards campaign
What a joke! Because Obama confronts the ridiculousness of campaign finance law allowing a former Edwards campaign aide to leave the official campaign to form a 527 to help his preferred candidate and get around contribution limits that means Obama must be nothing but a union-buster opposed to labor rights?
Krugman just needs to take a breath and step away from the Democratic race for the presidency and write about something else if he wants to keep his credibility as an objective pundit and be seen as more than an Edwards fangurl.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 11:03 AM:If you persist in calling the sub-groups of the coalition that is the Democratic party special interests it is not suprising that they refuse to support you.
In other words if you are attacked by a special interest with ties to the Democratic Party, just sit back and enjoy the smear
anon wrote on December 24, 2007 11:05 AM:This is one good example of why Obama should not have run this time: he doesn't really understand what he's doing. It's a shame too. If he hadn't come under the spell of his own PR he would have stayed sober enough to realize he needs more experience on the national level. But he is now surrounded by people who tell him it's all true and he and his wife, unfortunately, have been mesmerized by it.
On the one hand, Obama wants to be the candidate of "change", but for Obama that change will not include going after the special interests that have nearly destroyed our democratic process. No, he prefers to sell the pablum of "bringing people together" which might work on some other level but not our national level at this point in history. What this has always meant in the past is more for the wealthy, corporate interests and crumbs for the vast majority of Americans. Compromise to a centrist Dem means defeat for average Americans and their families and any of us who have lived through the past 30 years know this is the way it is. Personally, I'm tired of "compromise" from our centrist/corporate Dem wing of the party.
The truth is that Obama is a centrist who represents continued "compromise" a.k.a. capitulation to corporate interests. By the time Obama figures out that you have to go after the corporations and force them to bend to the public will for the general good of our people, but also for the corporations themselves it will be too late.
Obama's choice to do the "smart" thing and be a centrist/corporate Democrat means that the only change we'll get if he is elected is a change in race, but no substantive change from the past. People in Iowa and NH are realizing that this is the case and taking a new look at Edwards because of it. If that were not true, Obama wouldn't be criticizing Edwards.
To me the choice, while by no means ideal, is between two corporate Dems (Hillary and Obama) and one that is willing to be a real Democrat: Edwards.
john mccutchen wrote on December 24, 2007 11:09 AM:Anon (above) just doesn't get it. This is all about rejecting the very Beltway political game that you say Obama won't play
Well DUH
Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 11:13 AM:That was a silly post anon and didn't make sense in its conclusion. By the way, I would check out edwards record, not his rhetoric. His record doesn't match with the rhetoric and out of the three front-runners, the least ready for prime time is edwards.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 24, 2007 11:15 AM:brewmn: "I will never read Paul Krugman again. Fuck him. He is dead to me."
Why? Because he said something you didn't want to hear?
Barack Obama is to the Democratic Party, what Oakland was to Gertrude Stein. He's an empty suit.
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop being seduced by the man's obvious rhetorical flourishes into projecting your fondest hopes and dreams upon this blank canvas of a presidential candidacy, and instead give far closer personal scrutiny to the guy.
Obama has no real record of political accomplishment to speak of, unless maybe of he was running for Mayor of Chicago (and even then ...).
He has a documented history of ducking tough votes on potentially controversial issues, both in the U.S. Senate and as a state senator in the Illinois General Assembly.
He was involved in a sweetheart real estate deal with an Illinois Democratic Party operative who was recently indicted on corruption charges.
He lost badly in a 2000 Democratic congressional primary to former Black Panther Bobby Rush, in large part because the Demcratic voters in that poverty-stricken district came to feel that he held his prospective constituents in disdain, and thus would merely use the House seat to further his own personal poltical ambitions.
Is this the sort of candidate we really want as our nominee for president?
Michael A wrote on December 24, 2007 11:20 AM:So, I take it donald you prefer nepotism.
No, I don't want the candidate that you describe. Of course, you weren't describing obama either, so who were you describing?
framecop wrote on December 24, 2007 11:21 AM:Barack Obama is doing well in his run for WHINER-in-Chief.
Helter wrote on December 24, 2007 11:22 AM:Krugman knows the real dynamics of the campaign and why the candidates make various attacks at this stage. He's decided to take sides in the primaries and pull the usual partisan columnist BS. Chalk him up in the Hillary camp and move on.
Drew wrote on December 24, 2007 11:23 AM:
I think there's plenty of room for debate over the 527's, but it sounds like Krugman didn't read all of Ben Smith's reporting on the spat:
"Obama stopped short, however, of forswearing 527 spending on his own behalf in the general election, as the independent organizations appear likely to play a major role next November. He said he hoped that he and the Republican nominee could agree to press the other entities to stand down, a hope similar to the one he has expressed in accepting public financing.
"I'm not going to endanger the Democratic Party's ability to win races," he said."
One can certainly debate whether or not a "527 stand-down" is possible in a general election. However, Krugman's column makes it sound like Obama hadn't considered the general election ramifications - and that's just not the case.
Nathalie Guyol wrote on December 24, 2007 11:24 AM:The longer this campaign goes on the more I am turned off by Clinton and her tactics -- and this is a woman I supported and admired throughout the 90s. At this point Krugman -- someone else I have always admired -- has added fuel to my distaste, and he might be interested to know that I (a yellow dog Democrat and activist) will move to Canada before I will vote for Hillary Clinton.
DTM wrote on December 24, 2007 11:24 AM:Yes, Paul, what the Democratic Party needs is a lot of 527s making misleading attack ads about Democrats.
Krugman is a great economist, but as a political commentator, he leaves a lot to be desired.
roo_P wrote on December 24, 2007 11:34 AM:Both Clinton and Hillary are getting support from union run 527s. Obama has no 527 supportin him. Sour grapes.
Obama has specifically stated that he did not want 527's to advertise for him in the primaries (c.f. Vote Hope) which may also be a reason.
I suppose it would make for a less juicy argument for you though.
RuthieM wrote on December 24, 2007 11:37 AM:You jackass Krugman. Edwards himself stated he was opposed to these 527s negative ads in this election cycle, as Obama noted they must be used in the general election against the other party but not in these primaries and Edwards himself agreed to that. Shows all along what Edwards really is, a hypocritical slickster and this is just another anti-Obama Krugmanfest. Obama knows exactly what he;s doing, Krugman does not.
Drew wrote on December 24, 2007 11:37 AM:After re-reading the column, I'm surprised how many holes his argument has. I really don't care that he's going after Obama (Obama could use some "going after"), but I've come to expect sound arguments from Krugman - and this simply isn't one.
For example, Obama didn't go after Edwards for simply allowing 527's, Obama was making the point that Edwards had previously denounced 527's and now is benefiting from a 527 run by his former campaign manager. That's a fair point.
Further, Krugman straddles the naive line again by suggesting Obama was throwing a cheap punch and hadn't thought through the ramifications of speaking out against 527s. He failed to mention that Edwards holds the same view:
"'I do not support 527 groups. They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads. I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process,' he says in the release."
jeanruss wrote on December 24, 2007 11:38 AM:I think Paul Krugman has read the numbers and knows that America will not yet(sadly) choose a black President-he doesn't want another Republican President, and knows that if Obama is the nominee, that is what will happen-I don't think it is right, but that is the reality-Racism is alive and well in America, unfortunately-I could see an Edwards/Obama ticket and after 8 years, Obama at the helm of the country-he would then be ready to tackle the obstacles to a black President because he would have the experience and credibility to lead.
brewmn wrote on December 24, 2007 11:39 AM:"Obama has no real record of political accomplishment to speak of, unless maybe of he was running for Mayor of Chicago (and even then ...)."
I'm from Illinois, so I don't need someone from Hawaii using bullshit oppo talking points to lecture me about Obama.
You don't know what you're talking about, so just shut the hell up.
And it's not the fact that Krugman is saying something I don't want to hear; it's just that his arguemtn that Obama is "echoing right wing talking points" is transparently bullshit.
Going after your opponent on their support of gun control and their opposition to racially biased anomalies in the criminal law, now that's right wing. And Hillary is the one guilty of both of those lines of attack.
John wrote on December 24, 2007 11:47 AM:Krugman is becoming quite the obsessive one, is he not?
And where was Edwards the uber populist in 2004? Or in his one term in the Senate? He's obviously taken this approach because it's the only niche he can find in the race. He should hang it up and let the real candidate of change roll. Edwards is just not viable after Iowa.
Fired up! Ready to go!
At this point in the primary I really do chuckle at the various arguments about experience, accomplishments and who's an "empty suit." Let's be real, the three top dem candidates are, by far, the three least experienced of the entire group of dem candidates. Obama and Hillary's levels of experience are similar, with perhaps a slight edge to Hillary (it's hard to evaluate first lady experience, but it's worth something). Edwards is by far the least experienced of the field: One senate term -- that is the entirety of his public/political/government experience. Before that, his entire career was as a personal injury lawyer. That's not a knock against any of these three candidates, but none of them (or their supporters) can credibly argue that their "experience" makes them more qualified than any other candidate.
Kansas-City-Dem wrote on December 24, 2007 12:00 PM:Krugman is becoming, in effect, the Nader of '08. Not that he's going to run for President of course, but like Nader attacking Gore in '00, Krugman is spearheading an irrational attack of a perfectly liberal Democratic candidate from the LEFT. Democrats must have a very short memory.
NTouch08 wrote on December 24, 2007 12:01 PM:I have a question . . . if Edwards were to call up the former aide "running" this 527 would that not constitute a violation of the law on this matter? I genuinely want to know, because I understood that campaigns could not coordinate with 527's regardless of what their message was. If that's not the case I can see where Obama's coming from I guess. If it is though, how can Edwards legally do or say any more than he has?
Hattie wrote on December 24, 2007 12:04 PM:Wow. Where's the love? And at Christmas, too. Well, I'm for Hillary Clinton. She does not waste her time attacking her rivals.
Pandora wrote on December 24, 2007 12:05 PM:I wonder if Obama did have support from 527s in the primaries would he take the high road and say I won't have any support from 527s in the primaries. Please do not make ads for me. I doubt it. All Obama supporters (and there are many who reside here) should ask that question to themselves.
kjoe wrote on December 24, 2007 12:06 PM:Helter wrote on December 24, 2007 11:22 AM:
Krugman knows the real dynamics of the campaign and why the candidates make various attacks at this stage. He's decided to take sides in the primaries and pull the usual partisan columnist BS. Chalk him up in the Hillary camp and move on.
I think you are right, Helter. But i am not quite ready to move on, until i find out a little more about the dynamics of Krugman's manic attacks of obama. His echo of the Clinton rant that everything against Hillary is either right wing, or an inexperienced person letting the right wing use them casts suspicion on almost everything he says.
-----------------------------------------this serves the Clintons in two ways--1.it is in her interest that Edwards takes votes away from Obama, and 2. making noise about this--a position consistent with Obama's overall thrust against special interests, helps drown out the much more serious problems with Hillary's money sources. Krugman is angling for a job in a Clinton administration---he needs to have a heart to heart talk with Robert Reich about how that eventually turns out.
People who can't accept that Krugman is coming out so strongly against Obama should remind themselves of one of things that first put Krugman on the map as a pundit: his dead on prediction, based on campaign statements, of Bush's free use of lies and deceit to achieve his political ends.
Krugman is, I believe, making the identical kind of prediction of Obama's Presidency based on Obama's own campaign statements.
It's worthwhile to bear in mind Obama's constant emphasis on "bipartisanship" and of bringing all parties -- including both corporations of all types and Republicans -- to the table whenever a political issue arises. Why is it in any way surprising that a politician who makes such a commitment would do and say things that would undermine progressive interests, and other Democratic politicians?
All that Obama has done of late is to deliver on that promise, and generate concrete statements and positions that do in fact have the effect of damaging both progressive ideals and fellow Democrats.
Krugman is simply saying out loud what is obvious here.
Really, you have to be blinded by bias not to see that practically every day Obama is offering up more and more evidence that he has very little fundamental respect for progressives and their ideals. They are mere grist for the mill of the self imagined Solomonic greatness of an Obama Presidency. If he has to cut our progressive baby in half to achieve that Higher Wonderfulness, so be it.
Chris Brown wrote on December 24, 2007 12:24 PM:"Well, I'm for Hillary Clinton. She does not waste her time attacking her rivals."
Aside from the fact that your statement doesn't square with the facts, Clinton surrogates have done plenty of attacking.
Her N.H. co-chair resigned after dredging up Obama's admitted drug use. Then that sneering pig Mark Penn repeatedly brought up cocaine in an appearance on MSNBC, and act which brought an admonishment from Edward's representative Joe Trippi. Two of her Iowa county chairs were canned after passing on the Obamma as Muslim email. Bob Kerrey apologized for repeatedly using Obama middle name. New York Congressman Wiener indicated on CNN that Clinton has forgotten more about foreign policy than Obama would ever be able to learn. And then there are the Bill Clinton attacks. All of the foregoing actions have backfired on the Clinton campaign.
Look, I would be thrilled to have any of the democratic candidates as the next president. But I also think that those entering their ideas into the public discourse have a responsibility to be truthful.
Liam wrote on December 24, 2007 12:32 PM:Does Krugman not understand what his job is: He is a columnist.
If he thinks he knows better that those who are handling the campaigns, then he should resign his job, and become a political consultant.
He has never run a campaign, but he is demanding that one of the leading presidential candidates should conduct their campaign according to the Krugman rules. What a self-absorbed twit he has turned out to be.
frankly0 wrote on December 24, 2007 12:46 PM:It's pretty incredible to see the kind of attacks on Krugman one finds on this thread.
Once upon a time, we progressives all understood that "bipartisanship" was, in these times, the goals of the cowardly or weak-minded, that calling out social security as being in "crisis" was the ruse of Republicans, and that in general using rhetoric of the right wing was the stuff of DINOs such as Lieberman.
We all understood this, and went after politicians and pundits who refused to acknowledge it.
Now, Obama does all of these things, and it is not Obama, but the person who criticizes him on these grounds who must be made a pariah.
How people who support Obama can claim themselves to be committed progressives is beyond me. As far as I can make out, they are supporting Obama purely as some kind of fashion statement. Actual progressive policies be damned.
blackstar wrote on December 24, 2007 12:48 PM:if Krugman can't see how pointing out that an opposing candidate who has come out against the use of 527s is now being heavily supported by a 527 led by a former aide of his campaign is a legitimate issue, he has lost all worth as a commentator and rationally thinking human being.
jim H wrote on December 24, 2007 12:49 PM:Gee, all you broken-hearted guys cursing out Krugman, the one reliable and clear voice we've had on so many topics since the dawn of the W era. Now that he disapproves of Obama's blatant playing up to the right (he's the Weekly Standard's favorite guy!) and his "new politics" that apparently doesn't mean much but attacking unions and anybody else who disagrees with... whatever his policies are, you guys throw him over. Remind him he's 'a columnist,' and so on. See how unprincipled these slackers for Obama are?
blackstar wrote on December 24, 2007 12:52 PM:Once upon a time, we progressives all understood that "bipartisanship" was, in these times, the goals of the cowardly or weak-minded, that calling out social security as being in "crisis" was the ruse of Republicans, and that in general using rhetoric of the right wing was the stuff of DINOs such as Lieberman.
-----------
once upon a time, both parties in the Senate worked together to pass meaningful, useful legislation.
and i keep see the same tired example being brought up as "evidence" for Obama's "Secret Underground Republican Ruse", and that's his description of Social Security. the accuracy of which has been explained, many times, in great detail.
if you think support for Obama is coming simply as a matter of fashion, you are too stupid to understand the substance of his position or method. period.
Krugman is going after Obama just like he's gone after Bush and all his conservative buddies. He's an American hero, exposing evil wherever he finds it.
You Obama cultists should be ashamed of yourselves. Instead of attacking Krugman you should be asking yourself if Obama is truly a progressive like he says or if he's a neocon in sheep's clothing.
LeeNYC wrote on December 24, 2007 12:55 PM:Well, I see the Obama supporters are out in force. A Democratic candidate CAN NEVER, EVER, EVER refer to unions as a special interest group. Ronald Regan, who led the full frontal assault against unions by firing striking air traffic controllers, even after receiving the union's endorsement, labeled unions as special interests. Unions were part of the original definition of the term.
He voted for the Peru free trade agreement even in the face of union opposition from both the US and Peru. He is a coporate democrat who will sell out middle, working, and poor Americans to Wall Street. So will Clinton.
Edwards' Senate record is not spectacular--although he opposed trade agreements. I liked his campaign theme in 2004 about the 2 Americas--I supported Kucinich because I agree with him and he raised points that were not being raised. This time around Edwards has developed a clearer vision of what needs to be done. He shed the Washington insider's common wisdom and spent four years supporting unions, supporting the rebuilding of NOLA for all residents, not just the white ones, came out with a health plan (that Hillary copied) that, while not single payer, has a path to get there. He admitted the mistake he made about Iraq and has been vociferous about Congress' need to stand up to Bush on funding.
I do not want another 8 years of Bill Clinton. His reign brought us Cannibal Capitalism. The best outcome from the impeachment is that it prevented him from beginning the privatization of social security. Obama and Clinton will attempt to ameliorate current economics through the establishment of bogus educational incentives. The truth is education is not the problem. Just ask all those professionals whose jobs went to India.
The attacks on Edwards are petty. Krugman is not a stalking horse for Clinton. His pet issue is health care. Obama's plan sucks and his big table strategy ensures that nothing will change. (I do understand that he is getting a little shrill, however, if I'm not mistaken, the Obama people started the feud by getting caught doing oppo research as a response to Krugman's criticism.
Is Edwards perfect? Nope. I wish he would say there is absolutely no reason to invade Iran. I wish he would, like Obama, promise to talk to all of Bush's enemies. On domestic issues, however,he is the real deal.
Tara wrote on December 24, 2007 1:06 PM:BREAKING NEWS...
I am spreading the word because knowing the media, this will not be mentioned.
Merry Christmas to the Hillary supporters!
...and to the rest of the country as well.
NEW IOWA POLL RELEASED CHRISTMAS EVE
Hillary, Huckabee Leading In Iowa
By Greg Sargent - December 24, 2007, 11:50AM
A new poll from the American Research Group reminds us yet again that Iowa is a big question mark, finding that Hillary is leading in Iowa:
Hillary 34% (last week 29%)
Edwards 20% (last week 18%)
Obama 19% (last week 25%)
Biden 8% (last week 8%)
The poll says that Hillary holds a 17-point lead against Obama among women and that Obama has lost ground among men to both Hillary and Edwards. Of course, the obvious caveat is that Iowa polls have been all over the place, and a number of recent ones have found the top three Dems in a dead heat, with a few finding Obama ahead.
Meanwhile, on the GOP side Mike Huckabee leads with 23%, Romney has 21%, John McCain has 17%, and Rudy has 14%. Thompson, meanwhile, is completely in the toilet, with all of three percent.
NastyDiaper wrote on December 24, 2007 1:14 PM:People dissing Paul Krugman should read back to about 2000. Simply put, I believe he's brilliant, prescient and speaks on what we *should* do.
Not necessarily what we will do.
I'll step forward and say, Edwards has the best 'ideology' of the frunt runners. Populisim and Golbal responsibility delivered in economic terms. Much of it a wrestle from corporate to labor. Rich to Poor. TDR.
My only question for PK would be, *will* (not *can*) Edwards deliver. I can't shake this feeling in my gut that Edwards looks at the bully pulput as a goal, not as a tool. (4tr in Clinton I sense 'prize')
Maybe I just have a temporary cast of tortitis.
Actually P Krugman seems quite astute and definitely worth listening to, esply given his unique experience and pov. He makes good sense to me on many fronts, and I agree with his notion that we really need a prez who can clobber and beat back the brain-dead brutes who have grabbed power and abused it all the way to the bank, leaving all of us robbed of a lot more than $$.
Wordie wrote on December 24, 2007 1:17 PM:Krugman seems to be only adding to what appears to be much ado about nothing, since the Obama comments were more nuanced than he reports, and Edwards himself has said he didn't want negative ads by 527s. I tend to agree with Helter who said that Krugman is probably trying to support Clinton here. I don't understand RuthieM's comments about this reflecting badly on Edwards himself; since 527s aren't allowed to coordinate with the candidates, he shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. This appears to be just another case of a pundit reconstructing a candidates words (inaccurately) in order to write an article advancing his/her own political agenda.
I did want to reply to John above, who implied that the Edwards populist approach is a recent, and therefore suspect, phenomenon. Not so. In his 2003 run for the Presidency, Edwards was already talking about "Two Americas" and of his concern for the interests of the middle class vs the wealthy. He just had to tone down his rhetoric when he became the VP candidate. Take a look at this 2003 CNN article on Edwards: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/30/elec04.prez.edwards.economy.ap/index.html
(Disclaimer: I'm undecided still.)
kohoutek wrote on December 24, 2007 1:40 PM:Golly. Who pissed in everyone's Wheaties? People are acting like Krugman charged Obama of having sex with hamsters.
It's a campaign, people. Everything is about calculation...Every statement, "accusation," observation, whatever. We all wish it were different, but it's not, right now. And we get the campaigns we (in general) deserve.
Krugman's basic point about whether unions are special interests of the same stripe as those Edwards has specifically opposed is a valid question. And wondering whether Obama is being tactically or strategically smart...Well, isn't that the sort of observation we all make about every move of every campaign? Is x statement or position, which might be tactically advantageous in the primaries, something that works in the two-horse general campaign?
As to Edwards: The accusation that he's suddenly a populist is inane. Two Americas was sunny populism. Four years later, Edwards has moved further left, something the Democratic base has been howling for: Be true to Democratic principles! How this is unwelcome, other than in the short-term calculus of those supporting other candidates because Edwards has grabbed the more "populist" turf?
Haven't we all bemoaned the influence of money and special interests on campaigns and therefore in politics in general? And when someone does make that the centerpiece of a more cogent and pointed Two Americas formulation, it's all hokum. Give us what we want, until you do, and then we don't trust you!!
As to experience: I'm sure Hillary has a helluva lot more "experience" than either Obama or Edwards. I'm not a Hillary fan, but 8 yrs married to the president ought to give someone a pretty damn good insight than few others can ever have. The flipside, for Edwards, is that he had a successful career and built a fortune for himself. That's America, right? That kind of experience and success is just as valid, perhaps even more so, in a general election than any term as a state legislator. I know several state legislators in Colorado, and believe me, that's not a high bar.
What's important right now is a vision, and the sense that the candidate has the ability to bring that vision to some fruition. With a broken Congress, "experience", ie tenure within that dysfunctional mess, is a liability more than an asset. We're all crying for Dems to stand up, a change to politics as usual, yadda yadda. Apart from a new skin color or gender, neither HRC nor Obama is offering any break. They're instead giving us the same cautious, triangulated calculations. Obama in 2004 sounded like a rhetorician capable of articulating a vision and uniting people behind it. What's disappointing is that apart from that one great speech, he's articulated nothing compelling or transformational.
If Edwards is being shrewd, so what? If nothing else, he's showing that he's smart enough to be shrewd and play politics, which, duh, is a necessary evil, and at the same time, his shrewdness (or cynicism or whatever) has led him to embrace further-left positions, and he's articulating them more clearly and to greater effect than either of the other two front-runners. Everyone here knows and understands the short-hand of the Edwards campaign (and the same cannot be said of HRC's and Obama's platforms), and, cynical or not, he's staked out a position that certainly is at odds with the status quo, and he's hanging his hat on it.
We all hate slick lawyers until we need one, then we want the slickest, most cynical bastard on our side. Even better if he's telegenic and has a southern accent. One poster in another thread criticized Edwards' rhetorical skills of argument and persuasion, and his consequent financial success via same, as though that were some sort of liability.
That's asinine. If he's arguing for positions you agree with, then isn't that the messenger with the most chance of success? I don't care if he "just wants to be president." Well, hello, don't they all? Haven't they all carefully positioned and triangulated themselves into the spotlight? As long as he's fighting against the corruption of our politics, and true Democratic values, more power to him. I only care about the platform (and Edwards' critique is the most cogent and directly threatening to the status quo which we all agree has to change), and the ability to frame it to get buy-in. None of the other candidates is running a campaign that equals a "mandate for change," other than the fact that any basic Democratic platform is going to equal a change from Bush and the Neocons.
None of these candidates is any "purer" than any other. They're all politicians. I'll vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is...But seeing Democrats rally so early and so fiercely around HRC and Obama, to me, indicates we learned nothing from 2004.
Jim in the Sawtooth wrote on December 24, 2007 1:46 PM:Krugman is a predictable broken record. Ultimately he'd be happiest with Hugo Chavez as our President.
The reason he's such an Edwards fan is that Edwards is closest to the Socialist ideal, starting with fabricated realities and ending with redistributed income.
AFSCME President Gerald McEntee denounces mandates before congress, supports Hillary who is proposing mandates, then puts out an ad attacking Obama and quoting Edwards while failing to mention Hillary. Poor union leadership has had a lot to do with the decline in membership, it is often corrupt and more often self serving. Hillary sat on Walmart's board, a company as you point out has not been friendly towards unions. She also employs Mark Penn (his company has worked to bust unions for clients) as her campaign manager. So why does McEntee endorse Clinton rather than Edwards? Why doesn't he stand up for the union he represents, if he won't why should anyone else.
The Edwards 527 issue would not be much of an issue were it not for the fact that it's Edwards former campaign manager at the helm, while legal it sure looks bad
The ARG poll is the only one showing Hillary with a big surge, all the rest continue to show it is a dead heat between the three.
roo_P wrote on December 24, 2007 2:04 PM:frankly0 said:
Why is it in any way surprising that a politician who makes such a commitment [to bipartisanship] would do and say things that would undermine progressive interests, and other Democratic politicians?
Edwards and Obama both have denounced 527's because they are "unaccountable" and can use vast sums of money "that cannot be traced" and for "operating outside campaign financing laws."
Whether or not you agree with their position, Obama seems to be consistent in his. While I think the press is just trying to make much ado about nothing (Obama's comments about Edwards are much tamer if you read the quotes in full), it is not necessarily good for Edwards to seem to denounce 527's only when they do not benefit him.
savvy wrote on December 24, 2007 2:13 PM:Humbug
I'm with you. How coincidental is it that JRE's former campaign mgr now heads a 527 that is sending out attack ads during the primary? I mean c'mon...let's not forget it was coincidental that Hillary's campaign manager and 2 former staff aides and Kerrey all talked about Obama being muslim and raised drugs as an issue.
Now we are suppose to beleive that JRE who set up camp in IA 4 years ago and established a foundation to fund his beginning his campaign for President didn't have this tactic already planned as part of his strategy before the campaign manager left to go head up the 527. JRE already told us he's been fighting hard all his life and this 527 certainly demonstrates he has.
JRE stared a fight during the debates when he attacked Hillary and she attacked Barack while he sat on the sidelines and watched the ensuing skirmish and now he comes in at the end again attacking Barack who benefitted from punches Edwards initially threw.
When all is said and done it wouldn't surprise me if Edwards and Hillary are the nominees on the Democratic ticket, having both teamed up to squash the upstart Barack who upset both of their long held plands to run for President.
Edwards and Hillary were real chummy during the debates, until Edwards start with the doubletalk videos and the Hillaryhits site.
Why have folks not wondered why Edwards isn't continuing to run that doubletalk ad in IA?
That ad would have made Edwards the clear winner and knocked Hillary out the race.
Instead both Edwards and Hillary are attacking Barack..the underdog.
Sounds like a strategy that both their campaigns agreed on ahead of time.
Liam wrote on December 24, 2007 2:15 PM:John Edwards had his chance, and he failed miserably.
He got a big launch in Iowa, in 2004, and could not build on it. He could not deliver even North or South Carolina. He added nothing to the Ticket in 2004, and refused to come out against Bush's Iramire, while he was the VP nominee. The ticket lost in places that Gore won.
Skilled trial lawyer, Edwards, could not even deliver in the debate against Cheney.
This is the guy that some are now touting as a winner!. Get real.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 2:16 PM:Kohoutek (in an extraordinarily long-winded full-of-hot-air post) said:
"As to experience: I'm sure Hillary has a helluva lot more "experience" than either Obama or Edwards. I'm not a Hillary fan, but 8 yrs married to the president ought to give someone a pretty damn good insight than few others can ever have. "
Hillary has a huge amount of experience dealing with financial impropriety, missing records, itimedation of witnesses in sexual harrassment suits, the personal, professional, political, moral fall-out from a chronically philandering husband, the humilation that causes, special consel invesigations, fall-out from influence peddling, campaign finance violations, quid pro quo presidential pardons and Senate campaing contributions.
I is not the kind of experience we need back in the White House.
blackstar wrote on December 24, 2007 2:18 PM:some of you also seem to be labouring under the assumption that Obama is criticizing unions specifically, when in fact any cursory examination of the situation will tell you he is criticizing a 527 which just happens to be union. both Obama and Edwards have come out categorically against 527s, NO MATTER what their affiliation or composition. in order for them to be consistent in this position, they have to stand against 527s no matter if they're backed by Fluffy Puppies of America or the Neo-Nazi Karl Rove Lovers Group.
therefore, Obama pointing out that Edwards in this case has been less then consistent by allowing this 527 to continue promoting him is absolutely legitimate.
JubleJohnson wrote on December 24, 2007 2:21 PM:bah humbug wrote:
The Edwards 527 issue would not be much of an issue were it not for the fact that it's Edwards former campaign manager at the helm, while legal it sure looks bad
****Edwards seems like the typical trial attorney slick as hell.the guy voted for the war then cried sorry when it turned out badly,When he decided to run for Prez again he suddenly realized poor folks existed.look committing the bigest foreign policy blunder in all of america should dis-qualify those who made it but we are in America where conscience & shame resides very low.Look who our candidates are running for Prez,Most of them voted for the foreign policy debacle.Wake up folks.
nycVIAmemphis wrote on December 24, 2007 2:23 PM:Krugman is brilliant, yet incredibly myopic on this one. Does he want excellent health care reform that can actually get passed, or does he want to promote a "more perfect" health care ideal that's simply going to be dead on arrival?
Obama's biggest mistake related to health care is simply not coming out and saying, "You're right in that mine doesn't go as far as HRC's or JE's, but for a variety of reasons, my plan is 50 times more likely to actually get adopted." Let's face it, Hillary proved in '93/'94 that trying to go too far can easily result in getting nothing done and setting back your ideal by 15-20 years.
So the big question related to Krugman is does he want to set back health care reform by another decade, or does he want to simply prove he's right in an intra-party intellectual scuffle?
roo_P wrote on December 24, 2007 2:33 PM:kohoutek:
It's a campaign, people. Everything is about calculation...Every statement, "accusation," observation, whatever. We all wish it were different, but it's not, right now. And we get the campaigns we (in general) deserve.
I think the problem is that Krugman is a respected figure in liberal circles and he has a fairly prominent pulpit. But the perception is that using his position to advocate a certain candidate has caused him to lose objectivity and succumb to the temptation of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of others.
If you cannot trust Paul Krugman to give you just the facts, no talking points and no fudging, who CAN you trust?
And wondering whether Obama is being tactically or strategically smart...Well, isn't that the sort of observation we all make about every move of every campaign? Is x statement or position, which might be tactically advantageous in the primaries, something that works in the two-horse general campaign?
It would be except for one inconvenient fact: Obama specifically said that he does not want to endanger the candidate in General so the "ban" on 527's is only effective for the primaries.
That Krugman omits this means that he is either dishonestly misrepresenting Obama's position (not good) or that he did not research Obama's position with due diligence (not good and unlikely.)
As to Edwards: The accusation that he's suddenly a populist is inane. ... How this is unwelcome, other than in the short-term calculus of those supporting other candidates because Edwards has grabbed the more "populist" turf?
The position is not the problem for those people, it is that they suspect that Edwards only says it now for political expediency. For the record, I think Edwards is genuine in his rhetoric.
Haven't we all bemoaned the influence of money and special interests on campaigns and therefore in politics in general? And when someone does make that the centerpiece of a more cogent and pointed Two Americas formulation, it's all hokum.
It is perceived as "hokum" because on one hand Edwards denounced 527's along with other special interest groups (as detailed above) but on the other refused to request that one operating on his behalf cease their advertising. This would seem to project a double standard.
As to experience: I'm sure Hillary has a helluva lot more "experience" than either Obama or Edwards. I'm not a Hillary fan, but 8 yrs married to the president ought to give someone a pretty damn good insight than few others can ever have.
Absolutely, and no-one rational claims that Clinton was kept in some closet except for dance balls with foreign diplomats' wives.
However, as I have asked many times before (and never gotten an answer once), where can we see the fruits of all this experience? If you can give me just ONE example of where she has showed superior judgement because of her experience, it would be a good start. The two most prominent decisions of hers discussed certainly do not seem to help her case.
If Edwards is being shrewd, so what? If nothing else, he's showing that he's smart enough to be shrewd and play politics, which, duh, is a necessary evil, ...
I disagree.
...But seeing Democrats rally so early and so fiercely around HRC and Obama, to me, indicates we learned nothing from 2004.
Can you elaborate on this?
To Anon:
If you had actually comprehended the full-of-hot-air and pompous post of mine, you'd have realized that I'm not touting Clintons' "experience" as a plus...I'm saying that all this so-called experience stuff is claptrap.
But when people bandy about experience as some great qualification, any of has to concede that HRC has more direct experience with the presidency than any other candidate. That's just self-evident.
As you point out, experience isn't all good, and as I point out, experience, in terms of legislative tenure in a dysfunctional political system is not a recommendation.
vena wrote on December 24, 2007 2:43 PM:This is very personal for Krugman. I don't think it's that he is as much for Edwards as he is against Obama. I don't know what Obama did to offend him, but he's gotten of Krug's bad side. His dislike of Obama is clouding his judgment.
Xavier wrote on December 24, 2007 2:45 PM:I agree with Frankly0.
Krugman's concern about the lumping together of Labor 527s & Corporate 527s is perfectly legitimate.
This is not about Hilary or Edwards, this is about the FRAMING.
Obama is campaigning on Change, yet he uses the same old GOP framing on Social Security and 527s to criticize his rivals.
Greg and Eric here at TPM Election Central are once again doing us a disservice with this kind of FRAMING of political commentary. "KRUGMAN ATTACKS OBAMA." This is not a boxing match. This is a legitimate discussion.
I feel its always important to keep our political commentators in check, but I think this whole Krugman v. Obama thing is an absolutely overblown 'storyline.'
Krugman saw Bush II campaign on compassionate conservatism, but reported reality. Now Krugman sees Obama campaign on changing the status-quo, but is reporting the sad reality that Obama is empty suit ready to pick up whatever status-quo arguments will help him win.
It is sad that critism of Obama lumps someone in a Hilary Camp or Edwards camp. We should hold all of these individuals to high scrutiny.
As an aside, I am intrigued at the idea that Krugman may have concerns about Obama's electibility based on race. He highlights racism as the key factor in Republican success over the last 30 years.
Liam wrote on December 24, 2007 2:47 PM:Reality Check:
You want experience, I will give you some to consider.
Cheney made Edwards look like a kid, when they debated. Now you expect him to do better going up against the foe's new Alpha dog. If he could not stand up to Dick Cheney, how can you expect him to defeat a tougher foe!
Hillary voted for to give Bush the green light on invading Iraq.
Four years later she voted in favor of the Kyl/Lieberman War Mongering against Iran resolution.
She has experience alright; the bad kind.
Kohoutek took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.
JAKE wrote on December 24, 2007 2:59 PM:Only Frank Rich can be trusted. Frank, don't let me down!
kohoutek wrote on December 24, 2007 3:01 PM:roo_P
I agree, I'm disappointed that HRC seems to be no wiser for everything she's seen. Her campaign is, to me, like Obama's, tone-deaf, uninspiring, and generally empty. I guess her experience has taught her to steer toward the middle.
On the rallying round HRC and Obama (learning nothing from 2004): We went with the candidate least likely to offend, the most "electable". I think Kerry would've been fine as a president, but his message was indistinct, his legislative career unremarkable. To me, the early anointment of the two Democratic juggernauts is precluding the emergence of what we all said we wanted: A candidate that unapologetically articulated true progressive values, with some teeth. And I do think that Edwards' experience in the general election would serve him well. He probably rues his performance with Cheney more than anyone, and seems to be trying to avoid the same mind-set this go-round.
I understand people suspect Edwards' motives and sincerity. But he's running a campaign that we can all instantly identify (which means he's framing, something Democrats can't seem to get a grasp on), and he's made the corruption of our entire political system the centerpiece of his campaign. Yes, there's populism that directly succeeds from his Two Americas, but he's also going after the sacred cow of corporate ownership of government.
It's clear, concise, cuts to the heart of the problem, and is a sentiment I think most Americans can actually agree with.
I've heard more than once that Republicans are more scared of Edwards in a general election than Obama and Clinton. And this, in large part, is why. If he's true to what he's saying, he would be attempting to change the great ill that prevents real representative politics in America.
Steve McGuire wrote on December 24, 2007 3:02 PM:My God...........
I really don't get the Edwards supporters at all.
I thought that in the age of the internet, that FACTS might have a bearing on who we choose as President.
No, I was wrong.
Edwards is another pandering lying pol, nothing more.
He has had to appologize for his votes on all of the critical fights of the progressive members of congress during his one single term in elected government.
Bankruptcy Reform, wrong side.
Patriot Act, wrong side.
The Iraq AUMF, wrong side.
Where was Hillary on all of these?
Right with Edwards.
It is really incredible how a little populist snake oil can so quickly slide supposedly "high information" progressives right off the tracks towards a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Edwards doesn't have a chance in hell of being able to compete, unless he uses soft money from the 527's. That is what he has been counting on all along. That is the reason he has so blatantly bent over and dropped trou for the unions. It isn't because he gives two shitz about "working people", he just wants the soft special interest money because he doesn't have the support of regular people to raise the funds from to compete against Obama or Clinton.
His biggest problem with this dishonest strategy is that in the game of insider favor, and politics as usual, he is trying to get help from the same insiders that the DLC Dems have already sold us regular folks out to. It is an utterly pathetic and doomed strategy, plus it is patently dishonest at it's foundation. Am I spewing "right wing talking points"(tm)? I don't know, and I don't care. I see no reason to stick up for a pandering millionaire like JRE or the DLC cancer of HRC.
I have been an Independant Sound Engineer for almost 30 years. I have absolutely no great love for the Unions. I have seen corruption, and favoritism used over and over again in the IATSE union. That being said, the Artist Management, Concert Promoters, and Oligarchial major Record Companies are enemies for sure. The next President needs to be able to stand in the middle of these special Interests (yes, the golden calf of Unions IS a special interest)in order to protect the average american that doesn't have any political clout. Guys like me who get frozen out by the Union because I won't pay protection money when they have never gotten me work in the first place.
As to what started this whole thing in the first place, the "mandates" issue. It is nothing more than a Strawman. Any idiot can see that there is 0% chance that any healthcare reform that forces Americans to buy insurance, is a total fallacy. Will. Not. Happen. Both Hillary and Edwards know this, and are just trying to score points with it. Fine. That's fair in an election, but please excuse me while I recognize that they are lying to me and Vote for Obama instead.
I prefer to live in the reality based community.
Krugman won't be changing anybody's mind of consequence. The fact is, that most of us out here that would spend the time to actually comment on a political blog site have already made up their mind anyway, no matter WHAT they say.
Personaly, I respect Obama for not bowing down to everything that is considered "liberal" by those in the chattering class that will never be affected by those positions in the first place. I come from Detroit Michigan, and have seen the destruction of the Auto Industry. Labor and Management have EQUAL blame as far as I am concerned. The corrupt auto industry shares the blame with the corupt teamsters and UAW. The sad truth is, in the end, the ones that lose, are those of us in the middle of these fights.
We are the ones that Barack is fighting for, those of us that are collateral damage in the fight between the special interests of the right and the left.
I'll take Obama.
Krugman can kiss my ass.
I would like to add that in general, I think all politicians are to be distrusted. That I come down for Edwards is not about thinking he's more pure than anyone else. Far from it. He's selling the best message. And they're all selling something. The only people deluded here are those that think their candidate isn't.
But however he came to his current formulation (which I don't distrust as much as some, given that he based his first campaign on the same premises), it's the clearest, and cuts to the heart of the problem.
Hell, I'd like to be voting for Russ Feingold, but that's not an option.
I don't have any vitriol or animosity toward any of the other candidates. I may disagree with specifics, style, whatever. But I'll vote (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) for any Democrat so that we have the chance, with the Congress and White House, to undo some of the damage. Any of these candidates is better than the Republican alternatives.
And if, with the White House and Congress, we Dems can't do some business that all of feel good about, I'll finally give in to my cynicism and ignore the whole damn thing. If we can't win the general and do good things this time around, in this context, then we never will. It's a watershed.
Whoever gets the nod, I'll be wishing them the absolute best.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 24, 2007 4:32 PM:Anony-mouse,
Read Krugman's latest book. If you don't want him make any money . . . Go to your local library and check it out.
He like so many of his ilk had some freer-trade fever but he also does a lot of disassemblimg in the first chapter.
You should watch you attempts at shooting the messager . . . Shooting without looking leads to unintentional dead bodies.
savvy wrote on December 24, 2007 4:35 PM:Steve McGuire wrote on December 24, 2007 3:02 PM:
"As to what started this whole thing in the first place, the "mandates" issue. It is nothing more than a Strawman. Any idiot can see that there is 0% chance that any healthcare reform that forces Americans to buy insurance, is a total fallacy. Will. Not. Happen. Both Hillary and Edwards know this, and are just trying to score points with it. Fine. That's fair in an election, but please excuse me while I recognize that they are lying to me and Vote for Obama instead.
I prefer to live in the reality based community.....We are the ones that Barack is fighting for, those of us that are collateral damage in the fight between the special interests of the right and the left.
I'll take Obama.
Krugman can kiss my ass."
Bravo. Bravo. Encore. Encore.
Outstanding post!!! Finally someone who not only gets it but can tell it to the world as it truly is!! Bravo. Great post Steve.
Obama always attacks someone else's character. If he was running a campaign on issues those unions would be supporting him.
Obama can't win unless voters are cynical. He wants and needs more cynicism in order to remain on top. He attacks his other opponents for things that are out of their control. The media hypes the conflict to make Obama look like the victim. The genius of the plan is that the person Obama attacks is damned if he does AND damned if she doesn't.
I've watched candidates' campaigns call other Democratic candidates "racist." I've watched candidates' campaigns hire private investigators who break into other candidates' campaign headquarters just to dig up some dirt. I've watched the most qualified candidates get completely ignored by the corporate, tabloid media.
So, excuse me if I seem a little bit tired.
morris1030 wrote on December 24, 2007 5:28 PM:Steve,
Pardon me, but there is a particular difference between Obama, Edwards & Hillary's plan and it's a matter of his perception [which his messianic supporters have not acknolwledged, or refuse to see.]
I heard Obama literally crowing as to how he "would sit down at a big table with these folks and work it out". Is he kidding? Re: Healthcare reform.
Both Edwards and Hillary have been forthright re: what a big struggle it will be facing down the Insurance and Drug lobbies. They've said this will be a huge fight. And we all know that unless our next president can deliver a workable health/drug plan for all americans, the progressive movement cannot advance. His plan is not inclusive.
When asked what he would do if Ins/Drug lobbies are intractable, Obama said ,"well, we'll do a Harry & Louise TV campaign".
As Krugman said last week to this: Duh.
Obama's past voting record in Illinois is full of "Present" votes which offered political cover to Obama to hide the intention of his vote.. On the anti-abortion bill in Illinois, Obama elected to give cover to anti abortion Democrats. Instead of a clear "NO", he voted "Present".
This happened 144 times, & also in US Senate, he has backed Lieberman's bill [1/18/07], chaired a subcommittee on Foreign Relations on Europe and never convened a meeting, or accomplished anything. Absent for 67% of votes!
However his followers have insinuated that his trips to Europe, etc qualify him for the most complex and dangerous times imaginable regarding foreign policy. Amazing.
There is a great deal more that is disappointing. Obama voted over 20 times with GOP in US Senate, and often against his party. See his voting records in Washington Post website. Very illuminating as he says one thing and does another on progressive legislation.
He has never been to Jena or Katrina, and refers to Katrina's problems as government ineptness, etc. and excludes any discussion of racism.
He not only is not black enough, his voting record belies his stump speeches on Change.
bg wrote on December 24, 2007 5:32 PM:It's amusing that Krugman neglects to mention that the line of attack in some of these disputed 527 ads is formed by verbatim quotations from his own column. He's well aware of the fact that he's now essentially authoring attack scripts for both the Clinton and Edwards campaigns, and you can be certain that portions of his latest piece will be used in the same capacity.
Steve McGuire wrote on December 24, 2007 6:48 PM:Morris1030...
You wrote:
"I heard Obama literally crowing as to how he "would sit down at a big table with these folks and work it out". Is he kidding? Re: Healthcare reform."
You also wrote:
"Both Edwards and Hillary have been forthright re: what a big struggle it will be facing down the Insurance and Drug lobbies. They've said this will be a huge fight. And we all know that unless our next president can deliver a workable health/drug plan for all americans, the progressive movement cannot advance. His plan is not inclusive.
When asked what he would do if Ins/Drug lobbies are intractable, Obama said ,"well, we'll do a Harry & Louise TV campaign".
No, he's not kidding. You are leaving out the key ingredient to making it work.
TRANSPARENCY=SHAME=CHANGE
I don't know if you know it or not. I will assume you don't, and are not trying to be dishonest about Obama's tactics for sticking up for us. Let me explain it to you.
Obama believes in the American People's ability to make the correct choices when presented with the facts honestly, without going through the filter of the corporate media, or depending on the DC elite, inside the beltway "journalists", to report to the people the shameful rigging of the system, when half of the editors/reporters in DC are having happy hour coctails with the politicians every night. He also is realistic enough to know that the reason our government is so corrupt, and so in the pockets of the monied corporate/special interests is that the people don't know the truth. They don't get a voice in the deliberation process of government until it is too late, and they have been propogandized in the media to go along with whatever way they are getting screwed.
Now for the "Big Table".
The Argument that Krugman, Edwards, and Clinton so dishonestly try to make is that Obama is just "hoping for change". That is as much a crock as this idiotic Mandates question, and as false to the point I end up calling them liars. Now, lying is perfectly expected in a political campaign when a certain politician has no real facts to defend their position. It is my duty as a citizen to call them on their lies though when I see them, especially when the media fails to do it. It is also my opinion that if a politician is lying about another politicians position, it is his duty to call them on their lies.
Krugman, Edwards, and Clinton are all lying about Obama's plan because it is easy to do.
This is how the "big table" works. It is part of a much bigger plan that incorporates new media and technology to bring all concerned parties into the discusion.
Imagine this scenario if you will.
1.) Obama appoints a new chairman for the FCC (hopefully Copps), who starts holding licensees of our airwaves (GE, Viacom, Time Warner, Newscorp, etc.) to the mandates of their original licenses which is that they must provide "programming in the public interest" or be in a position to lose their licenses, or face huge fines. What is the public Interest? An "educated citizenry" so that the citizenry can make informed decisions on their representation in our democratic republic. This allows for a venue in which the American People may get their "seat" at the table. He has already said that C-Span would be one of these venues. He has also presented in his tech policy (endorsed by Larry Lessig) that the people will also have a voice in the oval through the use of the Internet. A You Tube channel possibly, that will be our eyes and ears in the councils of government. Questions from the Executive will be posted, as well as comments for our voices to be part of the conversation.
2.)President Obama get's all of the interested parties together. He lays out the goals, and what his policy would like to be. He has spoken about this many times. For example, at this "big table" ALL interested parties are seated, including US (via C-Span or the web). Someone makes a claim like, for example, the Drug companies have to charge such high prices because of "research and developement" for new drugs. That claim is then responded to by patient's advocates, or some other representative of patients rights with, for example, an argument that these "R&D" dollars are actually being spent for television advertizing for Viagra or Cialis. We the people get to witness this false claim of the drug companies getting shot down. After about a year of these "Big Table" meetings, with hundreds of various potential false talking points being put in the toilet in the full view of the virtual town square, legislation is drafted in concert with the President. The people are informed due to the "big Table" meetings, and can't be spun by insurance/big pharma lobbyists. The people exude pressure on their representatives who are now being held accountable by their informed constituants, or face the prospect of being voted out of office. The power of the corrupt lobbyist is dilluted, because the people see the truth.
The power of a "Harry and Louise" add benefiting the insurance companies is killed because we have educated the public. The public knows the truth. Legislation like healthcare reform gets passed, because the congress is afraid of losing elections.
The reason that Edwards, Clinton, and Krugman all see this as some mostly insurmountable fight is because they insist on continuing the game.
Behind closed doors.
Then the big loud fight of competing adds and pundits that does nothing but keep the cash in power, and the consolidated media making all of that add money from the competing sides.
Obama is the most progressive of all of them, because he is bringing the American People into the meeting.
He also talks about Public Financing for elections. Imagine a scenario where the newly progressive FCC legislates rules where free advertizing in one form or another, is part of their "public interest" clause. This would drasticly curtail the influence of money for advertizing, which is the cruxt of the bux spent in campaigns.
As for the voting present...
144 times out of 4000?
I balance that against the terrible votes that have ended up costing us a trillion dollars, and thousands of lives, plus the destruction of the American moral place in the world, and the privitization of the under arms military with the Blackwaters and the CACI's of the world, and I could really give a shit if he was off smoking pot for those 144 times.
As to the rest of your argument talking about him being black enough, you, like Krugman, can kiss my ass.
Barry is too wet behind his big ears to get through the general election.
He'd stutter through a debate with Romney, Guiliani, or Huckleberry and look kind of dumb while he's at it.
Is it too early to ask for UN &/or EU Election monitoring teams; Jimmy Carter & crew?
With the recent elections history here in the USoA, I'd say we still need lots of reliable help in trying to keep it as straight as possible ...
On another reality check:
Corporate media, btw, only excluded Kucinich from that blank debate. Gore Vidal has some choice comments on that one.
Even Ron Paul (now currently advising merely gradual emancipation of slaves) was welcome.
But Kucinich was prevented from joining in for all to hear. Surely that tells most of us something about who the owners (not just slave owners) don't want us listening to ...
Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on December 24, 2007 7:15 PM:What are the odds Steve's ass is really big enough for all the wonderful citizens he invites to kiss it?
Does he ever just sit on it?
Spotty Dog wrote on December 24, 2007 7:20 PM:Krugman doesn't like Obama. Who knows what personal or professional slights impact the rather enormous egos of the lot of the NYT columnists. It may or may not be policy based, but clearly he has his knickers in twist over the Senator. I believe that, as a columnist (not a reporter), he takes license to stir up controversy and intensify readership - it's his job.
On the facts - I'll take any Democrat over any Republican in 08 (or forever). No one is perfect. All support unions, all support increased healthcare, all support choice, all want to get us out of Iraq (as opposed to all the current lot of late 19th century pith-headed republican candidates who favor endless colonial occupation - except for that Ayn Rand whack job Ron Paul)...
Both John Edwards and Obama voiced opposition to the oppo ads run by 527 in the Democratic primaries. Haven't heard a peep from Hillary about this. But I am sure that when she becomes the target, she'd join John and Barack. (Hey, it's politics).
re: 527 ads paid for by AFSME. Paul Krugman wants to parse words with Obama and reconstruct his response as an attack on unions, because he just doesn't like the guy. If Obama is the nominees of the Democratic Party, the unions will support him. He's not anti-union, and he's not a verbal hard-knucklers. Why do you think the Repubicans FEAR an Obama candidacy the most? Obama has the potential to transform the chess board and make the Republican party as irrelevant politically as is it bankrupt morally. (Not to say that an Edwards or Clinton Presidency wouldn't also be good for America).
and to Donald from Hawaii (gee, I hope you're not my cousin Donald from Hawaii, brah). Obama's loss to Bobby Rush had less to do with Obama and more to do with Bobby, who was and remains a hero to many (northsiders and southsiders, alike).
Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on December 24, 2007 7:15 PM:
What are the odds Steve's ass is really big enough for all the wonderful citizens he invites to kiss it?
Does he ever just sit on it?
Sorry Wholly Rogue Emperor.....
I just get really pissed at this whole bullshit "black enough" line.
Really pushes me over the line.
I also agree with you on the UN/EU elections oversight. Would never happen, but it would be nice to hear someone from our tribe bring it up.
And on the whole "kiss my ass" thing, that reminds me, whatever happened to Cliff Schecter (sp?)
I always liked his dismissive tone for dissecting bullshit. I miss seeing him on TeeVee.
Okay, Steve, I think I hear you, at least to some hole, er, I mean point .... whoops, there I go, over another line ...
Sure, though, there's always more than enough old bullshit 'black enough' to be long gone already -- we wish! I always prefer to *consider the source*!
But, I ask you, if Obama were really the most *progressive* voice to be heard in this contest, why was it not he, rather than Kucinich, who was booted out of that CSM (corporate stream media) 'debate'?
And if Obama were really for providing opportunities for people to have their voices heard, why did he not object to his fellow, albeit rival, Dem candidate Kucinich from being ousted?
None of them did object, of course; that would have been just too decent -- after all, what do we think we can reasonably expect from competing candidates for the highest office in America today? fair play, mutual respect, common decency?
Presumably not; we will most likely be told to get real and perhaps kiss someone's ... what was it?
Sorry, Steve, I'm ignorant (innocent) about Cliff Schecter; but I do enjoy witty satire from time to time. However, talk about being pushed over the line! I had to trash my TV several years ago -- way too much BS noise for my discerning preferences! ;-o
I try to inform myself via the web these days. So much more satisfying than the old tube ...
Yeah, maybe there will be citizens' groups by then to monitor our own elections! We should support that definitely!
If you like progressive maybe you would enjoy giving Kucinich a hearing!
xox
(no not there again!) heeheeeheee
Wholly Rogue Emperor.....
I HAVE given DK serious looks. I love the guy, I really do. I saw a video interview he did with a woman on Syrian TV that made me cry, because of the way he was expressing the voice of those of us in the United States that do not agree with our Government's covert/overt policies in the ME. He stated that we should appologize for some of our actions in the past, and I agree with that. I am one of those that believe's that we are responsible for the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1977. I think that the United States should take responsibility for our covert CIA overthrow of the democraticly elected government of Mossadegh in 1952, because he was nationalizing the Oil Industry and throwing out Standard Oil and British Petroleum. Kermit Roosevelt oversaw the coup that displaced Maossadegh and replaced him with a torturing totalitarian in the Shah. That was a whole generation of young people that grew up in poverty an oppression, seeding the ground for the fundamentalist Islamic mullahs to offer them another vision to fight against oppression. We did that. So, these students rose up against their oppressors, and took hostages. We have since then demonized them for taking the only action they saw as being able to insure that the United States wasn't going to come in again like they did in 52. Radical? Sure. What the hell would we do if someone came in and threw out our president, and then that government locked us up and tortured us for 25 years?
That being said, I find the concilliatory tone in Obama's foreign policy to be in line what I think about America. I see him as having an enlightened view in what it will take to restore America's Stature in the world on the Moral plane that it was after WWII. The ability to listen, and take responsibility is what has been lacking in American foreign Policy since Kennedy.
That being said though, I also am not quite the peacenik that Dennis is. I think that Afghanistan/Paki-hills is a fight that is righteous and we need to finish. I am not willing to let Bin Laden get away with the world trade center massacre. I see where the ownership of our foreign policy by Big Oil since the Johnson Administration, and the way we have walked all over the people of the ME in hypocritic two faced ways has formented Al Queada, and allowed it to prosper, I also see that what is called for at this point is a multifaceted robust foreign policy that uses Humanitarian relief and education in some quarters, alongside fighting the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Queada. I think it needs to be done with overwhelming military force in the same way that Powell and Schwartzkoff did it in the first gulf war. The Heroin production out of northern Afghanistan MUST be dealt with, and a thorough cleaning house must be done in the halls of the CIA as well as the Pentagon to see that no covert malfeasonce is taking place in that regard. (Covert drug traffiking for funding illegal ops comes to mind).
So as you can see, I am not quite the dove that DK is, but I see Obama's thinking as being more in line with my own in this regard, and he isn't afraid to tell the truth about it. In this time when everyone is still disgusted with Iraq, he is still stating out front that Afghanistan isn't over yet.
As to calling out on DK's behalf with the DMR, I think he probably saw that as being a pointless battle that would probably just look like pandering theatre, and he doesn't go down that road.
Peace.
Hi Steve,
We seem to agree on a lot of issues and versions of history as well.
Where we disagree:
I don't believe bombing the Afghan people (suspected terrorists every one as you may imagine! esply when they are blown away and no longer breathe let alone speak for themselves) will do much good in promoting our moral standing in the world or ensuring world peace and prosperity either.
I can enthusiastically support using some kind of police force to go after the bad guys committing the atrocities, cultivating and pushing the heroin etc, or pulling off the inside bombing job on the WTC buildings, fooling us into illegal wars etc etc, stealing several elections, and generally corrupting our whole system and trashing our Constitution.
I support indicting the criminals and bringing them to justice. I don't think nuking Washington DC would do the trick with the proper precision. But once we re-establish a bona-fide Justice Dept we can start getting the job done with the cops and the courts, constitutionally.
Imagine! Justice in action here in the "Homeland"! I just love that scheme!
Once we clean up our own act sufficiently, I might support going after other world-class criminals not native to our land. But not with nukes or big bunker-busting bombs because we destroy too many innocent lives that way.
Besides that's only led to more corruption because it was never legal anyway ...
First we need to return to abiding by the laws of humanity etc. Treaties, Conventions, Courts of Justice ...things that serve the interests of humanity -- you know ...
I read that Obama's team told some nuclear power protesters that they had to remove themselves to the 'free speech zone'! Is that what he learned from the Bush boys? To emulate them? Too bad ... Doesn't sound convincing then about giving people any real voice in what happens ...
Obama needn't worry about seeming to pander if that's not what he's doing; he might think better of our intelligence. He might have said something wrt DK's dismissal!
I was really pleased to hear about your experience of listening to DK's messages; you clearly have a great deal of real empathy for people, and I think that's extremely healthy and all too rare these days of terror.
I am afraid I've finally had to admit to myself that I now truly believe that the bad guys in our own gov't did the WTC job! It's hard to grasp this, and it'll probly be generations before it's widely accepted and shown to be the actual fact of the matter.
Take care.
Obama would still be better than some of those in the race. I suppose I prefer him to HRC, at least on some days. I prefer Edwards of those 'top three' though.
But Dennis is the only one who really does it for me! I believe he's actually the wisest and most sane of them all!
Of course, blowing people away with bombs does seem terribly insane and counter productive; know what I mean?
Then telling yourself all your victims were terrorists! OMG!
hello_world wrote on December 24, 2007 11:17 PM:Edwards was my Senator back when he actually was in the Senate and had a chance to put his money where his mouth was in Congress. I cannot tell you how disappointed I was with him by the time his term was up. He accomplished nothing, and was a non-entity for 6 years there. There wasn't a single person that I knew, whether they had voted for Edwards originally or not, that wanted him back. He was done in his own home state.
He then went on to his Presidential run, which was mostly notable for the fact that he avoided anything resembling criticizing Kerry, and basically positioned himself for the Vice Presidency (very deftly, I'll add) from the start.
Everyone knows the results of that election, where the trial lawyer looked lost debating against Dick Cheney (and somehow managed to look less personable than freaken Darth Vader), failed to contribute anything to his ticket other than photo ops, and later distanced himself from Kerry (who despite his flaws is a good and courageous person who is a good Senator for his state).
Edwards has spent the last 3 1/2 years in focus groups, so he can now speak the lingo. Pardon me for not being overly impressed. After all, I saw him up close, and color me very skeptical of Edwards, the populist. People can change for the better, but IMO, Edwards has been a political opportunist for much too long for me to not view him somewhat jadedly. On the other hand, Obama's actions have by and large matched his record, and I can honestly say that I feel he is being the most honest with voters about what his positions and intentions would be as President.
Whatever is eating Krugman over Obama's positions on 527's and health care, for me as a voter, I feel Obama is on the right side of both these issues, and his positions seem to be genuine.
Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on December 25, 2007 12:31 AM:Steve et al --
Here's a link to Krugman's complete NYT piece on the CommonDreams site which includes comments from readers, and some of those comments are quite *choice* indeed! Enjoy!
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/24/5983/
Guess who many CD's readers keep mentioning! Our dear Dennis!! So, you know I couldn't resist this one!
And, there's a good (very good) long entry from a 'tj' who gives some real-sounding labor history too! Truly Excellent!
Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on December 25, 2007 1:33 AM:Steve,
Another item about my reservations wrt Obama.
You mentioned his honesty in discussing how it's not over in Afghanistan even though so many of us have become disgusted with the Iraq spectacle.
Dennis, of course, was *never* fooled by the lies and deceits of BushCo and his preferred choice for predetermined preemptive war, while all the others (speaking of the top dems), as I understand it, were evidently completely taken in or just willing to go along with Bush's sociopathic predilections.
One day recently I saw a short clip of Obama asserting his view of the dangerous threat posed by Iran! This was before we heard about that God-send NIE which gave the complete lie to that GOP-favored line/story (Cheney's wet dream some say to attack yet another nation which couldn't do us much harm even if they tried).
Not that Obama's closest rivals (poll-wise) are any more enlightened than he seems to be!
But Dennis Kucinich has always been hip to that hellish plot -- he knew it was insane from the beginning.
He had more *intelligence* than the whole BushCo administration apparently did, and it didn't cost us billions and billions of dollars for him to share it with us! hahhahaa
Just consider: why are all the others consistently getting it wrong wrong wrong? literally too, ie over and over and over?
Are they listening to the war-mongering profiteers perhaps? Do you think? Like the State dept listens to Blackwater killers etc? Do you think?
How are they so easily convinced of the 'reasonableness' of such insane deceits?
How are their self-interests affected and tied in with their delusional conclusions? They are not always that thick about everything; right? What do you think?
I guess reality was just 'off the table'!
hello_world wrote on December 25, 2007 2:22 AM:Wholly Rogue Emperor
There is nothing wrong with being realistic and honest about potential threats that we might face. In case you hadn't heard, Iran is still not a friend of the US. They currently have a very different worldview from us and often pursue geo-political interests that run counter to ours. And they do happen to be in a position to be a potential threat to the US, if not with nukes like Bush was desperately trying to push, economically and politically. It would be a mistake to assume that just because the Bush administration is incompetent, corrupt, and completely untrustworthy that the world at large is all sunshine and roses.
There's a huge difference between Obama speaking about what are legitimate concerns and what Bush and Cheney want to accomplish in the Middle East. We all know that Obama was prepared to vote against the Kyle/Lieberman bill before he had the rug whipped out from under him by Reid's maneuvering after he assured Obama that there would be no vote on the bill that weekend. This is the same Kyle/Lieberman bill that Clinton supported that effectively gave Bush the authority to act against Iran at his discretion.
Kucinich is a good man, and I've long had respect for him. I give him credit for his foresight before we went into Iraq, in the same way I give Obama credit for his foresight in publicly speaking out against the invasion. However, Kucinich is not a realistic candidate, and it doesn't look like he's trying very hard to be a realistic candidate either. If he was, he would have had at least one precinct office open in Iowa, and wouldn't have been excluded in the last debate. If Alan Keyes could, Kucinich could. Instead, his wife talks about her tongue ring, and he talks about seeing ufo's, and supporters like you bring up "reality" and Kucinich in the same conversation with a surprising lack of self-awareness.
Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on December 25, 2007 4:44 AM:hello_world
I will admit to not being real big on tongue rings myself, but other than that I'm afraid we just probly are not attuned to the same channel!
But, at any rate, I hope that doesn't make you feel that I'm a threat to your survival or geo-political interests.
Well, okay, maybe I might be opposed to furthering some of your interests, I suppose. But still, I'm not likely to try to drop big clouds of white phosphorus on your parade or anything ...
I get the feeling you believe you really know all about it all already; so I won't waste our time trying to give you another perspective.
Thanks for sharing so much of your fear and loathing. Hope you feel better soon.
hello_world wrote on December 25, 2007 7:31 AM:Fear and loathing? White phosphorus? What?
If you're trying to equate two people having a relatively civil conversation on an online message board about what appear to be fairly minor political differences into some kind of epic cliche-driven struggle for survival, I'm afraid you seem to have lost me somewhere, sorry.
john mccutchen wrote on December 25, 2007 10:24 AM:A Krugman Carol
Special Interest Groups Plan Barrage Of Attack Ads, Mailings in Iowa
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/24/AR2007122401867.html
Wholly Rogue Emperor wrote on December 25, 2007 12:55 PM:Greetings hello_world
It's okay; don't be afraid; maybe you'll find yourself, and my having lost you won't really matter so much.
Actually, I suspect our political differences are huge, as well as our many many other differences about almost everything. Altho we are in agreement about the tragic American case of the Bush administration.
I was actually trying to suggest to you before that, even with our differences exposed and clearly visible (eg we hardly agree on anything), I don't want that realization to frighten you, make you feel threatened.
Because, like the Iranians for instance, you must know that my worldview is certainly very very far from yours; perhaps I am even closer to them than to you in my outlook and interests.
And it just seems to me that you are yourself terrified of them (those 'still unfriendly' Iranians) for all the differences you are already able to detect in their case.
And admittedly they do seem adverse to being bullied and dominated by BushCo so that they'd put our interests above their own just to demonstrate their goodwill and all. Not to mention getting robbed blind, enslaved, etc ...
Of course, I try not to let BushCo ruin my life either, in fact, although I regard him as an enemy and criminal traitor to my country, I wouldn't advocate dropping a bunker-busting bomb on his neighborhood bunker. Instead I'm hoping we Americans can and will eventually re-establish the rule of law and then take care of him and his gang in the most humane way.
But there I went, revealing more than I'd actually intended, just because ... well, who knows? The holidays maybe? The spirit of Goodwill towards men or humanity -- whatever!
Cheers!
krugman: In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
where is the condemnation for hillary's panicked response characterizing obama's proposal to lift the cap on social security as a middle class tax hike? fear-mongering about tax hikes is a republican response.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 25, 2007 5:14 PM:kohoutek:
If Obama had been molesting hamsters, it would be readily accepted by the Democratic Party . . . Hell, in my book that is a selling point . . .
What troubles me about the ROCKSTAR, Oprah gal pal and Constitutional scholar is two-fold:
1. Obama remains Mr. chime in five to seven days later and just to the right of every one else . . ., and
2. Obama had two real opportunities to display real leadership on human rights issues and chose to announce he was blowing town actually sticking around and casting a vote would cut into campaign time AND the idea of being a leader by standing up and filibustering the further shitcanning of human rights in America was ludicrious cuz it would mean that American citizens deserve rights.
The Primaries woulda be over if Obama had even an iota of the capacity to lead.
Jeanruss,
America is more than ready for a black to be President. Additionally, read Krugman's last book and you will understand how inappropriate it is to infer racism as his reason for declaring that Obama is the wrong person for the job of President.
yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 6:37 PM:1. Obama remains Mr. chime in five to seven days later and just to the right of every one else
on the contrary, obama recovered better in mitigating damage with his driver license answer than hillary did with hers.
2. Obama had two real opportunities to display real leadership on human rights issues and chose to announce he was blowing town actually sticking around and casting a vote would cut into campaign time
obama's stance was known before and after the kyle-lieberman vote. it wasn't like he was trying to duck the issue. he was told the vote wasn't going to take place and when he was finally informed, it was too late to return.
yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 6:40 PM:and just to the right of every one else
it is not obama who is indulging in rightwing tactics like muslim baiting and character assassination for youthful drug experimentation.
yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 6:43 PM:The Primaries woulda be over if Obama had even an iota of the capacity to lead.
if obama is so inconsequential, why would the clintons bother going all out to take him down?
DemAC wrote on December 25, 2007 7:26 PM:yesterday gone wrote: it is not obama who is indulging in rightwing tactics like muslim baiting and character assassination for youthful drug experimentation.That’s true. Obama’s more into the “echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security” as Dr. Krugman correctly points out. Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 9:42 PM:
That’s true. Obama’s more into the “echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security” as Dr. Krugman correctly points out.
go back in the 90s and you see bill clinton using the term "crisis" to describe social security.
not only that, bill clinton considered supporting privatization of social security.
yesterday gone wrote on December 25, 2007 9:47 PM:That’s true. Obama’s more into the “echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security” as Dr. Krugman correctly points out.
obama made an error of semantics. compare that to the multiple examples of the clintons legislating to the right.
one wrong word versus the all the years of rightwing policies that the clintons have supported. but obama is the bad guy...because he isn't perfect.
SickoLover wrote on December 26, 2007 12:32 AM:If Krugman wants to play presidential Kingmaker, he might want to start thinking about the challenging and complex dynamics of helping one become King, as opposed to just helping one become solely a NOMINEE for King. Being just the Democratic Nominee for King ain't that great of a deal. Just ask Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.
bridoc wrote on December 26, 2007 11:09 AM:Krugman needs to stick to economics because his little whiny hurt-pride vendetta against Obama is getting old, and he continually gives away his lack of understanding of politics and the candidates.
Getting old Krugman, you aren't the liberal knight you want to be, you are an establishment phoney if there ever was one.
