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

Comments (405)

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

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

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

Go Hillary! You're kicking arse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is this about tenacity?

Or is this about personality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krugman needs to STFU!!!

Here is what Alter has to say:

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

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

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

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

snip

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death! Death to Krugman! Burn the heretic!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Krugman is right on!

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

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

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

Krugman needs to STFU!!!

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

Krugman's son works for Hillary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, he makes good points about political rhetoric too.

So, why is Obama my man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Can we do 23?"

"Make it 18 and you have a deal!"

"18 it is!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*shakes head*

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

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

December 19, 2007

POLL: Rasmussen Iowa Democratic Caucus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outstanding, outstanding analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bridoc-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting conversation. Thanks, Greg, for posting it.

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

This:

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

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

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

So that's my only issue with this.

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

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

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

John, also very good examples.

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

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

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

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

I also agree with some of what Krugman says.

But I disagree with his constant attacking of Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

So, you just made Krugman’s point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"PK is a hack..."?

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

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

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

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

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

Lots of hat. Not much cattle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, you just made Krugman’s point.

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

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

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

Unfortunately, he's exactly wrong on this count.

Alter, at newsweek, breaks it down :

linky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

savvy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Alter piece is fantastic--thanks for posting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith:

Thanks for the great link!

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

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

savvy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about someone who is centrist?

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

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

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

My advice to Krugman?

Stick to the world of finance ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick and others who share this fallacious view of Obama:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a break, John.

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

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

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

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

Daniela:

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

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

JFK said that politics is the art of the possible.

Obama is approaching it in the same manner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short:

All this talk of 'bipartisanship' is overrated.

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

It was a game to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uh...

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

Clinton?

EDWARDS!!!???

And for how long?

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

The economy does.

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

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

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

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

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

Come on fellow serfsm, are you with me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well Mr. Krugman.

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

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

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

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

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

savvy writes:
Krugman needs to STFU!!!

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

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

Wow, that sounds like some great new politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's OVERTLY for Edwards.

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

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

Have you been paying attention?

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

Nonsense.

@Liam

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

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

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

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

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

one would think?

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

I agree with Greg's assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't be fooled by hope.

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

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

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

She is not what our country needs right now.

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

guarantees coverage for everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 5:01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

surely you have a great mind, dontcha?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anon @ 5:54:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poster "No personal attacks" Savvy writes:

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

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

[rimshot, laughter]

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

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 6:03 PM:

Keith: Read what Krugman has said about Obama's plan. He does not think it covers everyone. I don't think Obama claims that it does either.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/07/5687/

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 6:03 PM:

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

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 6:04 PM:

'How, pray tell, might either side hope to "ram" anything through.'

See: Harry Reid's attempts to ram immunity through.

Senate leadership can "ram" when they decide to.

Like I said earlier:

SCHIP passed with support from republicans.

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

republicans in sensitive districts will vote for universal healthcare if they know there is a risk of being booted from office during the next cycle.

No need for this 'bipartisanship' everyone keeps talking about.

There is right and wrong.

Those who continue to be on the wrong side of this issue choose to be for reasons that have nothing to do with 'bipartisanship'.

PeeJ wrote on December 19, 2007 6:05 PM:

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

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

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

Trover wrote on December 19, 2007 6:06 PM:

This is a horrible debate, and it's terribly self-defeating for Mr. Krugman to ratchet this thing up simply because (as I understand) the Obama camp conducted some preliminary "opposition research" on him, based on his initial critical NYT column.

Outrage--where appropriate--can be a useful contribution to public debate. It's carried Mr. Krugman far, generally with my good wishes, because there has been a great deal to be outraged about.

But it's no reason to turn on Mr. Obama, by far the best candidate the party has had since Bill Clinton. I personally find Mr. Obama's substance far more progressive than his opponents, and I think I'm pretty wacky progressive. And Mr. Obama's ability to sell progressive ideas to the general public is stronger too. Nobody wins this one. Please stop!

Danielle Clarke wrote on December 19, 2007 6:08 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom wrote on December 19, 2007 6:08 PM:

Krugman is an American hero. He's just calling it like he sees it. Obama's a corporate media creation: a nice-sounding non-threatening black guy. But when you look deeper, you see there's nothing there. He's an idiot with policies that don't work, just like Bush, and he's a liar for claiming different. Edwards is the real deal. He has actual policies that make sense. Policies are what matter because that's what we're electing him to do. Edwards will give us universal health care. Obama won't. Simple as that

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 6:09 PM:

Little Ole Jim:

Again, the distinction here is whether Obama's plan covers everyone. It does. It does not require that they obtain that coverage. That's what's got Krugman so fired up--well that and that Obama's first approach isn't to require coverage (mandates).

When the debate is couched in these less than loaded terms, it makes it pretty much a question of tactics, than strategy. At least to me.

Me wrote on December 19, 2007 6:09 PM:

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

common cents wrote on December 19, 2007 6:11 PM:

yeah Nick - I do believe that ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama 08

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 6:13 PM:

Gosh, I do not know if I would be drawing attention to David Brooks' column if I were an Obama fan (which I am). It is complimentary, to be sure, but Brooks' endorsement is a negative, not a positive, in my book.

James S. wrote on December 19, 2007 6:14 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Josh W. wrote on December 19, 2007 6:15 PM:

Yet when you look at Edwards' and Clinton's progressive rhetoric it doesn't match their record in the senate where both bent over backwards to appease the Administration. Both voted for the War and Patriot Act and were quite proud and public of their votes even though they were among the minority of Dems at the time.

At least Edwards has apologized. Is it heartfelt? It's certainly been convenient for him to always be on the side of popular opinion. Certainly neither were there when it counted the last 7 years. What short memories we all have.

Or is it really when you come down to it, as Krugman reveals, the war really don't matter at all, does it? Just as long as the state takes care of us good and proper. What's a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis?

This is the last progressive shot were going to have for the next 12 - 32 and were pissing it away. Congratulations America, congratulations Krugman, you're going to get the President you deserve.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 6:16 PM:

Krugman is WRONG, here's why.

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

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

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

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

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 6:19 PM:

Reality Check for Mr. Krugman.

The Clintons had eight years to get it done your way.

They did nothing about it.

Get real. You want to give them another eight years to try again.

Hillary brags about her eight years experience in the White House.

When it comes to health care, all I see is her eight years of catastrophic failure, and abject surrender on the issue. She was toast within the first year, and did not even try again during the remaining seven years.

She made things worse for the average family . She got nothing done. You could call her the Michael Brown of health care.

Time to get out of the way, and let someone else lead. She already failed and did not even run out the ground ball.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 6:19 PM:

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

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

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

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 6:23 PM:

Again, the distinction here is whether Obama's plan covers everyone. It does. It does not require that they obtain that coverage..

Keith: Krugman disagrees, and his points make sense to me. Without mandates, many young healthy people will opt not to participate…until they get less health and buy in. Many rich people may opt not to participate…until they get less rich or less healthy. Many people will not participate because they are, shall we say, a little slack and/or uninformed.

Without universal participation, the coverage will be more expensive for those who do buy in. Real universal coverage includes everyone.

Henry CA wrote on December 19, 2007 6:24 PM:

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

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 6:25 PM:

Liam, And the thing that is really amazing about the clinton healthcare plan of 93, she refused to negotiate with a democratic congress!!!!!! And then wound up, along with mr. bill, in costing the dems control of congress because of their arrogance. Hello? Do we want more of the same? Absolutely not, anybody but clinton II in 08.

Krugman is hurting the dem party by these unwarranted attacks as are mr. bill and clinton II with their attacks on obama. All three of them obviously don't care about people, they only care about their own agendas, which is promoting themselves. Screw normal people and screw america as long as they can get power and self-aggrandizement. What a shame. Our country needs alot of changes and the clintons aren't cut out to accomplish those changes. Let's turn the page.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 6:26 PM:

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

Jonathan Alter FAILS for simply uttering those words.

LOL.

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

@savvy

from your link

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

Uh...

That is NOT even the case?

Furthermore, it's a REPUBLICAN meme.

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

Get it now people?

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

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

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 6:29 PM:

'The Clintons had eight years to get it done your way.'

Liam is hardheaded.

Krugman criticized ALL THREE PLANS.

And has repeatedly stated he favors EDWARDS'.

No need to mention Clinton again.

kjoe wrote on December 19, 2007 6:31 PM:

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

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

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 6:31 PM:

Dear Michael A,

I am not sure why you are insisting that Krugman is "shilling" for Clinton. It is definitely the case that he is taking issue with Obama, but that is not the same thing as supporting Clinton.

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 6:33 PM:

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

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 6:33 PM:

Little Ole Jim:

We aren't disagreeing at all. I agree that it doesn't require everyone to obtain coverage. You said Obama's plan doesn't cover everyone and I corrected you.

As for the economics, I'm not in a position to argue with you or Krugman at this point because we don't have the actual parameters of the program. At this point, the best model we have is Masschusetts' plan and from what I understand the jury is still out on the plan's effectivness in cutting cost and universal participation (notwithstanding its mandate).

Josh W. wrote on December 19, 2007 6:34 PM:

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

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 6:35 PM:

By the way, the correct headline for this should be:

"In An Interview, TPM and Krugman Ramp Up Case Against Obama"

onceler wrote on December 19, 2007 6:35 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

twompks wrote on December 19, 2007 6:36 PM:

In the end, Krugman’s and Clinton’s approach is the same, old tired “which side are you on?” politics that got Reagan and the Bushes elected and made the Democrats a minority party. Obama’s “what problem can we solve?” politics will make the Democrats a majority for at least a generation, if only we have the good sense to nominate him.

BOTTOM LINE wrote on December 19, 2007 6:36 PM:

As posted above, this really cannot be improved:

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

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 6:38 PM:

Gregg, well, why else is he doing it then is my point? I didn't read the last op-ed but it seemed like non-stop attacks against obama. Obviously, there is an agenda. People don't do things for the heck of it. Also, obama is beating clinton II at this point in the early states or is a major, major threat to win at least, so by attacking obama he is helping clinton II. The clintons' have all but admitted a loss in iowa and are hoping for edwards to win there, again krugman's attacks help this strategy as well. It just seems kind of odd that krugman is attacking a candidate that is more progressive than clinton II for not being progressive enough and oh, by chance, he is leading in the early states. Seems like an agenda to me.

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 6:38 PM:

As opposed to Hillary who is for Hopeless.

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

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

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

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 6:39 PM:

Sure it can, with actual facts rather than unsupportable suppositions.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 6:47 PM:

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

nogo war wrote on December 19, 2007 6:47 PM:

Geeze...
There are very many folks whose writings and action I respect. However,; although they may be a factor they are not the decider.

My love is music. I ask myself
WWWD (What would Woody do?)

When I see musician/activists on stage for John Edwards..(the same two who came to Colorado over 25 years ago and helped us shut down the Rocky Flats "Trigger Factory"
that means something..

When I can link to Clinton or Obama youtubes and listen to similar folk,,
I will..
Yeah I know this might seem superficial..
but it was music that has provided the beat.

(C'mon don't ya remember "Don't Stop Thinking about tomorrow"...and believing "The Time has Come Today"?)

yes I Went to MPLS in 2004 to be reminded by musical political voices like Neil..Bruce etc..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3goJ6YUjE70

correctnotright wrote on December 19, 2007 6:48 PM:

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

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

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

We can't afford another weak debate like that.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 6:49 PM:

'It just seems kind of odd that krugman is attacking a candidate that is more progressive than clinton II'

Would someone please explain how this is so?

With actual evidence.

Non anecdotal please.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on December 19, 2007 6:53 PM:

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

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 6:54 PM:

Maybe you should ask the gravel campaign willy. Also, you could actually read some of the posts on this thread, as opposed to skimming to throw in one liners to support clinton II.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 7:01 PM:

'Maybe you should ask the gravel campaign willy. '

What does that have to do with anything.

No evidence to back up your claim? I see.

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

Um...

I did.

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

Uh...

I haven't.

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

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

One more time:

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

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

You decide?

susan wrote on December 19, 2007 7:02 PM:

As Obama should be scrutinized. We have had Bush , Clinton,Bush..now another Clinton...and we are supposed to think we have change with Obama..whilst according to expert geneologist at wargs, Obama on his moms side is related to 4 presidents both Bush's are twop of them also a VP-related to Cheney...3 senators..2 congressmen..2 supreme ct justices..2 governors 1 UK prime minister..3 members of nobility..............the same with Richardson these men are very well connected....and are in the elite inner circle of the entitled...So you think you are getting change think again!

JMEB wrote on December 19, 2007 7:02 PM:

I'm Paul Krugman's newest fan.

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

Thanks, TPM for sharing this interview - fascinating!

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 7:02 PM:

savvy:

Asking whether you should STFU wasn't meant to be a personal attack. It was meant to point out that you really didn't have the room to tell Krugman to STFU. It was clear to me that your read on the interview above was marred by your blind support for Obama. So hopefully that helps you see where I was coming from. Nothing personal, but maybe if you don't know what your talking about you should STFU?

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 7:05 PM:

Susan McCauley wrote:

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

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

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

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

Imelda Blahnik wrote on December 19, 2007 7:06 PM:

To all the Obama supporters - I have a question: If criticism and policy suggestions from the likes of Krugman lead Obama to reconsider universal mandates, to abandon talk of the Soc. Sec. "crisis," and to embrace rather than disdain many of the ideals (dare I say, 'hopes') of progressives on healthcare, etc., would that be a bad thing?

I love the way people try to discredit Krugman's political writings by pointing out he's "just" an economist. Jonathan Alter is just a writer for a magazine. PK has been analyzing international political economy and domestic politics for years, and is at least as qualified as Jonathan Alter to write on politics. Give me a f@&%@ing break.

Sharon wrote on December 19, 2007 7:07 PM:

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

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 7:11 PM:

Actually, I'm for kucinich. Talk about intellectually dishonest, virtually every one of your posts have been intellectually dishonest. I've gone round and round with this issue with clinton II bots for months and I'm actually tired of doing it. Maybe you should read some of my other posts or talk to some of the other clinton II people.

Well, I'll bite on one issue, that reveals how not progressive clinton II is. Check out her war votes, wow, that's really "progressive." She voted to invade a freaking country and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis. She voted to kill women and children. She voted to maim hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis. She voted to bomb and destroy schools, homes, hospitals. She voted to amp up for another war with iran based on bs. And by the way, she didn't even read the freaking NIE saying that the king's case for war against iraq was a freaking lie??? Uh, sounds real "progressive" to me.

Basically, I'll be happy with any dem nominee other than clinton II, who isn't a dem anyway. By the way, I don't see anything in the original post discussing krugman's "analysis" of the other health care plans critical of clinton II's plan. Gee, I wonder why.

bc wrote on December 19, 2007 7:11 PM:

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

Jor wrote on December 19, 2007 7:12 PM:

I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination.

This is a joke right? Are you kidding me. Does anyone believe this at all? Hillaray and Obama are worlds apart on foreign policy. Just look at their past records. Hillary has been consistantly wrong for the past 6 years. The Iraq war is continually polling as the #1 or #2 most important issue for people. Krugman himself has written tons of article on the bungled wars. He should just come out and say he is avoiding foreign policy because he knows it would not wind up favoring his chosen candidate.

Jon wrote on December 19, 2007 7:12 PM:

What a bunch of cry babies!!

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

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

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

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

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 7:17 PM:

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

shurik wrote on December 19, 2007 7:18 PM:

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

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 7:20 PM:

Nah keith, just some new clinton II talking points.

silence wrote on December 19, 2007 7:20 PM:

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

I'm not sure I trust the cats though.

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 7:21 PM:

The Democratic Party is the people's party. Not the party of the elite who dictate from on high.

Mr. Krugman's opinion is just his, and should not be treated like he brought it down from the mountains, carved on a stone tablet. Leave that type of blind allegiance to the other side, who are now swarming mindless ly around their chosen Huckster Bee.

The Democratic Party was at it strongest, when it was energized from the working class base, and it's leaders took their guidance from the voters who had to deal with the common cares of their every day working class lives.

We have to get back to that. Let Krugman pontificate from on high. He still only gets to cast one vote, like the rest of us. Think for yourselves. I am sick of having the party elites dictate how our party should function.

We have let them do so for far too long, and their way has gotten us trounced, over and over.

I will give you one example of how out of touch the elites can be.

Think back to the 2004 presidential race.

George Soros took out a full page ad in the Wall St. Journal. That cost a fortune, by blue collars standards.

You know who reads that paper, and who they will always vote for. Soros was so out of touch, that he actually thought the Wall St Journal Ad was going to change the vote intentions of those who read the bible of the Idle Rich .

Think for yourselves, and vote for who you favor. Ignore those who talk down to you.

America was never better than when We The Working Class People decided for ourselves who we wanted to lead us.
Those voters have been driven out of the party, and they are now mostly Independents.

Obama wants to welcome them back home to their party, and so do I.

Orikinla Osinachi wrote on December 19, 2007 7:23 PM:

The most rational analysis of Senator Barack Obama without sentiments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A smart politician can say anything to win an election.

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

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 7:32 PM:

The real question is can Obama play in the Big Leagues.

Hillary came in with a four hundred batting average, John Edwards 333, and Senator Obama as rookie.

Take a look at what has happened in the heat of the stretch drive for the championship. Obama has batted five hundred, Hillary has committed a series of very costly fielding errors, and has struck out a lot. Meanwhile Edwards has maintained his average but has not produced it the clutch.

Since the heat has been turned on, Obama has been the one who has stepped up his game, and surpassed the veteran sluggers.

Phil Graves wrote on December 19, 2007 7:36 PM:

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

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

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

TruthSeeker wrote on December 19, 2007 7:37 PM:

Krugman is a psuedo-intellectual. What kind of "thinker" parrots the talking points for a campaign?? It's obvious to anyone objectively following this nonsense that he's in bed with the Clinton campaign. As such, his credibility is out the window. Give me someone who knows how to think for him/herself!

nogo war wrote on December 19, 2007 7:42 PM:

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

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

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

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 7:44 PM:

It's worth noting Krugman's last big policy prediction in regards to the Clintons, was his 110% endorsement of NAFTA. And he also bought into the ENRON and deregulation hype and was on their payroll. His track record really isn't so great.

Krugman on NAFTA: 1993:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19931201facomment5212/paul-krugman/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-nafta-it-s-foreign-policy-stupid.html

"The truth about NAFTA may be summarized in five propositions:

? NAFTA will have no effect on the number of jobs in the United States;

? NAFTA will not hurt and may help the environment;

? NAFTA will, however, produce only a small gain in overall U.S. real income;

? NAFTA will also probably lead to a slight fall in the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers;

? For the United States, NAFTA is essentially a foreign-policy rather than an economic issue."

***

Great one Krugman. Wrong on all counts.

It's also worth mentioning Krugman has been wrong a lot lately and is going through one of his periodic swings of pandering.

The last big issue he got right was his prediction the housing bubble would lead to a various disasters. Unfortunately, he got hammered for that, and totally lost his nerve. He's spent the last several years back peddling and pandering to Clintonian "3rd way" stuff, kow-towing and eating dirt, which is exactly what got him in trouble with ENRON, NAFTA, and other blunders.

Of course the housing bubble is deflating now, and it is dangerously close to recession, only Krugman stopped being right about it years ago and swung ideologically in the other direction.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 7:46 PM:

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

Laughable.

Please provide specifics?

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

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

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

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

You have none.

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

LOL

Then OBVIOUSLY Michael A...

you didn't read Krugmans original column.

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

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

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

From June 4th.

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

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

LOL.

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 7:48 PM:

Anonymous wrote:

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

LOL - That's funny, "establishment" columnist, Paul Krugman, I think he should add this title to his CV...

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 7:52 PM:

nogo war wrote :

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

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

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

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

Think, it's not illegal yet.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 7:54 PM:

I dont know if anyone can read through ALL these comments, but if someone out there does, please give Robert Reich equal time.

lillian wrote on December 19, 2007 7:56 PM:

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

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 7:58 PM:

@ MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 7:02 PM:

Focus, focus, focus.

Why don't you get that I am not the topic of the thread? My response to Krugman was not only valid but substantiated by the analysis' that I linked to in the posts. If you were focused on substance rather than simply to retort it would be a far greater contribution to the discussion policy. For instance how about you delineate why Krugman should not STFU, if that is what you are choosing to take issue with. Notice you however, are focused on a poster and not the topic.
That is the only point. Focus on the thread topic, please.

Address why Krugman should not STFU, do not address me. Focus on the topic, Krugman and his analysis.

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 8:00 PM:

Keith wrote:

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

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

A.W. wrote on December 19, 2007 8:03 PM:

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 4:46 PM:
I think Krugman's whole schtick and rant about 'tone' is nothing but code for UPPITY.

savvy:
Before you start a rumor about Krugman and possibly that son of his hating Obama because they're virulent racists who can't stand the fact that Obama is African American, let me save you some keyboarding. He has no children and his wife, also a brilliant, accomplished academic, is African American.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 8:04 PM:

Orikinla:

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

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

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

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 8:05 PM:

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 7:44 PM:

Kozmik,

thanks for that solid information on Krugman regarding his poor ECONOMIC judgment on Enron and NAFTA. I was attempting to give the guy the benefit of the doubt with his economic analysis. As it was clear he was politically tone deaf and parroting the Clinton talking points.

Do you think he is pandering for Sec of Treasurer cabinet position or what?

It is even more dismaying to learn he doesn't have the caliber of expertise at economics as I assumed.

Which is validates my belief that he needs to STFU!

billyblog wrote on December 19, 2007 8:06 PM:

Bridoc sez:

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

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

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

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

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 8:08 PM:

savvy:

Focusing here:

Krugman should not STFU because he's smart.

You, savvy, should STFU because you're stoopid and you're an ass too.

BTW, did you ever tell us what your area of expertise was?

Lillian wrote on December 19, 2007 8:13 PM:

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

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 8:14 PM:

A.W. wrote on December 19, 2007 8:03 PM:

Krugman's indignation screams UPPITY when he refers to 'tone'

Please read the post you are responding to carefully. I am not asserting that Krugman had a son, at all. I was telling another poster that it was most likely HARRY REID's son that they were thinking of as opposed to Krugmans.

If you want to correct a post, please have accurate facts when doing so.

A.W. wrote on December 19, 2007 8:15 PM:

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

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 8:21 PM:

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

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

DonnaG wrote on December 19, 2007 8:26 PM:

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

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

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

A couple of other comments.

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

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

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 8:26 PM:

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 8:08 PM:

Mona why can't you focus on telling us what about Krugman makes him so smart that he is RIGHT and doesn't need to STFU?

He was so smart that he was wrong on NAFTA and ENRON...when folks are wrong Mona they need to STFU.

You are wrong about Krugman being smart.

I am not the topic of the thread my expertise is not relevant just as yours isn't.

Lillian wrote on December 19, 2007 8:27 PM:

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

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 8:28 PM:

MonaL:

My aren't we pithy today. Did someone help you with that response, or did you come up with it all by yourself?

Seriously, unless you have some critique with something I've written in this thread, I suggest you direct your juvenile statements in someone else's direction.

arks wrote on December 19, 2007 8:30 PM:

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

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

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 8:33 PM:

@Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 8:28 PM:
I suggest you direct your juvenile statements in someone else's direction.

Thanks Keith for your insight, I have been engaging adolescent petulance and I will cease to do so.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 8:33 PM:

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

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

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

Nan wrote on December 19, 2007 8:37 PM:

This is what I like about Paul Krugman. He is not part of the pack.

During the 200- election and in the runup to the Iraq war the entire media, including the so-called-liberal media cheered on Bush, praising his character and integrity. The one columnist to dissent from the conventional wisdom was Paul Krugman. He figured out Bush early on and was not afraid to speak his mind even when it wasn't popular to criticize Bush.

He has done the same thing this time. With all the media cheering on Obama Krugman has been a lonely voice of dissent. He has been able to see through the media propaganda and bs and to say Obama is a pure media creation, all talk, very little courage and conviction.

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

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 8:43 PM:

Nan:

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

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

Henk wrote on December 19, 2007 8:48 PM:

A.W.: Amen. It looks like the braying jackasses have taken over. Too bad.

goethean wrote on December 19, 2007 8:54 PM:

Do I sell a Sister Soulja moment?

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 8:58 PM:

Why is Mr. Krugman dwelling on the national health care isssue. Does he not realize that the Clintons solved that problem during there eight years in the White House.

They must have, right?. After all, Hillary keeps touting about her experience attained during those two terms. Surely she would not be trying to take credit for such experience, and keep on telling us that she is prepared to hit the ground running from day one, if she had not done a fantastic job on the one major project that she took control off from day one of her husband's first term.

Enjoy that great health care solution that was provided to you America by the very experienced Hillary Clinton.

Mission Accomplished, and it only took her the first few months in the White House.

Or did she. Tell us again that lovely bedtime story of how Hillary's experience was the source of our current fantastic national health care system.

goerte wrote on December 19, 2007 9:01 PM:

Krugman should stick to writing textbooks.

Nan wrote on December 19, 2007 9:08 PM:

"and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Alter is aiming to be the next David Broder.

Not a single republican voted for Clinton's economic package. Not one.

Clinton was very concilliatory, willing to negotiate,compromise, and yet the GOP wanted to lynch him from day one. Not one single republican supported his economic plan.

The GOP understands power. They are ruthless. They are not interested in compomise, unless they have to. Their goal is to destroy the opposition and win on their own terms.

billyblog wrote on December 19, 2007 9:09 PM:

Lillian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nan wrote on December 19, 2007 9:13 PM:

"If Obama, who seems to be appealing to independents and moderate Republicans much more than anyone ever would have dreamed that he would,"

Obama has never been the target of the Right Wing Noise Machine. If he were to become the nominee they would go after him and after months of swiftboating he would have very high negatives. Just like Gore. Just like Kerry.

Obama has been treated with kid gloves so far by both the GOP and the media. That would change. There is nothing in his history to indicate he can handle the blitzkrieg that awaits any Dem nominee. His supporters are fools to think he will continue to be treated so gently.

NCSteve wrote on December 19, 2007 9:17 PM:

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

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

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 9:21 PM:

Damn Lilian, don't be mad, just read the links that have been provided.

Under Obama, Edwards and Clinton plans, poor people are subsidized sufficiently so that they will have health insurance. It happens that the Clinton and Edwards plans have more generous than Obama's. Poor people will have less coverage under the Obama plan.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/07/5687/

Nan wrote on December 19, 2007 9:22 PM:

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

This sounds like a typical Obama cultist.

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

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

This is the mindset of Obama cultists.

norris morris wrote on December 19, 2007 9:31 PM:

It doesn't matter whether Krugman prefers Edwards or Hillary, or whatever.

He has discusssed the pro and cons of all the plans, and his position is clear.

Does Obama really think he's sit down with the big bad insurance daddies and they'll melt as he tells how to craft their healthcare?

Without a mandate I see nothing but simplistic naivete hoping for change,and without being able to form a program from the resolve and strategy borne of a clear universal approach.

His ideas are a compromise when we really take a close look at Edwards or Hillary's which are basically alike and promise the most for the most.

DM wrote on December 19, 2007 9:40 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

little ole jim wrote on December 19, 2007 9:43 PM:

Many of the Obama supporters and detractors are getting carried away and it seems some of them haven't even read the Krugman aritcles. You need to realize that TPM just highlighted some of the provocative quotes.

Krugman started out, and has continued to say, that Obama's plan advances the ball. It just that Krugman has been way down in the weeds fighting for clarity on workable universal health care (and social security as well) for years. If you read him, he does have significant expertise regarding these matters.

When Krugman criticizes some features of Obama's plan, he is not saying Obama is a dirty dog. He's fighting the same fight he has been fighting for years.

Obama probably snapped back forcefully for reasons I don't completely understand, because he is certainly wrong about the financial shape of Social Security. And I know Obama is smart enough to know Krugman has a legitimate argument regarding health care mandates, even if he disagrees about what is feasible.

But if Obama wins the Dem nomination, it's abundantly clear that Krugman will vote for him.

DM wrote on December 19, 2007 9:50 PM:

Krugman says:

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

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

More Krugman:

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

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

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

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

I'm confused.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 9:50 PM:

I suggest everyone read the totality of the posts on this thread. It is a glaring example of what we can expect if clinton II gets the nomination and by blind luck wins the white house. Unwarranted attacks, trashing people who dare to question her, no logical or meaningful discourse, and stagnation. Is that what you people really want? Then please by all means clinton II people vote for your candidate.

The rest of america is tired of this garbage and wants to move on from the distortions and lies. The politics of personal aggrandizement and personal destruction. The bitter political fights to divide us as a country as opposed to uniting us. To trash people who dare to hope for a better future is really, really pathetic. It is so sad a depressing. We need unity, not partisan bickering and divisions. Let's move into the 21st century.

Lillian wrote on December 19, 2007 9:52 PM:

Billyblog,

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

Gregor wrote on December 19, 2007 9:52 PM:

As if one needed further proof of Krugman's consistently muddled, foggy thinking (if not compromised) I found this quote stunning:

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

This is what happens to people when they write too often, and lose their bearings.

hisgirlfriday wrote on December 19, 2007 9:54 PM:

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

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

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

Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 10:00 PM:

The kitchen is just begun to get a little hot.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 10:00 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party is SOFT!

Lillian wrote on December 19, 2007 10:07 PM:

Liberal Larry,

The my-way-or-the-highway-democrats dropped this SAME ball 15 years ago!

yellowdogD wrote on December 19, 2007 10:08 PM:

What is the matter with some of you people? Can you not read? Krugman does NOT want the special interests (drug and insurance companies) involved in negotiations. How you can say this is not a progressive position is beyond me.

goethean wrote on December 19, 2007 10:19 PM:

Shorter Krugman: Diplomacy is bad and I want a cabinet position.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 10:19 PM:

Republicans didn't kill heathcare in 1993.
The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party is NAIVE!

brad wrote on December 19, 2007 10:24 PM:

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

For those of us with a visceral memory of how things went down in 1992 it seems to me that taking Obama's approach is the best strategy. Hillary and Co. tried to ram healthcare through Congress about the same way W. works with Democrats. Didn't work so well, and nothing in her manner has changed. "Let's make a deal" is, has been, and always will be the nature of politics. We have forgotten that over the past years due to weak leadership.

It's fun to "turn up the heat" when you are preaching to the choir in the primaries. Winning a general election and governing are a whole different matter. Krugman is a very good economist. But in this case he is offering a political critique, and LBJ he ain't. I'm not iterested in electing our version of Bush (or Bush Clinton Bush Clinton as the case may be).

Time to change the tune. Obama '08.

goethean wrote on December 19, 2007 10:29 PM:

yellowdogD wrote on December 19, 2007 10:08 PM:
What is the matter with some of you people? Can you not read? Krugman does NOT want the special interests (drug and insurance companies) involved in negotiations. How you can say this is not a progressive position is beyond me.

It's a fantasy. How's that sound?

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 10:31 PM:

Democrats killed healthcare in 1993.
The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party is WEAK!

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 10:34 PM:

With all the name calling going on in this thread, I just want to remind people the subject is Krugman and his relationship to the Clintons, and his predictive utility regarding Clinton policies.

And again I would like to point out Krugman has long been a Clinton acolyte and people have to look honestly at his record.

He backed NAFTA 110% and was one of the leading "liberal" proponents claiming how great it was going to be. Repeatedly, and just as vehemently as he's now backing the Clintons.

He backed much of the financial, infrastructure, and trade deregulation which continued from Reagan and HW Bush under Clinton. He backed ENRON, claimed it was proof of Clintonian and Leiberman "3rd Way" approach to economics and politics. He was even on the ENRON payroll to the tune of $50K for speaking engagements.

He backed Clinton's last botched Healthcare Reform initiative and disparaged pro-reform critics of Clinton's plan, who said it was politically unfeasible, and were proved utterly correct.

Krugman's record on the Clintons and their big policy initiatives, has been really awful. Frankly, he should recuse himself from all Clinton related matters.

Krugman praising the Clintons is like the Clintons praising the Clintons. He's been in bed with them since the beginning, and cheer led all of their major blunders.

colbertocrat wrote on December 19, 2007 10:36 PM:

As someone who worked on Bobby Kennedy's campaign in 1968 and many others in the intervening years, some of these posts remind me of the discussions between Kennedy and McCarthy supporters - only on steroids.

Although I have a preference for 2008, I'm pretty sure I can live with any of the current Democratic contenders. On a larger scale, this election is about starting to reclaim American democracy and it's going to be a long, tough slog.

It's great to be passionate about the candidate you support, but participating in a slimefest serves only to reinforce the attack dog/win at any cost tactics that are central to what is currently wrong with politics in the USA.

Yours for civility -

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 10:49 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party is SCARED!

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 10:51 PM:

It should also be mentioned what PK's mistake hinges on:

"PK: What evidence is there that she would be especially bad for the progressive movement? For what it's worth, Hillary's actual policy proposals are more aggressive than Obama's."

Aggressive is right. Hillary's mandates would be too aggressive, 'aren't necessary, and will be counter productive.

They'll generate political push back from across the spectrum, left, middle, and right. Mandates will backfire and undermine reform. Again, just like the 90's, the Clintons show bad judgment on major policy initiatives.

Obama's policy grows Universal Care with subsidy and optional bu in, while continually undermining the Insurance companies. But he doesn't createblowback with mandates.

We don't need a Democratic "No Child Left Behind" ill considered mandate, or another NAFTA or botched reform from the Clintons and Krugman.

joejoejoe wrote on December 19, 2007 10:56 PM:

Krugman: "I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question."

Just....wow. Does Krugman know we have 200,000+ people deployed in war zones in two countries and are spending upwards of $10 billion a month to keep them there?
- -
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Dec. 5-9, 2007. N=1,133 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"
War in Iraq - 25%
Economy/Jobs - 12%
Health care - 7%
- -
Foreign policy is "not a defining issue"? I'm stunned at Krugman's response.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 10:57 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

"Can we do 23?"

"Make it 18 and you have a deal!"

"18 it is!"

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

^
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds so much more like Clinton than Obama. People who go after Obama on this point seem not to know very much about Obama, or Clinton and Edwards.

Obama's record simply doesn't read this way. Clinton's, and less strikingly, Edwards's, do.

goethean wrote on December 19, 2007 10:58 PM:

kozmik, thanks for the sanity.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 10:58 PM:

'Unwarranted attacks, trashing people who dare to question her,'

Michael A, and his one track mind?

Hillary Clinton, is not the focus of this post.

@kozmik

'Krugman praising the Clintons is like the Clintons praising the Clintons. He's been in bed with them since the beginning, and cheer led all of their major blunders.'

You really have no idea what Krugman wrote?

Do you?

@DM

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

It's...not.

http://votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha&party=&sort=passed

http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=lifetime

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:02 PM:

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 8:33 PM:

@Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 8:28 PM:
I suggest you direct your juvenile statements in someone else's direction.

Thanks Keith for your insight, I have been engaging adolescent petulance and I will cease to do so.
___________________________________________

I'm so sad you don't want to play anymore. I was really starting to enjoy how obtuse you could pretend to be.

I'm still waiting to hear what your area of expertise is...

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 11:03 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party doesn't want everyone to get coverage.

Metteyya wrote on December 19, 2007 11:03 PM:

It is you, Paul, that are being naive, if you think "politics as usual" in Washington is the way to go forward in getting universal healthcare for all Americans. Hillary tried your "Let's fight and polarize the country" approach and where did it get her? Where did it get universal healthcare?

"Politics as usual" pundits like yourself need to understand that we need to turn the page on the divisive partisan wars of the past if we are to bring about meaningful change in Washington. Simply digging a trench and drawing a line in the sand won't get you the votes that you need to pass universal healthcare legislation.

nene wrote on December 19, 2007 11:04 PM:

I haven't picked a favorite yet, but the Obama-obsessed here scare the hell out of me. They seem like mirror-images of the Bush-cultists, disconnected from reality.

cope wrote on December 19, 2007 11:04 PM:

Wow, it takes a while to read through all these posts, some more astute than others.

I'm most intrigued with the speculations on what could be motivating PK's obsession with belittling Obama. Supposedly none of the candidates' health care proposals live up to his ideals yet all of them move the ball forward. So why is he picking on Obama? I have two theories.

Having read and wondered about other Obama-bashers, I do sense a visceral negative reaction toward him by many that has puzzled me. My sense is that for some, it is an "uppity" thing. As in "who is he to waltz in here and claim to be the new representative of the common man. He hasn't paid his dues yet. That's my title. Respect your elders." That sort of thing.

The other somewhat related visceral bias I sense is a kind of anti-intellectual prejudice, both among some who may be self-consciously ignorant and some defensive professional intellectuals (PK?) Someone posted that Obama might have hit back a bit hard when PK first raised his SS concern. If Obama hit hard AND was intellectually powerful, PK's intellectual pride may have been bruised. Who knows.

I may be wrong, but others have rightly pointed out, PK does seem to have a bug up his butt about Obama, and it doesn't add up rationally.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:05 PM:

colbertocrat-

It has nothing to dowith style or cosmetics as far as I'm concerned.

I was against NAFTA and knew Clinton's HC reform of the 90's was doomed, but fought for it anyways, as futile as it was due to poor planning.

I was against the Iraq war, and angry at how many Dems folded and supported it, including Clinton, Biden, and so on.

I was a Hillary supporter and defender through the Bush admin, figuring she'd probably be our best bet, and even defended her Iraq vote, NAFTA, and so on.

I really can't stand Lieberman, and would love to see him removed from office, but correctly predicted he would win for exactly the reasons he did, and that the 3rd Way types like Clinton would still back him.

I was a critic of Nader's spoiling and foolish idealism disconnected from reality, which just backfires.

Point being, I'm a pragmatist always looking for the best move towards progressive causes, but I'm also realistic and have a good record on polictcal predictions. Better than the Clintons or Krugman for that matter.

And I was even ready to go to the breach for a Clinton again, as the lesser of evils.

But Obama changed all that. He's the better candidate. He has better policies. He's smarter. He's more likable and has qualities we haven't seen since JFK. He has broad appeal and has come from behind entirely on his own merits and persuasive skills, in a moderate state.

If Hilalry gets the nomination, we'll be stuck with her, like Kerry. We have an opportunity right now to really put forth a great candidate. We're only going to get a candidate as smart as we are, and if we're stuck with another Clinton, another Krugman policy endorsement, another fiasco, it'll be our own fault.

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:07 PM:

Keith:

Am I being pithy or juvenile? I dunno, maybe you're misinformed? What is your area of expertise?

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:08 PM:

nene-

Others have put forward detailed analysis.

What have you contributed beyond name calling, and utterly hypocritical accusations of irrational zeal? Nothing.

amber wrote on December 19, 2007 11:09 PM:

Does Hillary's staff like BluePuppy just sit and monitor TPM to stuff the comment box? Krugman is a great columnist, but he's off base. I think he needs to go back and examine the rest of the NYT columnists particularly Frank Rich who makes a powerful argument for Why Obama Will Win.

Kozmit is right on. The Clintons are vindictive clan, and Krugman's covering his behind. And with the name-calling, it's demonstrative as to why the Hillary campaign is tanking. Hillary will never be elected president.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 11:13 PM:

@cope

'So why is he picking on Obama?'

Wow?

R U Dense?

Krugman has been perfectly clear what his issues are with Obama's plan and rhetoric.

Did you bother to read what he wrote?

'Someone posted that Obama might have hit back a bit hard when PK first raised his SS concern.'

What Obama did, was misquote what Krugman wrote in order to give the impression that Krugman was 'flip-flopping' on his original analysis of all three plans. Which you point out, he praised AND criticized all three.

(including Clinton's, cuz I'm sure someone else will mention her name in vain once more)

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:14 PM:

willyjsimmons -

As I already said, Krugman backed NAFTA, was a proponent of all that was flawed in the 90's Clinton HC Reform plan that failed, was a paid speaker for ENRON and bought into deregulation, and so on.

Krugman is a mouthpiece for Clintonian "3rd Way" policies, which have been repeatedly wrong. the reason he's on the NYT is becasue he's a mouthpeice for the powerful, but badly flawed, movement. Which also includes Biden, Lieberman, and so on.

Obama, Hilalry, and Krugman are all for Univeral HC.

The difference is Obama has a practical plan, and the Clintons and Krugman have a long history of blowing it on major policies.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:15 PM:

willyjsimmons -

Others have put forward detailed analysis.

What have you contributed beyond name calling, and utterly hypocritical accusations of irrational zeal?

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 11:15 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party cares more about signing ceremonies than actually covering every single American.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 11:16 PM:

Cope wrote:

"Having read and wondered about other Obama-bashers, I do sense a visceral negative reaction toward him by many that has puzzled me."

It's not Obama, he's fine, it's his cult of crazies that really piss me off.

I also think you're reading the "uppity" thing all wrong. Bottom line for me, he won't win in the general, he doesn't have the "experience" to get through the Republican gauntlet, Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Fox News, etc. Hillary's been their target for years, it bounces off of her.

maxstar212 wrote on December 19, 2007 11:16 PM:

Wow. This Obama support is a cult. All of a sudden Krugman is the enemy. it is not just that people disagree with him, his son is on payroll or he is jealous of him. Rich supported Obama, and supporters of the other candidates seem to be able to disagree in a nice way. People are so hostile to Hillary and Edwards and they say such nasty things. Obama can do no wrong. I have never seen this blind devotion. I don't think this is good for the country.

cope wrote on December 19, 2007 11:18 PM:

Actually, there's a third theory I suspect at work, which some here have alluded to. Those who have so identified themselves, professionally or personally, with being victimized by the "Republican-Neocon-Evil-Doers" cannot be satisfied with a peaceful outcome. That is, the victimized must raise up and annihilate "the other". The problem is that then the victim becomes the new aggressor and "the other" is us (or U.S.) A house divided will not stand. It's sad really.

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:20 PM:

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:08 PM:

nene-

Others have put forward detailed analysis.

What have you contributed beyond name calling, and utterly hypocritical accusations of irrational zeal? Nothing.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 11:21 PM:

@kozmik

'The difference is Obama has a practical plan, and the Clintons and Krugman have a long history of blowing it on major policies.'

Except...again...

Krugman criticized all three plans.

He said all three where incomplete.

Regarding 'mandates' (which seems to have everyone twisting themselves into knots), Krugman criticized Clinton for failing to fully detail how the 'mandate' mechanism would work under her plan.

So...again...

I fail to see how Krugman is 'shilling' for Hillary Clinton, when he has been clear on his own position from the start.

He clearly states Edwards' plan gets closer to the solution than any of the three.

'What have you contributed beyond name calling, and utterly hypocritical accusations of irrational zeal?'

Plenty. Apparently, your comprehension is poor. Not my problem.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:23 PM:

amber- "Frank Rich who makes a powerful argument for Why Obama Will Win."

And while Frank Rich is perhaps a lesser known pundit, he actually has a much better record on issues than Krugman does. One of the great things about Rich is, unlike Krugman, he doesn't owe anyone and isn't really an political player, so he's genuine.

Krugman has been on the Clinton bandwagon since the 90's, all through NAFTA, deregulation, apologized for their failures on the environment and CAFE and such.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 11:26 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party does opposition research on liberal bloggers.

cope wrote on December 19, 2007 11:27 PM:

I'm also amazed at the clairvoyants who claim to know for sure that Obama cannot win? Where do you get this psychic ability? He is doing pretty well in Iowa.

As for scrutiny, they are already digging all the way back to his kindergarten days. You better believe the Clinton machine is doing all the scrutiny riches and connections can buy. And Obama seems to be pretty good so far at handling the attempts to smear him. So far so good.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 11:29 PM:

'A house divided will not stand. It's sad really.'

Jesus Christ on a crutch.

**this guy is channeling Lieberman and doesn't even realize it**

'That is, the victimized must raise up and annihilate "the other".'

No. More like, the republicans are against universal healthcare. They were in 93. They are now. They will be in 2009.

A lack of 'mandates' aren't going to stop those objections.

They will cry 'taxes, taxes, taxes' until they are blue in the face, like they always do.

Krugman has his position, Reich has his.

Krugman's critique wasn't personal.

Obama's misquoting of Krugman's words...I can't really answer for that.

Would Obama's supporters like to explain?

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:30 PM:

Isn't this a free country? Who made you or savvy the comments police?

Keith, was that too juvenile?

I think you Obama cultists should STFU and let the rest of us work on our detailed analyses.

Now I'm just trying to bait you.

Dan wrote on December 19, 2007 11:31 PM:

I'm an African-American male who will cheerfully vote for Obama if he gets the nomination, but what Krugman writes are my sentiments exactly. When Obama talks about a new politics he seems to be saying that he can negate (through oratory?) the ambitions of those who would defeat him and the Democrats. (Not to mention negating the long history of politics: Cleopatra, Julius Ceaser, etc.) When you've seen so many well-meaning Democratic presidential candidates go down to defeat, this is scary talk. Remember Michael (it's not about ideology) Dukakis? And does Obama believe that the partisanship in Washington is due to the Democrats in general, and Hillary in particular? The NY Times had a field day in the '90's bashing the Clintons, in concert with Jerry Falwell (selling video accusing the POTUS of murder and drug dealing), and Kenneth Starr. And now Hillary is accused of being divisive? Please!

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:32 PM:

willyjsimmons-

Get real. Clearly Krugman is again on the Clinton bandwagon and endorsing her.

Just as he was with NAFTA, with deregulation and ENRON, and with the failed Clinton plan of the 90's.

Look at every major Clinton fiasco, or fiasco of "3rd Way" policies... and there is Krugman cheer leading it.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 11:32 PM:

willy wrote:

Krugman has his position, Reich has his.

And Reich's critique was very personal.

cope wrote on December 19, 2007 11:34 PM:

My point was, why did PK single out Obama rather than spend equal time critizing all three candidates, if all three plans are flawed, but all three plans move the ball forward? I'm not the only one seeing an inconsistency here

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:34 PM:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/about-my-son/

December 19, 2007, 6:47 pm
About my son

This is pretty funny. There’s a rumor spreading that my son works for the Hillary campaign.

Only one problem: I don’t have a son — or a daughter, either.

And both of my cats assure me that they are not working for any campaign.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:34 PM:

MonaL - you're really not impressing anyone by trolling. It shows bad character and at most gets people's pity.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:38 PM:

MonaL-

Is anyone here saying that? No. Has anyone even heard of that? Not that I know of.

Has Krugman really been a victim of a nasty slur about his supposed son? Or is he just grasping?

Maybe Krugman is just trying to deflect criticism of his obvious bias, and long history of backing Clinton blunders, with such a silly smoke screen. Which is a tactic we can thank Rove for popularizing.

But, keep on trolling those silly posts and making yourself look bad if you really have nothing better to do.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 11:39 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party continues to attack single-payer healthcare.

cope wrote on December 19, 2007 11:42 PM:

kozmik, actually, if your read through the posts from the beginning you will see that that rumor was started right here on this post early on. Then it was refuted shortly afterward, also on this post. Nothing personal. I'm sure it was just an honest oversight on your part. No problem.

Michael Gardner wrote on December 19, 2007 11:44 PM:

Krugman the economist turned shrill partisan unlike Reich who, while still clearly remaining above the fray; but Reich has class, Krugman is henchperson.

And what is ironic is that Bill who USED to be the "symbol" of compromise in the 90's now touts the shrill Rovian politics (along with Krugman) of the status quo. What neither has figured out is that Obama is the "Ronald Reagan" of the Democratic party and may well turn Reagan Democrats BACK to the party while Hillary is still the person that independent women will not vote for. Hillary wins the nomination and the Democrats will loose this election. As they say, it's theirs to lose and people like Krugman only make matters WORSE for her. He's right on the facts, but wrong on the politics.

Imagine this: WHAT IF...Hillary wasn't running, who would Bill be backing?...Obama of course!

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:45 PM:

Liberal Larry -

The "let's make a deal wing" of the Democratic Party are the Clintons. That's what Clinton + Leiberman "3rd Way" politics are. Triangulation of the worst sort, which repeatedly goes bad and winds up being the worst of both worlds.

We have Clintonian "3rd Way" to thank for such wonderful policies as NAFTA, failed HC reform of the 90's, the Iraq war vote and enabling Bush, and so on.

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:46 PM:

Cope:

PK didn't single him out, just his healthcare plan, the lack of mandates. PK just thought Obama would fix his plan. Then Obama's guy went after PK, hard.

Go to this link for the history:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/21620/0620/385/419630

Krugman is a HERO, don't you "uppity" Obama supporters come around here talking trash about him. You have no leg to stand on.

GaryL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:48 PM:

I am a big Obama fan. I am also a huge PK fan. Reading people's commments, I am amazed at how little credit GWB receives. If you compare how much GWB has done, I think to the negative, compared with what WJC did for the positive during their respective 8 years, I would say GWB would win out. The policy changes, the supreme court justices, the laws past. GWB has been very successful, not popular or even good, but still very successful. Why? Because he pushed hard and ignored the other side. Clinton tried to split the difference and it got us more to the right. When are we going to actually nominate and elect someone who advocated being MORE progressive. I love Obama but he has never given any indication that he would be more progressive than Clinton. Add to that the fact that the Congress is MORE partisan now than it was. The lines are more clearly drawn. So I think it is naive to think that there will be very few if any moderate republicans who will break ranks. Look at how the support GWM even with his low popularity.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 11:49 PM:

@kozmik

'Get real. Clearly Krugman is again on the Clinton bandwagon and endorsing her.'

What part of 'he likes Edwards' plan the most', don't you people understand?

@ Michael Gardner

'What neither has figured out is that Obama is the "Ronald Reagan" of the Democratic party and may well turn Reagan Democrats BACK to the party while Hillary is still the person that independent women will not vote for.'

I'd cry, if what you wrote wasn't so brilliantly funny. Please tell me you simply forgot to add the /snark at the end of that?

MonaL wrote on December 19, 2007 11:52 PM:

kozmik, actually, if your read through the posts from the beginning you will see that you don't need to pity me because I am very very funny. BTW, What is your area of expertise?

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 11:53 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party sees any critique of policy as blasphemy.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:53 PM:

We're talking about Frank Rich's praising Obama.

Not Reich.

Frank Rick is a real progressive, and has a much better track record on the issues than Krugman or the Clintons.

He's pointed out that much of the support for Clinton is actually based on the perception that she's inevitable. A perception which she's shattered by falling flat so many times, and Obama leading in Iowa, despite coming from behind.

An excellent and honest analysis of the Clintons and Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html

cope wrote on December 19, 2007 11:54 PM:

So MonaL, are you saying there is an "uppity" issue going on here?

Also, I'm talking about comments like "Obama is the anti-change candidate" as being out of character for PK. The thing is that I and many others who support Obama do have high regard for PK and do see him as a kind of hero. That is why we are so puzzled by his focused attacks on Obama. It doesn't make sense, unless there is something personal going on that we don't know about.

Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 11:59 PM:

Michael Gardner wrote:

"Krugman the economist turned shrill partisan unlike Reich who, while still clearly remaining above the fray; but Reich has class, Krugman is henchperson."

You obviously didn't get the memo about Reich's takedown of HRC?

Go here to see how classy Reich can be:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-sperling/correcting-the-record-on-_b_75602.html

Correcting the Record on Robert Reich's Statement about Hillary Clinton's Economic Policies by Gene Sperling

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 11:59 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party uses republican talking points.

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:59 PM:

willyjsimmons -

You're just making a fool of yourself with such hollow posts.

1) Edwards isn't a serious contender. Not in early primaries, not nationally, not in this universe.

2) Krugman just uses that to attack Obama and immediately praises the Clinton plan relatively.

Krugman is onboard the Clinton bandwagon for another policy fiasco. Same as always.

Jackie Mac wrote on December 19, 2007 11:59 PM:

Krugman is anything but shrill. And he is anything but supporting Hillary. Where is all this vitriol coming from? Why is it that there can be no discourse, no discussion, only yelling, insults, accusations, etc. You guys are shrill. Krugman, who is very mild in his writing and in his personal style of communication, is simply saying what he thinks. How about a serious discussion of mandates and why both Clinton and Edwards support them and why your candidate does not? How about discussing Social Security? What does your candidate think about it, say about it, then let the other side talk.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 12:01 AM:

kozmik wrote on December 19, 2007 11:53 PM:

We're talking about Frank Rich's praising Obama.

Not Reich.

KOZMIK: Keep up with the conversations, you're being pitifully stupid.

Ivan wrote on December 20, 2007 12:01 AM:

To all the people who say Krugman should STFU because this is outside his area of competence, one simple retort: You Are Wrong. His criticisms are deeply within Krugman's expertise. To wit:

Krugman's criticisms of Obama were both substantive and tactical, and they are:
a) Social Security is not in crisis.
b) Using the Social Security "crisis" rhetoric plays into the hands of the Republicans.
c) The lack of a mandate is a serious flaw in Obama's program.

Let's take these in sequence.

(a) is a substantive argument about economics, squarely within his very deep expertise, and one he's explained repeatedly and at great length, but the short version is in this graph: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_CBO_SS_Medicare.gif

(b) is a tactical political argument, but one in which he is also correct, and this is born out of the Democratic victory in the push-back against Bush's SS phaseout attempt in 2005. Krugman was one of the people on the front lines in that push-back, and one of the cornerstones of that success was debunking the "crisis" myth and refusing to accept the right-wing framing. He's speaking from well-earned experience here.

(c) is also a substantive economic argument, and a simple one at that. It's called free-riding. With a health-care plan that gets rid of pre-existing condition restrictions and covers everyone at the same cost (aka "community rating") but lacks a mandate, the rational thing for *anyone* who is not already sick will be to not buy insurance at all. Why? Because you can just buy it if and when you get sick, and they can't refuse to sell it to you or refuse you treatment or charge you more. This means that the pool of people in the insurance plan will be only sick people, and the costs will skyrocket. The whole point of insurance is to pool risk; allowing people to free-ride breaks that model. Again, this is squarely an economic phenomenon and deeply within his area of expertise.

The one criticism of a mandate that is substantive is that it can be a burden on people who can least afford it. But that's fixable by having means-tested subsidies and tax credits for buying insurance, which the mandate-bearing plans do.

Finally, if Krugman is pissed off at the Obama campaign, he has every right to be: they put out a deceptive oppo document on him which truncated quotes to alter their meaning and worded the document as to make him come across as deceitful. They basically called him a liar. Them's fighting words when you're a writer. Ezra Klein probably has the best summation of that particular clusterfuck:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=obama_v_krugman

douglas wrote on December 20, 2007 12:01 AM:

Michael's Mom: No apology, no acknowledgment that you were wrong about the Krugman-son rumor? You are either a liar, a very poor researcher, or someone who parrots hateful talking points. Which is it?,

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:04 AM:

PK just thought Obama would fix his plan. Then Obama's guy went after PK, hard.

Go to this link for the history:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/8/21620/0620/385/419630

Are you just getting this from the Daily Kos post, or did you read the actual op-eds and press releases for yourself? I ask because, while I think that Krugman's critiques have some merit, I thought that the Alegre's summary of the exchange was hopelessly exagerated. The idea that "Obama's guy went after PK, hard" seems hard to justify from the actual documents. That which (for instance) Michael A or savvy are doing on this thread is "going after PK, hard." That which the campaign's "fact check" did, while not a congratulation of Krugman, was far too mild to be described as "going after PK, hard."

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

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:05 AM:

opps, that's Frank Rich, another NYT progressive columnist. Not Rick, or Reich. (Too bad my computer doesn't have psychic spell checking.)

willyjsimmons wrote on December 20, 2007 12:07 AM:

'That is why we are so puzzled by his focused attacks on Obama.'

Once again...

there is nothing to be 'puzzled' about.

Krugman has explained himself clearly.

You can either agree with Krugman's analysis, or not.

Do you agree that the Obama campaign misquoted Krugman?

Do you even know that the Obama campaign misquoted Krugman?

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 12:08 AM:

cope wrote:

So MonaL, are you saying there is an "uppity" issue going on here?

I knew I'd get a rise out of you on that one.

Did you go read the link for the background?

I don't think PK likes how Obama is coming at his Democratic opponents using right-wing talking points. In fact I don't like that either. Edwards did some of it to HRC before Obama did.

I really think that if Obama had gone ahead and added the "mandate" feature to his hc plan, PK would have been totally fine, but then Obama's guy did oppo on PK and started saying bad stuff. It was kind of below the belt seeing as PK has been the progressive standard bearer for all of this time taking shots from all the crazies on the right. That's my take anyway.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:09 AM:

And on the Sperling article critiquing Reich, notice that like all Obama critics, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't get why mandates are unhelpful.

And here's the funny thing, that's so DLC. That's so typical of their beltway planning which is out of touch with reality and all about internal power battles and echo chambers, rather than sound policy.

They have no concept of why the public might revolt against them for doing what they think is the right thing. already they've been caught flat footed by the political backlash in Mass to mandates. Mass, a NE liberal state. Imagine it nationally! What a disaster.

Which is just like the Republicans on war or punitive policies. No clue how "No Child Left Behind" might backfire, or how Iraq might be a quagmire.

SOS from these ideological dopes on both sides.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 12:10 AM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party attacks grassroots ativists more viciously than the republican obstructionists.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:12 AM:

Jackie Mac wrote on December 19, 2007 11:59 PM: Krugman is anything but shrill. And he is anything but supporting Hillary.

You need to recheck your facts. Krugman has been a supporter of all the major Clinton fiasco's since the 90's. And he's clearly going after Obama to boost Hillary, the only other viable candidate.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 12:15 AM:

Ivan: "Finally, if Krugman is pissed off at the Obama campaign, he has every right to be: they put out a deceptive oppo document on him which truncated quotes to alter their meaning and worded the document as to make him come across as deceitful. They basically called him a liar. Them's fighting words when you're a writer."

Ivan, thanks for clearing that up. So it does seem there is a feud going on here. Makes sense, if a columnist feels he has been called a liar (rightly or wrongly) that would explain what looks like personal payback. Hope he gets over it, being a professional and all.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 12:16 AM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party wants our healthcare to be determined by the ups and downs of the free market.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 20, 2007 12:16 AM:

@kozmik

'Edwards isn't a serious contender. Not in early primaries, not nationally, not in this universe.'

And...?

The fact remains, Krugman favors HIS plan. Not Hillary Clinton's, and maintains that ALL THREE are imperfect.

Go read his June 4th column.

To jump to the conclusion that Krugman is purposefully criticizing Obama in order to prop up Hillary is based on nothing more than your assumption.

@Greg

'The idea that "Obama's guy went after PK, hard" seems hard to justify from the actual documents.'

You mean, truncating Krugman's words to make it seem like Krugman was 'flip-flopping'?

Because that is what Obama's 'fact check' did.

Simple as that.

Krugman didn't even directly respond initially, Ezra Klein did. Krugman linked to that response, then later added a clarification.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 12:17 AM:

kozmik, stop, go back and read ALL of the posts before blabbering on and on. I'm really starting to pity you.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 20, 2007 12:20 AM:

'Hope he gets over it, being a professional and all.'

If the Obama campaign would like to admit to misquoting Krugman...and fully explain how people won't be able to avoid paying anything for insurance coverage?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:22 AM:

And he's clearly going after Obama to boost Hillary, the only other viable candidate.

Gosh, there is nothing "clear" about that contention - not to my mind, at any rate. "Krugman is backing Clinton" does not follow necessarily from "Krugman is criticizing Obama." It is possible to criticize two planks in Obama's platform even if one is not a fan of Clinton's. As others have already mentioned, if Krugman is to be taken to be advocating for one of Obama's rivals, it seems more likely that Edwards, not Clinton, is intended as the beneficiary.

More to the point, however, Dr Krugman is an academic. As an academic myself, the one thing I know is that we can cheerfully pour gallons of ink and hours of time into defending or excorciating any number of theses without the least bit of personal animus or ulterior motive coming into play. I do not mean that to imply that such considerations never play a role in our arguments, but simply that frequently an academic arguing a point really is just an academic arguing a point. If you think that no one would argue a point so vigorously unless he had a political dog in the fight, all I can say is that you do not know academics very well.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:22 AM:

willyjsimmons -

You're distorting things and sticking your head in the sand. I don't see any serious thought in your posts.

Krugman praised Hillary relative to Obama, and they're the only two candidates with a great lead on all others. That's a fact. You can deny it all day, it's still a fact.

It's also a fact Krugman has been a cheerleader for many Clinton policies that turned out to be disastrous, since the 90's, like NAFTA, deregulation, the bad Health Care reform strategy of the 90's, and so on. That's also a fact, and you can wear yourself out, but it will still remain a fact.

So, keep up the smoke screens, trolls, and dodges, but those are the facts.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:25 AM:

MonaL -
Try having an original thought, and post something substantial for a change.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:28 AM:

Greg DeLassus -

"Gosh" get real.

Everybody knows what Krugman is doing, that he's not criticizing Hillary's plan or even praising Edward's plan so much as he's totally going after Obama.

Pretending he isn't Clinton her, or that he hasn't continually endorsed the Clintons since the 90's on all their worst policies, is just Orwellian or totally clueless.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:28 AM:

Krugman didn't even directly respond initially, Ezra Klein did. Krugman linked to that response, then later added a clarification.

Sure, I know who said what and when. I read Krugman's column every Mon and Fri and his blog every day. I suppose that I really do not agree with your characterization of the "fact check," but that is irrelevant to the point that I am making. Even if one were to grant that the Obama campaign's "fact check" was guilty of "truncating Krugman's words to make it seem like Krugman was 'flip-flopping'" Krugman, it is still a darn site shy of "going after PK, hard" as MonaL would have us to understand.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 12:34 AM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party would rather pass half measures than to use their majority to solve the problem.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:36 AM:

Greg DeLassus -

That last post is totally incoherent.

That you're an avid PK fan doesn't exactly establish your credibility.

How do you feel about ENRON and PK being on their payroll for speaking engagements for $50K, and totally buying into their market-pixie-dust deregulation hype?

How do you feel about NAFTA, and Krugman's 110% endorsement of it? Again buying into the deregulation mumbo-jumbo, and backing a Clinton fiasco.

How do you feel about the Clinton botched HC Reform of the 90's that Krugman cheer led, another political and policy disaster from the Clintons?

Sure, you read PK every week, but do you read him critically? Doesn't seem like it.

kozmik wrote on December 20, 2007 12:37 AM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party are the Clintons and Liebermans of triangulation and policy fiascos.

and btw: Liberal Larry is a Troll Bot, and not a very good one.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 20, 2007 12:38 AM:

@kozmik

'You're distorting things and sticking your head in the sand. I don't see any serious thought in your posts.'

What have I distorted?

'Krugman praised Hillary relative to Obama, and they're the only two candidates with a great lead on all others. That's a fact. You can deny it all day, it's still a fact.'

I could care less if the praise favored Clinton relative to Obama...ish happens.

Krugman still maintains that all three plans are imperfect.

As far as Krugman's critique of Obama's rhetoric, Clinton has nothing to do with it, so why you keep repeating the same things over and over again I have no idea.

'So, keep up the smoke screens, trolls, and dodges, but those are the facts.'

Not even the issue at hand.

The issue right now are the top three democratic contenders' healthcare plans.

If your only response is that Krugman is part of some Clintonian conspiracy out to get Obama, then I have no response to that.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 12:41 AM:

Greg wrote: Even if one were to grant that the Obama campaign's "fact check" was guilty of "truncating Krugman's words to make it seem like Krugman was 'flip-flopping'" Krugman, it is still a darn site shy of "going after PK, hard" as MonaL would have us to understand."

OK, "going after PK, hard" wasn't as concise as "calling PK a liar," but aren't we splitting hairs here? Obama's campaign was dishonest in their representation of what Obama said, that was wrong of them, don't you agree? Kind of reminds you of something a republican would do to a democrat? And yet, Krugman as been more courageous than ALL of our elected reps in presenting the progressive cause and challenging the Bush administration over the last 7 years. Does he deserve this kind of treatment from Obama, who looks like he's just triangulating to get the nomination?

willyjsimmons wrote on December 20, 2007 12:46 AM:

'I suppose that I really do not agree with your characterization of the "fact check," but that is irrelevant to the point that I am making.'

It's germane to the issue of Krugman's motivation for criticizing Obama's rhetoric.

Do you not see where Obama truncated Krugman's columns?

If you read Ezra's post then it should be clear?

**then you write**

'Even if one were to grant that the Obama campaign's "fact check" was guilty of "truncating Krugman's words'

Do you see what you did just now?

Even if Obama pulled a fast one on a fellow progressive...you support Obama regardless of the facts surrounding the situation.

Just say that, and spare us the rest.

Far easier.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 12:49 AM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party uses words like "troll" to deflect attention away from their free market healthcare plan.

brewmn wrote on December 20, 2007 12:49 AM:

You know, if I thought foreign policy was irrelevant in 2008, I might agree with Krugman.

However, ending the clusterfuck in Iraq and restoring the world's confidence in America are extremely important to me. I don't see Big Stick Hillary doing that, and Edwards doesn't show much of a grasp of or much interest in it.

The fact that Krugman dimisses foreign policy makes his analysis worthless in terms of who I would vote for for president. And his argument that Obama is attacking Clinton and Edwards from the right is simply wrong, and borders on the bizarre.

If health care is your only issue, then don't vote for Obama.

And can we get some kind of Godwin's law on Obama and "people holding hands and singing Kumbayah?"

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 12:53 AM:

kozmik: I think you are a troll-bot or whatever you call it.

Oh wait, don't tell me:
Others have put forward detailed analysis.

What have you contributed beyond name calling, and utterly hypocritical accusations of irrational zeal?

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 12:55 AM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party thinks that the goal is healthcare for some.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 1:03 AM:

And can we get some kind of Godwin's law on Obama and "people holding hands and singing Kumbayah?"

Not as long as he's the Hope candidate that will bring bipartisanship back to Washington.

What makes you think Obama is going to get us out of the clusterfuck of Iraq? His plan is HRC and Edwards plan. Their all going to keep us there for a while.

Sebastian H. wrote on December 20, 2007 1:05 AM:

savvy writes: "...By offering young, healthy workers cheap policies with high deductibles (so-called “catastrophic” health insurance), Obama’s system might get them to participate voluntarily. If Clinton wants to be fair and progressive—i.e., to allow people to satisfy her mandates at reasonable cost—her system will have to offer the same thing. If she forces everyone buy “Cadillac” comprehensive policies, her system will be massively regressive and will encounter massive political resistance..."

Just a comment from someone who grew up in a country with universal health care coverage: If you allow young people to opt out of the system, you will never be able to finance universal health care.

The whole point is that you pay in throughout your entire working life so that health care premiums stay affordable when you reach retirement age. It would be like letting young people opt out of social security and expecting everybody to just pay it all at once just before they plan on collecting it.

Krugman understands that, but it seems that you don't.

jacksmith wrote on December 20, 2007 1:18 AM:

Insurance mandates are not universal health care. And politicians should stop calling it that. Nothing is Universal Health Care except "Single Payer Not For Profit Tax Supported Government Managed Health Care" (HR 676). Insurance mandates will be worse than what you have now. And what you have now is a complete, and total disgrace, and horror show. Insurance mandates will (require) you to buy insurance from the private insurance companies that have been ripping you off, and killing you by the thousands.

The #1 cause of injury, disability, and DEATH in America is, Health Care. More people die now from contact with the American Medical Health Care system than from any other cause of death. More than from Cancer, Heart disease, or Stroke. More than any other country in the world. Many times more than any other people in the world. Contact with the American medical health care system is the #1 risk factor now for injury, disability, and premature DEATH in America. This fact is a catastrophic indictment of the entire US Health Care System.

Driven by greed. And a rush to profit. Thousands of Americans are killed, and injured daily in America. By compromised health care. Cutting corners. Over, and under treatments. And poisonings with all manor of toxic, poisonous pharmaceuticals. Especially the children. America only makes up 2-4% of the world population. But Americans buy, and consume 50% of all pharmaceuticals world wide.

This is an emergency. America is in a crisis. And more Americans have died from this health care crisis than have died in all the wars in US history.

But the tide has turned. And the message is getting out. And taking hold about the fact that we have a very serious, and major health care crisis going on in America. Hurting everyone. Especially our precious little children. Rich, and poor alike. And most all Americans seem to understand now that "HR 676 Not For Profit Single Payer Universal National Health Care For All (Medicare For All)" is the way to go. Like all the other developed countries have done. Americans want government managed, tax payer supported health care Now. Medicare for all. Like other developed countries have. And like older Americans have now. Accept no substitute.

I am sick and tired of hearing how the candidates, and politicians health care plans are going to protect, and preserve the private for profit health insurance companies that have been killing, and ripping off the American people. And now the politicians want to mandate (require) that every American has to support the private for profit insurance company's that have been killing, and ripping you off. Or you will be fined, and PENALIZED. Thats right. PENALIZED. Ridiculous! The politicians really think you are all detached idiots. CASH COWS! To lead to the slaughter. Don't put up with that.

Just look at what is already happening with Massachusetts insurance mandates. It's a catastrophe. Financially, and medically for all the people of Massachusetts. And the private insurance companies just raised their rates by as much as 16%. And everyone has to pay now. It's a slaughter.

It's NOW TIME to bring out the BIG GUNS!! The BIG GUNS!! are you. The American people. And anyone else that wants to help. From now until HR 676 is passed into law. I want every person to reach out and touch their fellow Americans every day if you can. I want you to take a phone book. And call at least one of your fellow Americans every day. And ask them to pickup the sword of HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care For All (Medicare For All).

Call more than one each day if you can. And ask them to do the same as you are doing if they can. And also to put maximum pressure on their politicians to get HR 676 done. And to make sure their politicians support HR 676. Accept no substitute. HR 676 is a no-brainer. It's the best way to go on health care. It's the only moral, and ethical way to go. That is why every other developed country has done it. Most did it years ago. See sickocure.org, and http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

I know that many of you have been doing a fabulous job of spreading the word by talking it up with family, friends, and co-workers. And putting pressure on the politicians to get HR 676 done ASAP. The phone calls to your fellow Americans will increase the pressure. And increase momentum for HR 676 at an astonishing, and exponential rate. And I know many of you have been wanting to do something more to help. The phone calls to your fellow Americans is something you can do every day to help.

Trust me. It will be something to see. But you have to keep the focus, and pressure on getting HR 676 passed pronto. They will try to distract you. With all manor of other crises, and catastrophes. And other plans. Don't be distracted. HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care is the #1 concern of the American people. Thousands of Americans are dieing daily now. And you or your loved ones could be next.

There is no good reason HR 676 cannot be passed into law well before the coming elections. And SCHIP should have been passed by now. Even if it was for 3x the 35 billion congress ask for. Do not tolerate delays. If it is not passed before the coming elections. All America will know which politicians are on the side of the American people. And which are not when they vote. Well before the elections. This is supposed to be a democracy. And well over the majority of Americans want tax payer supported single payer government managed health care for free for all Americans as a right. Many of the politicians will be soliciting your financial, and political support for the coming elections. Make sure you send a note telling them that you expect them to support HR 676 if they expect you to support them.

Everyone can do this. Most of you are well informed about HR 676. This truly is one of those no-brainers. Be considerate of your fellow Americans when you call. But be comfortable about calling. These are your fellow Americans. Some will be receptive. And some will not be. Some maybe rude, and mean. Just thank them, and move on to the next. Most will be with you. And if you get a call from one of your fellow Americans about HR 676. Let them know you are already on board. And thank them for calling. Build them up. And keep them strong. They are fighting for all of us.

Keep fighting. Pickup that phone, and call your fellow Americans. It's the right thing to do. You will win. Bless you all...

neutrino wrote on December 20, 2007 1:19 AM:

Check out Krugman's book: The Great Unravelling.

He's speaking from years of documentation on how relentlessly the Republican machine pursues its objectives.

The Dems need to understand that their opponents aren't made in their own image.

You have to deal with the enemy you have, not the enemy you want.

stlounick wrote on December 20, 2007 1:39 AM:

Democrats, ya just gotta love us. We are such policy wonks. I saw a poll the other day that showed the majority of Democrats think issues are better than sliced bread. This thread proves that.

And all of these experts have managed to deny Americans universal healthcare since Truman proposed it. I suspect we will need an economic downturn coupled with a very sour group of voters and with a charismatic and intelligent president. Oh. My. That's Obama.

onceler wrote on December 20, 2007 1:50 AM:

hmmm, just read this whole thread. yeesh. just a few points:

1) we can disagree with Krugman without calling him 'Orwellian' or alleging that he's a hack or whatever. I disagree with him about this exchange, but he is very often very right about a lot of things and I think everyone should read him regularly. he is also not infallible, and has gotten some things wrong as well. but he's not corrupt or bought-off or some crap like that. he's good people.

2) part of what really made me mad about Krugman's approach here was his alleging that Obama uses "right wing talking points", which is just not true. Krugman feels able to assign that term at will having determined that Obama means what Republicans meant about Social Security when he used the word 'crisis' (in reference to long-term funding of the program, not in the fake 'its about to go bankrupt!' sense). but I think he makes too many assumptions based on weak grounds, and then really runs with them. to me, that was over the line so I feel some of the anger directed at him is valid, as long as we stick to debating, without taking it to that weird place...there have been exactly no "right wing talking points" coming from Obama himself. although, for whatever reason, people seem think he suggests things that I don't get out of his statements at all. people are a little overly predisposed to assume the worst about pols these days, presumably because of the Bush admin. nightmare. we all suffer. its absolutely right that we should question people and be skeptical. my feeling the need to disagree with Krugman does not mean I don't think he should question anyone he wants to. I just didn't think this was a shining moment for him.

3) Krugman is not a "shill" for Hillary, I think he takes his role seriously and believes that no matter who is situated how in Iowa and NH that he should argue his points against who he feels needs to be taken to task. he's not part of some plan to specifically sabotage Obama in the primaries. I just think he developed such a thing about Social Security during that particular political fight that he can't take Obama's kinda BSing about it a bit for what it was. its not that intense, he just wants to raise the issue of raising the cap or tinkering here and there. he is very anti-privatization.

dcshungu wrote on December 20, 2007 1:54 AM:

Sebastian H. wrote on December 20, 2007 1:05 AM:

savvy writes: "...By offering young, healthy workers cheap policies with high deductibles (so-called “catastrophic” health insurance), Obama’s system might get them to participate voluntarily. If Clinton wants to be fair and progressive—i.e., to allow people to satisfy her mandates at reasonable cost—her system will have to offer the same thing. If she forces everyone buy “Cadillac” comprehensive policies, her system will be massively regressive and will encounter massive political resistance..."

Just a comment from someone who grew up in a country with universal health care coverage: If you allow young people to opt out of the system, you will never be able to finance universal health care.

The whole point is that you pay in throughout your entire working life so that health care premiums stay affordable when you reach retirement age. It would be like letting young people opt out of social security and expecting everybody to just pay it all at once just before they plan on collecting it.

Krugman understands that, but it seems that you don't.

This thread might have broken the record on TPM-EC for the most comments posted. But I wish to thank this particular poster for making the whole issue so simple. Krugman was on it from the git-go, and Jonathan Cohn had a great piece in TNR about this, but they, like myself, are just academics who tend to sound "too smart." But somehow, the way you just put it should make sense to most people if they really do give a shit about universal health care.

No mandate no universal health case since those who feel good now won't want to buy into it, except that it is stupid because no one knows when disaster or disease would strike...!!

Young, old, green and yellow, please get into it because (1) the more of us there are, the cheaper it will be, and the more there are people who can cover themselves, the "cheaper" it will be to help those very few who either can't afford it or are too stupid to know what is good for them.!

Obama is wrong, but then again he is the "messiah", so we can forgive him for being wrong.

Anyone who thinks that Obama's sophomoric verbiage makes sense needs to have his or her head examined.

For a long time, Dr. Krugman has been a voice that most of us could trust, even during the darkest hour of the progressive movement. So why would he all of a sudden be a "moron" or whatever he's been called on this form because he has issues with Obama's view on certain things? I have listened and read Obama, and he comes across sounding (I`ll be nice) very sophomoric!

DCShungu, Ph.D.
Associate Prof of Physics in Radiology
@ a couple of Ivy League Medical Schools in Manhattan...

Disclosure: I support Hillary Clinton for President because she is by far the most seasoned of the Dem candidates in this rate. Just read her position papers if you are an academic and you would understand why. However, if you differently do tell us coherently what you think is wrong with what she's proposed as a governing philosophy as well as something that she could implement based on her 35+ years of experience (did you know that Hillary a Senatorial during the Watergate hearings while Obama was just a ... where the heck eas was he anyway?

dcshungu wrote on December 20, 2007 2:06 AM:

previous comments were posted from a hand-held and got garbled at the end...fixing as much as possible...

Disclosure: I support Hillary Clinton for President because she is by far the most seasoned of the Dem candidates in this race. Just read her position papers if you are an academic and you would understand why. However, if you feel differently, then do tell us coherently what you think is wrong with what she's proposed as a governing philosophy, as well as something that she could implement better based on her 35+ years of experience (did you know that Hillary was a Senatorial aid during the Watergate hearings while Obama was just a ... where the heck was he anyway?)

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 4:13 AM:

Why Krugman Is Wrong

savvy wrote on December 20, 2007 4:26 AM:

Sebastian H.

Hillary is not offering a singlepayor system which is what you have and think of as universal health care.

Hillary is offering MANDATES, mandates will not work in America and are not politically viable. What Hillary is mandating is guaranteed insurance profits!

That is the entire point of her and Krugman not getting it. Mandates are not working in MA, they still do not have folks in the system.

As long as the insurance companies are still involved and we do not have a government single payor system it is not universal health care as you are referring to ...so we do not need mandates.

Mandates ensure that the system will not evolve to a single payor system. Mandates are an obstacle enroute to America having a single payor system.

Hillary's mandates are nothing but a death knell towards affordable healthcare on the way to universal healthcare.

Obama's plan makes healthcare affordable and does not force people to purchase it.

That is a big step in the right direction. Krugman lacks the political savvy to get that key point.

You missed the point that mandates are not worthless without a single payor system.

Thanks for your feedback though.

Hey Dschunga,
what the heck is a Senatorial...Hilliary was simply a gopher legal aide fresh out of Yale Law school studying for the DC bar when she worked on the Nixon/watergate hearings. This time period in her life reflects what became a lifelong pattern. A very bright smart ambitious person who puts forth incredible effort and knows the issues well but when it comes time to produce results ...she fails. In other words, she failed the DC bar despite her working on the investigation and having graduated at the top of her class at Yale.

Hillary is bright but she lacks leadership and she is unable to produce change...but girlfriend does inDEED work hard...just like a rat on a treadmill.

savvy wrote on December 20, 2007 4:30 AM:

Sebastian H

That last line should read. You missed the point that mandates are worthless without a singlepayor government system.

Krugman doesn't get that and you seem not to have either.

JC wrote on December 20, 2007 4:35 AM:

krugman is obama's horace greeley

BobN wrote on December 20, 2007 4:38 AM:

Bipartisanship [bi-par-ti-zan-ship]

1) getting both parties to work for the GOP agenda...

kuvasz wrote on December 20, 2007 4:38 AM:

Krugman is right as rain. No factual evidence, nothing can be produced that would give a sober man any support for the idea that simply sitting down at a table with the GOP will convince them and the corporations they represent to relinquish their economic power. That is just pure Pollyanna-like rubbish that blatantly ignores recent history. I tried praying for a pony as a kid like that and I can tell you it just doesn't work.

Let's be honest about Senator Obama, even if it exposes the pie-in-the-sky nonsense written. He is actually preaching that only he can transform the GOP, a group whose incalcitrance itself allowed the Iraqi War, torture in the name of America, and spies in our bedrooms, all with a Come-To-Jesus meeting and convince them that they should stop their errant ways and give up their money, power, and ecomomic positions because of his magical multicultural aura.

But what happens if they hold to past practice and laugh at him? What's he going to do then, use Jedi mind tricks?

Frankly, I don't know who is worse, a guy who thinks he can cloud men's minds, or the fellows with clouded minds following him who think he's the Second Coming.

What is worse, is that while Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards each will stimulate the Democratic base, surely only the first two will do the same to the Republican base.

We may not like it at all but Senator Clinton is despised by a significant number of Americans, enough to drive to a polling site to vote against her and every democrat running, and baby, this is America whose most poorly kept secret is its inate racism, so expect every racial bigot not buried six feet under come out and vote against Senator Obama, as well for every other Republican on the ticket,

but most likely both Senator Clinton or Obama would win regardless.

But their coatails would not be as long as an Edwards campaign, so Edwards would most likely start with higher % of Democrats in Congress and facilitate better a program for progress that does not require Jedi mind tricks for success.

Regardless, I'll vote D, Senator Clinton will govern more to the Left than she'll run, Senator Obama will get his ass handed to him by 45 white men as they bludgeon him screaming "can't we all get along?" while the congessional democrats pick over his remains, and a Edwards presidency, we will finally get a national health program worthy of a first world country and might even be able to repeal the Taft Hartley Law.

I'm taking door number three, Monty.

Eddie I. wrote on December 20, 2007 4:55 AM:

So since Obama sounds like a nice guy he must be to the right of Hillary and Edwards? How is Obama's plan to FUND healthcare for those who can't afford it less progressive than Hilary's plan to DEMAND healthcare from those who can't afford it? What, does her being a Democrat magically allow her to snap her fingers and put money in peoples' pockets?

And Obama said that Social Security is in a crisis so he must be using a conservative attack position? Did you even bother to listen to what he actually said Paul? He wants to raise taxes to pay for Social Security while Hillary wants to push people into private investments. All you want is to throw every issue that Hillary is weak on FROM THE LEFT off the table by saying those issues are only Republican talking points. Guess what, we haven't lost those fights yet, it's a darn fine time to start ignoring them.

And that nonsense that he "assumes" that no Democrat will start another war or end this one shows exactly what is wrong with Krugman's entire philosophy on the candidates. In short, he tries to convince us, "If my candidate is to the left of center no other candidate can possibly have a better approach. If my candidate holds the wrong position, every Democrat is ultimately going to come to that position no matter what they say so I don't have to know what actual words come out of their mouths."

You can convince yourself of anything if you lie to yourself long enough, Paul. It doesn't make it true or even supported by any evidence.

DTM wrote on December 20, 2007 6:37 AM:

The basic problem with Krugman's argument (which is also Edwards's argument) is that it ignores the structure of our government.

The framers of our Constitution designed the structure of our government with the express purpose of thwarting populist waves in mind. The end result is that absent truly extraordinary circumstances (something akin to the Civil War or the Great Depression), it is impossible for a single party to gain enough control over the government to ram through its agenda.

The upshot of all this is that our government, by design, favors the status quo. And in fact that structural advantage to the status quo can favor either party: consider, for example, what happened to President Bush's signature second term policy goal, transforming Social Security.

Indeed, one of the great ironies in this debate is that Krugman cites the fact that Obama dared to imply there was a problem with Social Security as part of his case that Obama is somehow not a true progressive. But Krugman is missing the much bigger lesson to be learned from that failed attempt to transform Social Security. Bush controlled the White House and his party controlled Congress, and yet Bush still failed to achieve his goals. And that is precisely because those favoring the status quo--which included Krugman--enjoyed the typical advantages afforded to them by the structure of our government.

This of course is also exactly what happened when Hillary Clinton tried to reform health care, back when the Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress: the status quo won once again. Unfortunately, Krugman is apparently too caught up in his partisan worldview to see that President Bush confronted the same basic problem on the later occasion as Hillary Clinton confronted on that earlier occasion, and it is the same problem that a hypothetical President John Edwards would face if he was attempting to reform health care.

And just as the status quo beat his predecessors (Bush and Clinton), the status quo would very likely beat this hypothetical President Edwards, at least if Edwards took the approach that he is currently promising, which is the approach that Krugman is advocating. And again, that is because our government was designed with the express purpose of preventing such an approach from working.

Eric wrote on December 20, 2007 8:26 AM:

I am a moderate conservative who has been looking to the Democrats in recent years because of the sorry state of the Republican party. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of (and contributor to) Obama for quite awhile. I do not think that Obama is in any way conservative politically (though I think he has a conservative temperament), but I think he is just what this country needs right now. In my opinion, earning the scorn of Krugman only elevates Obama in my eyes.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 8:31 AM:

Horace Greeley? Oh my, that's a good one ...

He descended into madness and died before the electoral votes could be cast

dougom wrote on December 20, 2007 8:32 AM:

As a Jew myself, but from Obama's generation rather than Krugman's, I wonder how much the historical bad blood between the Black and Jewish communities is influencing Krugman's "he's not partisan enough!" take.

Also, Krugman's a Baby Boomer; Obama is not (sorry, historical statisticians!). I think Andrew Sullivan has made some good points about how the difference in styles between Sen. Clinton (a Boomer) and Sen. Obama (not).

I am not a voice of my generation, obviously, but I have a hard time believing that the way to tamp down the partisanship in Washington is for every Democratic candidate to be as partisan as possible during the Election, which is what it appears Krugman is after. You turn down the rhetoric by--heaven's above!--turning down the rhetoric. Someone has to be first, Paul.

And I seem to remember that W went a long way peddling his "compassionate conservatism" b.s. At least it feels like Obama's being straight with you. Sen. Clinton, with her poll-tested-th-the-nth-degree positions doesn't exactly seem sincere.

And for the love of Pete, Krugman; do you really want Bill Clinton and all his baggage back in the White House? And geez, isn't time for a President who's not named Clinton or Bush? There are other qualified people out there, you know.

DonnaG wrote on December 20, 2007 8:49 AM:

Just to remind folks, especially those who want to willfully mischaracterize Obama as 'all pretty talk'..... listen up:

Obama is the only one of the three who has actually accomplished extending health care to folks who couldn't afford it. Hillary flamingly failed, Edwards has no record on health care, only a 'plan'.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 9:01 AM:

From Krugman's latest:

"As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms."

backed by the conservative movement as a whole

What is this conservative movement of which you speak, Paul? Is it really this monolithic thing you imagine it to be, or isn't it rather a jumbled mess of fat-cats and humble folk and zealots and ...

Anyway, my folks are conservatives. Does that mean they enjoy paying out the nose for health care? Of course not, but they're woefully misinformed and scared to death from all the noise coming from the drug and insurance companies (not to suggest they even understand that's where the noise is coming from).

I don't claim to know how we get from here to there, from where we are now to universal affordable health care, but based on my own life experience, I'm an admitted sucker for the notion that it ain't about "mandates" it's about an "electoral mandate" that doesn't limit hope to any particular party affiliation. It's my hope that someday the right candidate might just get the "electoral mandate" needed to start educating my folks about the way forward toward a more equitable system of health care. Someone who can educate rather than facilitate the continued bamboozlement of our good, if somewhat gullible, conservative folk. I think they can be brought over to our side. Call me naive.

DM wrote on December 20, 2007 9:02 AM:

Krugman just seems a little unhinged on this one.

Robert Reich, who was a Clinton I cabinet secretary, rightly points out that the health care plans presented by Obama, Clinton II, and Edwards are quite similar and all would be a substantial improvement over what we have now. He is dismayed by what he sees as a misleading effort to portray stark differences in the health care plans when there are none, or very little.

When you look at the arguments closely, it really seems to come down to tone. Obama is apparently not harsh or partisan enough for some people. But when you look at actual track records, Obama has a much better history of making the right calls and actually getting things done than either Edwards or Hillary.

bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 9:17 AM:

@kozmik

Great article, thanks for posting it. It brings up many of the points I've been saying all along to Hillary supporters who buy into her lies about "electability" and being "vetted". The fact remains, the GOP already have her with one foot in the grave, and can't wait to reignite their base and finish her off.

I reeeaaaallllyyy hope Obama wins Iowa! We need to turn a new page after all these years!

eli wrote on December 20, 2007 9:23 AM:

Why do you think the Hannittys and Limbaughs are all slurring Hillary and handling Obama with kid gloves? They know that she would be a far tougher election opponent, and once in office, wouldn't allow the Harry and Louises to thwart her again.

Whereas Obama, even if he were to beat the generic GOP candidate (hardly a given; in case you've forgotten, there are more people who would never vote for a black than would never vote for a Mormon, and they won't tell pollsters either), would show up in Washington with a "Kick me, Please" sign taped to his back.

After seeing the GOP play hardball ever since '92, are you so naive to think they'll give it up and play nice, once Obama's elected? They're PRAYING for Obama to get the nomination. It's the only way they could possibly steal another 4 years.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 9:41 AM:

eli, you don't get it. Who listens to the insanity and lush? Moderates, independents, dems? Of course not, only red-meat neanderthal republicans that wouldn't vote for a dem if you paid them. Of course they are bagging on clinton II to fire them up and of course they are not bagging as much on obama, because there is nothing to bag on. They have alot of material with the clintons, not alot with obama.

The question is is what is going on in the right-wing corporate media and fox entertainment. They aren't bagging on clinton II at all, well until the last month or so when she and her campaign keep fumbling, which I wouldn't call bagging. She was the annointed one by the media and obama was "inexperienced and naive." How many times was that attack repeated.

I am so sick of people claiming that the clintons are getting so hammered in the media. Give me abreak. Talk about a freaking free ride. Today, the NY times, a clinton supporting paper, had a front page story on obama's voting record in the ill. senate. They went through every single vote of a total of 4000 and found 1 freaking vote that was allegedly controversial. The headline was a total dig and the content of the article was pretty vanilla. I am sure it was fed to the times by the clinton II machine. Question, why wasn't this article 6 months ago as opposed to two weeks before the iowa caucuses? Gee, I wonder why.

Where is the extensive analysis of clinton II's senate voting record? Haven't seen that one. If we're talking about controversial votes I would say clinton II has 2 that come to me off the top of my head. Iraq and Iran. Once killed 200,000 innocents and the other got the ball rolling for more war. I would call those controversial and bad votes.

Bottom line, the reason why insanity and lush bag on clinton II is because she is the republican's wet dream of a candidate. With her as the dem nominee, they are chanting 4 more years and retake the senate. Wake up!

NCSteve wrote on December 20, 2007 9:53 AM:

Eli,

Reasoning from false premises much? The guys who accidentally on purpose call him "Osama" at every opportunity, insinuate that his church is actually some sort of black separatist terrorist cult, call him "Odumbo," and, oh yes, p.s. and by the way, engage in email slander campaigns of far greater intensity than anything any other candidate has taken so far is "being treated with kid gloves?"

Riiiight.

Oh, and love that argument about how there is a vast secret army of voters who won't vote for him because he's black but won't tell pollsters, too. Because you know, those stupid ol' naive pollsters are too dumb to design questionnaires that will ferret out and quantify that kind of undisclosed bias. Much easier to just assert that any data that contradicts your, no doubt anecdotally based, opinions is wrong because it contradicts your opinions.

And, last of all, did all of you Hillaroids buy calendars with a Y2K malfunction? This is not 1992, nor is it 1994, 1996, 2000, 2001, or even 2004. It's 2007. The big bad scary mean Republican Party you Hillary suppoters are perpetually peeing in your pants about is an impoverished pale shadow of its former self. They are out of ideas, their old bag of tricks failed them utterly in 2006 and they've got no new ones. Their dejection is relieved only by bouts of self-delusion. The only thing that can possibly empower and reenergize them is the post traumatic stress disorder-induced fear that causes so many Democrats to attribute supernatural powers to them.

byb wrote on December 20, 2007 10:03 AM:

The fact that Krugman does not see the link between foriegn policy and domestic is troubling. I am not at all convinced that Hillary will not follow through on the 50k troops in Iraq that Bush wants. And the money spent here could definitely go other places.

Second, we need to distinguish between the Republican and Independent voters and the Republican establishment. Krugman is correct that the establishment and media will go after all democrats with avengence. But historically it those democrats that have been able sell there vision to independent voters that have been able to get progressive policies past. Pissing off that set of voters, not leaders is the problem. Assuming all Republican voters are evil is just stupid and for those of us who know some not true.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 10:04 AM:

Earlier I had said: Anyone who thinks that Obama's sophomoric verbiage makes sense needs to have his or her head examined. There is piece in TNR today that powerfully and eloquently says why. It is a must-read, especially if you are part of the pro-Obama "Amen Chorus":

The Delusional Style in American Punditry. The Press Is Falling In Love Again With A Candidate’s “Instincts.” Hasn’t Bush Taught Them How Dangerous That Can Be?
by Sean Wilentz
Forget experience: Opinion-slingers are mooning over Barack Obama's instincts. Don't they remember how badly that worked out last time?

Yet today, after seven disastrous years of the Bush experience, otherwise rational editorialists and commentators are insisting that instincts basically are good enough--and are actually more important than what they consider prosaic credentials such as knowledge, experience, and sound policy proposals. The pundits have vaunted good vibes and gut-thinking as the crucial qualifications for the nation's highest office. They have turned the delusional style into a rallying cry--in support, at least for the moment, of the candidacy of Barack Obama and his allegedly superior intuition.

There is also the troubling possibility that what a senior Bush official once cheerily described as the downfall of "reality-based" politics, including "reality-based" reporting, and commentary, has in fact come to pass, and that fantasy has taken over. Eight years ago, defiance of reality in favor of delusions about instinct helped bring the incumbent president to the White House. A catastrophic presidency ensued--directed largely on George W. Bush's intuition. Today's Obama-awed commentators, unchastened by that experience, describe breathlessly his "intuitive sense of the world." No doubt if Obama falters, these pundits will someday find another intuitive child of destiny to call their own. What remains to be seen is if American voters will prove to be more skeptical--and more reality-based --than the pixilated experts.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

Assuming all Republican voters are evil is just stupid and for those of us who know some not true.

Amen.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 10:27 AM:

I suppose my "Amen" makes me a member of that idiotic chorus that supposes, for reasons apparently too absurd to mention, that Obama's instincts differ substantially from Bush 43's.

bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 10:48 AM:

Comparing Obama with George W. Bush is just mindless. How about Hitler? Maybe you can find some similarities there too.

How can a guy who spent years on the ground as a community activist and taught constitutional law be compared with a born-rich, overgrown frat boy who used daddy's connections to get into the oil industry and own a baseball team? Their backgrounds, lives, intellects, records and methodologies are so opposite it's ridiculous.

I don't care how big his name is or what his credentials or awards are (besides being a friend of the Clintons): if Sean Wilentz wrote those words he's a moron. A well-educated moron.

If this is the level of discourse on the Left we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 11:00 AM:

Bvd, that's the thing, this isn't the level of discourse on the left. This is clintonian politics at its best, which is red state republican style politics. Slash and burn, blood sport politics, lie, triangulate, do anything to get elected and screw everyone. Once clinton II is no longer in the mix, the discourse will change dramatically. Until then, it will be depressing.

eli wrote on December 20, 2007 11:01 AM:

Struck a nerve, did I? Who listens to Hannity and Limbaugh? The corporate media and Fox. And me. It helps to know what we're up against. Say what you will about these rightwing gasbags, they do seem to get preview copies of the mainstream talking points.

But back to the Krugman's thread. Is it naive to think that hope will get the corporate plutocrats to surrender what they've spent the Bush years grabbing? Assuming that the Dems will need to play a little hardball, who's most likely to be pitch a complete game?

dcshungu wrote on December 20, 2007 11:09 AM:

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 10:27 AM:

I suppose my "Amen" makes me a member of that idiotic chorus that supposes, for reasons apparently too absurd to mention, that Obama's instincts differ substantially from Bush 43's.

It would help if you actually read the piece rather than reflexively responding to what you assume the content of the piece to be...

And what gives you special insight into Obama's "instincts", anyway?

We've already had a would-be "uniter" for eight years and it has been disastrous, who needs another??!!

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 11:09 AM:

Lots of comments. I was an early Obama supporter, but I too have become disillusioned for many of the same reasons that Dr. Krugman has described.

I respect those of you who think that Obama's vision of bipartisanship can succeed- I think it is appealing to the best of American and Democratic principles- the belief that we can be united and transcend differences in this country to achieve a better world.

That being said, I think you're wrong. To believe that Obama can transcend partisanship, you must view George Bush as the exception, and not the rule. But if you're paying attention to the GOP, there's no way you can believe this. George Bush is the inevitable result of a movement (the modern GOP) that considers itself in a cultural war (against the secular New Deal intellectuals that led America through most of the 20th century). The fact that we are now in the age of an Ownership Society, when an increasing number of dumbasses declare themselves economic libertarians and decry any economic regulation reflexively, makes clear that you cannot negotiate with these folks, at least in the short term.

Take George Bush. He does not compromise. He only pretends to compromise to move the goalposts further right. Now look around at the GOP institutions that will remain when GWB is gone. Do you really think that Obama will come in and, through sheer force of personality and a new "post-partisan 21st century vision of hope" suddenly change the minds of folks like Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, John Boehner and their loony allies in Congress; or Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, and their myriad clones in the lower ranks of the federal judiciary; or the Rev. Moon (Washington Times), Fred Hiatt (WashPost), Brit Hume, Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson and Mike Savage, and all of the other hordes of rabid right media folks; as well as the countless armies of lobbyists, CEOs, thinktank residents, and other assorted GOP culture warriors?

I think it's admirable to want to believe in hope, but hope can really only take you so far, when you're going up against people who are not only unpersuadable, but who view you as the enemy in a war.

Or has it been so long that we've all forgotten the depths to which the GOP infrastructure will go to destroy a Democratic president?

Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 11:15 AM:

Nope eli, you just don't get it. I follow the right-wing media as well. I can't say that I listen to lush and insanity. Every time I try, I want to puke. I do watch alot of fox entertainment and it is telling what they do. Up until about a month ago, they were praising clinton II and annointing her as the front runner. Gee, I wonder why. Because they like her? I don't think so.

Same thing with rove and lott and a host of other republicans. She was the one to beat. She was the dem nominee. She gets the global war on terror, yada, yada, yada. Wait until what happens if she wins the nomination, then all the mud and dirt and scum and garbage from the 90's will be rehashed to attack her alleged experience. I can see it already and it sure isn't pretty.

They have nothing to say about obama except to play on racism and that won't fly with the vast majority of americans. Also, if that's it, it will get old real fast.

By the way, I don't know of a single commentator, right, left or anywhere in between that has not said that clinton II will unite the republicans like no tomorrow and they will come out in droves to vote against her. Do you know of one?

I think its naive to think that clinton II will get the corporate plutocrats to surrender what they've spent the clinton I and king years grabbing." I would rather have a person with honesty and integrity pitching that complete game, not a triangulating, waffling, corporate owned politician with poor judgement.

The clintons can't even run a freaking campaign. I think they went senile. They are fumbling all over the place and they aren't under any pressure from the other candidates. They are under pressure from the voters and apparently they don't know how to take the heat.

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 11:17 AM:

To follow up, while I agree with some on this board that it is wrong to view every Republican as evil, it is not wrong to view the GOP Party-- the leadership and its allies-- as something very close to evil. In fact, I would say that it's really naive to assert that the GOP = every Republican.

I've met plenty of good-hearted Republicans, but that doesn't mean that I think their party isn't dishonest, corrupt, and ill-intentioned.

I don't need to think that John and Sally Brown of Augusta, GA, solid Republican voters who give lots to charity, are religious in the best sense of that term (i.e. not hypocritical, living their lives to help others, etc.), and who vote consistently Republican are bad people to believe that the GOP infrastructure will try to stymie the next Dem president at every turn, and fail to operate in good faith, ever.

dcshungu wrote on December 20, 2007 11:20 AM:

Does History have a chance to repeat itself? Quoting again from the TNR piece:

Every now and then in American politics, normally balanced people get swept up by delusions of greatness about a presidential candidate, based on an emotional attachment to the candidate's oratory or image. The youthful William Jennings Bryan brought down the house and swept up the nomination with his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1896--only to be crushed by the dreary William McKinley in November.

Substituting a few names, et voila, deja vu all over again:

Every now and then in American politics, normally balanced people get swept up by delusions of greatness about a presidential candidate, based on an emotional attachment to the candidate's oratory or image. The youthful Barack Obama brought down the house and swept up the nomination with his famous "Audacity of Hope" speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004--only to be crushed by the dreary Mike Huckabee in November.

atlas spanked wrote on December 20, 2007 11:28 AM:

Despite all the hand-wringing here about Kyl-Lieberman (a toothless symbolic bill that was NOT a vote for war with Iran), and one Edwards quote about single-payer health insurance, Krugman's absolutely right. Obama's just a rhetorician, and so far, he's stayed that way. When the votes are sticky, he's absentee.

Edwards, on the other hand, is the kind of two-fisted, anti-corporate populist we need, and Hillary is a knife-fighter who can stick a sharp one in the GOP's ribs.
They're the Dem dream ticket. Anyone who looks closely at HRC's actual voting record (as the left coaster has) would be hard-pressed to call her 'corporate,' or 'Republican lite.'

But for some reason, the netroots has glommed onto Obama (a very charismatic speaker) as just the kind of 'leader' we need...An outsider who hasn't been polluted with the slickness of Washington (debatable, given his obvious polish on the speaker's podium).

Unfortunately, it's harder to lead the executive and legislative branch than it is to sway sheeplike crowds looking for some vague form of inspiration and hope. And Krugman -the clear-headed economist - is utterly, totally correct in two assertions: All Dem candidates will be ending the Iraq fiasco pronto, and the GOP's backers will do absolutely anything to stop progressive domestic reforms.

Edwards has balls, and he hates the power structure deeply. Hillary's got a spine, tactical knowledge, and some serious grudges against the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'. Perfect. No more compromise!

eli wrote on December 20, 2007 11:29 AM:

Funny, I just wrote to a friend how much Huck reminds me of... William Jennings Bryan!

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 11:38 AM:

people are a little overly predisposed to assume the worst about pols these days, presumably because of the Bush admin. nightmare.

Indeed. If I might be forgiven for retreading over ground already covered, your point dovetails elegantly with my own post at the very top of this thread. It seems to me that the difference here between the partisans of Krugman and the partisans of Obama is not really over facts but rather over outlooks. Bush has polarized our political scene so terribly that it makes it very difficult for government to work as it is supposed to. Obama types like myself look at this and conclude that, therefore, in order to make government work rightly we must first assuage some of that polarization. Krugman and his ilk look at the same situation and conclude, instead, that said polarization is simply a new fact of life and we must simply learn to play the new game by the new rules in order to achieve as much (little though it might be) as possible in the new field of play.

In other words, one side has hope and the other side does not. That is not meant to say that one or the other side is ipso facto correct in its outlook. Sometimes hope is a necessary prerequisite for success in a difficult undertaking (e.g. Britain during the Blitz of WWII) and sometimes hope is simply another name for self delusion (e.g. those idealistic American socialists who thought that the Soviet Union would prove a light to the nations). The problem is that the business of discerning between those two circumstances is very difficult for any but the very wise.

As such, each side is approaching this debate with a set of assumptions that is plausible a priori but by no means certain and is frustrated with the other side for proceeding from an equally plausible, equally uncertain, and mutually exclusive prior set of assumptions. I see no obvious solution to the difficulties engendered by this state of affairs, other than simply to let the battle rage and see who comes out on top. So, see you in March 2008 and may the best team win.

Obama is wrong, but then again he is the "messiah", so we can forgive him for being wrong.

Gosh, what can one really mean by "wrong" here? If you mean merely that a plan with mandates is more likely than a plan without to achieve universal (or as close to it as possible) coverage, then I suppose that I agree. That, however, is not the only issue to be considered. No plan achieves anything unless it can first be passed into law. With that consideration in mind, one has to ask which will be easier to move through a divided legislature - a plan with mandates or a plan without? To my mind, when one bears this question in mind, Obama's plan looks much the better. If you will please notice, this point really does not tell against Dr Krugman's own point. He is not addressing the issue of plausibility of getting passed; he is simply bringing his admirable expertise qua economist to bear on the question of which plan will achieve the best bang for the health care buck - not an unworthy consideration by any means, but not the only consideration either. In any event, it is not obvious to me that Obama really is "wrong" in the most important sense, because there are more factors to be weighed than just those which Dr Krugman has chosen to address.

ibc wrote on December 20, 2007 11:45 AM:

I used to like Paul Krugman, but then he said mean things about Obama, whom I like. Therefore Krugman is an unprincipled shill.

Why doesn't he understand, he's an *economist*? He needs to stick to writing about issues that *economists* know about. You know, like the best way to balance your checkbook, and how to save money for college.

And stop writing about issues of which *economists* know nothing--like national healthcare systems, and how they integrate with national economies.

It's just common sense, people.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 11:48 AM:

"We've already had a would-be "uniter" for eight years and it has been disastrous, who needs another??!!"

As if anyone here ever worked to put the "uniter" you refer to into office. Defend your candidate, but please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that I was an erstwhile sucker for the greatest failed flavor of this century.

Oh well, perhaps I am hopelessly naive in assuming that we can, among other things, rehabilitate our vocabulary.

Rowland D. wrote on December 20, 2007 11:49 AM:

Krugman claims that Obama is replaying Republican talking points and supporting their scare tactics on Social Security. If you read the National Journal interview which Krugman refers to in his column, there is not even a hint of scare tactics -- just one word that seems to have flipped PK out. If you read the Obama position statement on Social Security, again no scare tactics. Finally, here are the words Senator Obama used in the October 30th debate:
"I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis. It is a fundamentally sound system, but it does have a problem, long term…
It is common sense that we are going to have to do something about it. That is not a Republican talking point... "

So the evidence for Republican-style scare tactics is non-existent. But when PK inaccurately portrays Obama's position, that puts legs under the lie. A journalist should check the facts.

Now to the political judgement critique. Is the mere acknowledgement of a problem that needs to be fixed a political mistake? Krugman appears to think so, and would have us keep quiet about the issue. Apparently he thinks we have already won the war against the conservatives who have a long established goal of cutting down Social Security. But I think that is naïve. As long as the system remains out of balance, I believe the Republicans will continue to exaggerate the problem and erode public confidence in one of our most important institutions. How do we stop them? Simple – fix the problem and keep it fixed for the future.

Wowsa wrote on December 20, 2007 12:05 PM:

Greg S,

a thoughtful post, and I largely agree with it.

However, I think you ignore a few items in coming to your conclusion:

1) the fact that the Republican divisiveness and rabid partisanship did not start with GWB. The entire resurgence of the modern GOP is, I would argue, predicated on culture war and viewing Democrats as the enemy. Newt and Co. came to power based on this premise, and spent the 90s demonizing Clinton and all prominent Democrats and liberals. This has not abated, but accelerated, and the institutions that made bipartisanship so difficult in the 90s (radical Republicans in Congress, a reactionary GOP activist judiciary, a robust and mendacious GOP press) have not receded in the GWB administration but have become much more powerful (on steroids and HGH if you will).

2) Those beefed-up GOP institutions will still be present when the next Democrat becomes President. This seems indisputable if you're paying attention. The idea that Obama can come in and change the way that the McConnells and Alitos of the world play ball seems beyond hope, it seems naive.

I think there is a huge difference between faith-based hope, which ignores the ugly realities that exist, and reality-based hope. I think Edwards, and to a lesser extent Hillary, represent the latter, insofar as their supporters are hopeful that they can achieve major change, but are realistic in the obstacles they will have to face to do so.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 12:12 PM:

good one ibc.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:16 PM:

a thoughtful post, and I largely agree with it.

However, I think you ignore a few items in coming to your conclusion...

I gather that you meant this as a response to me, Greg D., even though you wrote "Greg S.," because your points read like a rejoinder to my post and not to anything that Greg Sargent has written on this thread. As such, I hope you will not think me off the mark in offering a brief response, and if you really were talking to Greg Sargent and not myself I hope you will excuse my presumption. I would just like to say that it is not that I ignore the factors that you mention. Indeed, I think that your first one is a worthy correction - the rot can be traced back to a time before Bush, and Gingrich is probably a better man to blame.

That said, even with that correction in mind, it is not that folks like myself are ignoring the points you raise - we just weight them differently than folks like Krugman & al do. As a result, we are dismissed as "naive." Maybe that is so. As I said already, it is certainly the case that sometimes hope is simply a species of naiveté. On the other hand, sometime it is not.

I would submit to you that it is often times very difficult to know whether hope is or is not illusory until after the fact, so I would simply ask you and others on your side of this conversation to be indulgent of (if not quite convinced by) the assumptions which motivate your fellow progressives on this thread who take the other side. If we are right then you will have reason to be glad of our hope and if you are right then we will have reason to be glad of your skepticism.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:20 PM:

good one ibc.

Well, dear MonaL, at least on that much we can agree. IBC's post was quite witty and very much enjoyed (at least by us two).

David in Burbank wrote on December 20, 2007 12:20 PM:

And as we get closer to the first caucus and primary, everything everyone says is no longer about the substance of anything, it's all marketing and counter-marketing, framing and breaking frames. Even us laptop pundits are no longer honestly assessing our candidates, but rather promoting and justifying the choices we have already made. I like Krugman's writing well enough, though his political opinions have always seemed more irrational than his economic ones, perhaps because he is good at the one thing and not the other. Obama has said somethings that leave me less that thrilled, but he is running for president of all the people of the US, not just us progressive activists. And I've never taken any candidates "Plans" very seriously anyhow...given that legislating is really not the job we're electing them for.

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 12:25 PM:

Greg D, my mistake. That was indeed addressed to you.

And I do respect your viewpoint. You're obviously an intelligent and thoughtful person.

Obviously, we just disagree, and as you point out, that's the nexus I think of the disagreement that many have between Obama and Edwards.

cope wrote on December 20, 2007 12:53 PM:

For those of you who insist that conservatives must be excluded from the table because they will never learn from the error of their ways, check out this interesting post by David Frum, National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=169952&p=1

"...Since the 1960s, conservatives have chafed and seethed against liberal elitism...Conservatives have reacted by turning to populism -- to a defence of the commonsense wisdom of ordinary voters against the pretensions of know-it-alls...And yet it also has to be admitted: Many of us on the conservative side have fed this monster...we have sometimes over-reacted by denying the importance of expertise altogether...one of George W. Bush's early evangelical supporters argued in a 2005 newspaper column...those conservatives who questioned Bush's "faith-based initiative" of having "holes in their souls."...So now instead of holes in our souls, we conservatives are getting candidates with holes in their heads...Here's the lesson to learn: It's always important to respect the values and principles of the voters. But politicians who want to deliver effective government and positive results have to care about more than values -- and have to do more than check their guts. They need to study the problem, master the evidence, and face criticism."

Call me hopeful, I think this is a good sign.

eli wrote on December 20, 2007 1:04 PM:

Frum's a smarmy little suck-up. He jumped ship a couple of years ago to cash in with his Bush tell-all. With this latest article, he's just repositioning himself in the punditry market for the next few years. Faith-based won't sell, so rely on Frum to follow his next advance from his publisher.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 1:40 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party doesn't want their same republican talking points to be used against their mandate for children.

MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 2:18 PM:

@Greg

I like you, you're one smart lawyer who writes with a lot of italics. I married one just like you. You're respectful even when you disagree. And you try to be reasonable, despite the fact that you're an Obama supporter. And you have a sense of humor about it all. You're all right.

cope wrote on December 20, 2007 2:58 PM:

P.S. There is also a lesson for us liberals/progressives: Don't ignore the soul. Most voters have one and they know it. Obama gets that. Getting it right intellectually is not enough. Some of us intellectuals (professional or amateur) sometimes forget it or deny it. We do so at our own political peril.

Canaan wrote on December 20, 2007 3:08 PM:

"... the Republican divisiveness and rabid partisanship did not start with GWB. . . . This has not abated, but accelerated."

I'd take it a step further. It hasn't so much accelerated as gained in relative strength in the absence of the Clintons, more formidable opponents than Gore and Kerry. We didn't really know what the Clintons were up against until they weren't there.

Huckabee still winning despite releasing a rapist who murdered again? Of course the rapist was white. Pat Buchanan leads an anti-immigration onslaught that chews up Spitzer, McCain and Lindsay Graham--attacking from the right of Bush! Bush-Cheney have held the line, maybe even turned the corner on Iraq ('the surge is working', 'Dems were wrong about the surge'). They beat us with Petraeus even when we held the cards. Consider how well they play from a weak position, what can we expect when Iraq blows over? Remember, the American majority was 'before the war before they were against it.'

They're down because of Iraq and Katrina, so Peggy Noonan and Andrew Sullivan call for a ceasefire and we fall for it? That's like MacArthur accepting terms from Japan.

If Giuliani is the nom, he'll open up a whole new front - the Giuliani death squad in tandem with the old Cheney-Rove machine. Pro-choice Rudy cut the deal with the Catholic Archdiocese in New York and ran the city with an iron fist. He sent a tank to evict squatters from abandoned city property. Nobody even knew NYPD had a tank.

"one has to ask which will be easier to move through a divided legislature - a plan with mandates or a plan without?"

The mandate only applies to the uninsured. The uninsured don't drive these fights. Politically, this is about paying for the subsidies, not the mandate. Obama's plan is open to the freeloader's charge. Repubs attacked a 12 year old on the charge that his parents were 'gaming' SCHIP. Next time it won't be a 12 year old, it will be a less sympathetic willfully uninsured thirty-something asking the taxpayer to cover his bets.

But that's not the point. Politically, the mandates battle is about framing and rhetoric. Is it 'the government is forcing you' or 'shared responsibility/no one games the system'. When Clinton hits Obama on falsely campaigning on universal health care, he turns and makes the Republican case against universal coverage. He could just say what Edwards says on gay marriage - "I'm not there yet." There's a big difference between "I'm not there yet" and "gays are anti-family". When Obama hits Hillary on her Iraq vote, she doesn't come back with "Obama wants to surrender to terrorists."

Canaan wrote on December 20, 2007 3:14 PM:

"Where is the extensive analysis of clinton II's senate voting record? Haven't seen that one. If we're talking about controversial votes I would say clinton II has 2 that come to me off the top of my head. Iraq and Iran."

There's been plenty of analysis of her Iraq and Iran votes. Maureen Dowd isn't feeling any pressure from the Times to go soft on Hillary.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 3:34 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party looks at single-payer healthcare as a values issue rather than a policy goal.

Hops wrote on December 20, 2007 5:28 PM:

Hillary is going to have a hard time getting elected - she has huge negatives in every poll, with over 50% of people polled saying they will not vote for her, period. If you're a Dem and want a Dem in office, Obama or Edwards should be your candidate - hands down. I think Hillary would be a good president - I just think she's got a very good shot at losing a general election that should be an absolute slam dunk coming off of the current Doofus-In-Charge's debacle of a presidency.

Brian wrote on December 20, 2007 5:36 PM:

I fear that Paul Krugman's approach to liberal strategy - a kind of "dig in your heels and fight the Enemy! No compromise!!!" - is an echo of the recent polarized past, a sad mess in which ideological posturing all too often trumped practical gains for real people.

I'm sick of the pissing match. It just feels infantile after a while. Compromise is not a dirty word if it's undertaken with maturity and integrity.

Barack Obama is a voice for the future...which is where I plan to do most of my living. Care to join me Paul?

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 5:49 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party doesn't care how many people get left behind as long as their own healthcare is just fine.

blaze wrote on December 20, 2007 6:20 PM:

I seem to be reading a lot of Progressives who are decrying the "lack of civility", the "pissing match" and want to follow Obama into a wonderland of agreement with Republicans.
Are these the same Progressives who are currently screaming at Congress because they won't "just shut up and stop all funding for the war" or that bitch because "they just lie down for Bush". Democrats in Congress are obviously trying to get some bi-partisan support for the Iraq withdrawal because just cutting off the purse strings is too unilateral. That doesn't seem to be good enough for these same Progressives. I'm confused... do we want comity and bi-partisanship, or not?

Brian wrote on December 20, 2007 7:06 PM:

We liberals always seem quick to praise the concept of "talking to our enemies" and "negotiation" when the context is Iran...but not when it's with the Republicans? What's the difference?

You can respectfully disagree with someone without treating them as a hated caricature. That is if you ever hope to negotiate any productive common ground. There's a huge difference between accepting compromise and being compromised.

This tone of respect and a genuine desire to understand the position of your opponents yields real change. It's not a question of who's empirically right, it's a question of what works. It's not a walk into "wonderland," it's an effective tactical position.

This change of tone is what Obama offers. It's a subtle but crucial nuance that shouldn't be lost on anyone who claims to be a clear thinking liberal.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 7:33 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party would rather work with a republican majority.

cal1942 wrote on December 20, 2007 8:45 PM:

Very depressing that so many comments are so far off the mark. I have a chilling feeling, based on these comments that we are on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Krugman is right.

There is NO compromising with these people. And here's a flash for all of you:

IT AIN'T JUST GEORGE W. BUSH.

The whole of the Obama 'reconciliation' meme is either a ploy to gain the uninformed 'why can't we all just get along' vote or a genuine belief in something that is not at all possible.

What so many of you have missed is that there is a war going on here. Republicans are actually fighting that war in the most ruthless fashion and have been fighting that war since long BEFORE George W. Bush.

Have none of you noticed that there have been 62 cloture votes so far this year? Sixty-two times Republicans have blocked meaningful, necessary legislation. They won't allow anything to pass. They've taken full advantage of a compliant press to act against the nation's interest and don't expect the press to turn around anytime in the foreseeable future. Republicans have already seen to that.

For nearly 5 decades of the 20th century this nation was governed around a general consensus. That consensus was based in part on the reforms represented by the New Deal. Government would take responsibility for the well being of its citizens, government would regulate business and finance, government would encourage creativity by supporting public goods and increasing opportunity for its citizens, government would invest heavily in public infrastructure. The list goes on and represents responsible good government. GOVERNMENT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

The Republican Party fell to its conservative wing, a faction in the party for over 100 years but a faction that had never gotten total control.

Just reviewing the tactics they've used to get control and get elected should be ample evidence that today's Republican Party is a long feared rogue in our history.

Compromise is not possible because there is no room for compromise. How is it possible, for example, to compromise on Social Security? Social Security is either going to be a public program with full support or it will be bastardized into a part private program which will, in short order, end the entire program.

THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.

Conservative Republicans have been trying to end Social Security since its inception 72 years ago. They've never given up that goal. The old Republican Party went along with Social Security as a public responsibility, grudgingly, but they went along. Today's Republican Party is CONTROLLED top to bottom by that conservative wing that now constitutes its whole.

Social Security is not the only area. Do any of you really believe that Republicans will not pull out all the stops to prevent universal health coverage? Of ANY kind. They know that if Democrats are able to enact decent universal health coverage, they, the Republicans, could well dwindle to a very weak minority for years to come. The only compromise they'll make on this issue is one that will make the program FAIL and that's what they'll try as a last resort.

If Democrats win the White House and gain a few seats in the Senate it will be possible to enact good legislation but only by threatening Republicans with the nuclear option, the same threat that Republicans made to Democrats last year.

An appeal to public interest is the only way to reach sound compromise. Today's Republican Party DOES NOT have the public interest in mind. Their only interest is to stay in power at any price. PERIOD. If out of power they will do everything possible to prevent the opposition from having success. This is not a good platform for reconciliation. Reconciliation requires a common goal. That common goal is lacking here.

Their very electoral strategy is based on destruction and no compromise. That's the key. They can't compromise because they will lose a part of their electoral coalition with EACH compromise.

The only solution to our nation's myriad problems is to beat these people to a bloody pulp.

It's time to be a hard as nails, no nonsense Liberal.

For crying out loud WISE UP.

Rick wrote on December 20, 2007 9:11 PM:

I have been a pharmacist for 20 years and I can assure you that drug companies and insurance companies are evil.

The American health care system at this point is killing more people than its helping.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 9:21 PM:

The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party uses republican talking points on Social Security, because it wasn't passed with bipartisan support.

Dr. Tettrazini wrote on December 21, 2007 1:13 AM:

Meanwhile back in reality: Senator Obama is a Man
of the Hour. Unfortunately the hour is somewhere far in the future. The honky-white trash-majority is not going to elect any person not pearly white. That's it going in and coming out of the next election cycle.
I feel he would be an excellent President of the USA. I feel Mrs. Clinton is likewise qualified and able to full fill the office. It is a sea change to elect a woman but it will take a tsunami to elect a Black Person, even a US Senator. This country is young and stupid compared to the Europeans for example. As for the Middle East and Asia, they have been codified and led by central governments for an eon. Women and diverse groups routinely govern in other areas. Our Majority Leader and the Sec. Of State are women but they work in the world of old white men in this country. Senator Obama is, like it or not the new Ralph Nader. It is not his fault but the division of voters willing to vote for him is a minority.
That said I feel that the Senators and Mr. Edwards and all the Democratic Party should stop the infighting and say simply that they will work together and develop a united platform now not
after the convention. Run as a UNITED GROUP .
Tell the electorate here is the platform, select the
candidate you want to vote for and vote. This idiotic blather about health plans and the war are
nothing but Republican talking points. All the
candidates should make nice and compliment each other and present a unified front and let the voters
do the lifting. This is of course much too simple and logical so watch and wait while they consume
any good will by fighting among themselves. At
least none of the Republican candidates seems to
be electable. That fact alone may be the one true
ray of hope for our country. Even god couldn't help us if one of the GOP get into the White House
this time.

Dr. Tettrazini wrote on December 21, 2007 1:15 AM:

Meanwhile back in reality: Senator Obama is a Man
of the Hour. Unfortunately the hour is somewhere far in the future. The honky-white trash-majority is not going to elect any person not pearly white. That's it going in and coming out of the next election cycle.
I feel he would be an excellent President of the USA. I feel Mrs. Clinton is likewise qualified and able to full fill the office. It is a sea change to elect a woman but it will take a tsunami to elect a Black Person, even a US Senator. This country is young and stupid compared to the Europeans for example. As for the Middle East and Asia, they have been codified and led by central governments for an eon. Women and diverse groups routinely govern in other areas. Our Majority Leader and the Sec. Of State are women but they work in the world of old white men in this country. Senator Obama is, like it or not the new Ralph Nader. It is not his fault but the division of voters willing to vote for him is a minority.
That said I feel that the Senators and Mr. Edwards and all the Democratic Party should stop the infighting and say simply that they will work together and develop a united platform now not
after the convention. Run as a UNITED GROUP .
Tell the electorate here is the platform, select the
candidate you want to vote for and vote. This idiotic blather about health plans and the war are
nothing but Republican talking points. All the
candidates should make nice and compliment each other and present a unified front and let the voters
do the lifting. This is of course much too simple and logical so watch and wait while they consume
any good will by fighting among themselves. At
least none of the Republican candidates seems to
be electable. That fact alone may be the one true
ray of hope for our country. Even god couldn't help us if one of the GOP get into the White House
this time.

Dr. Tettrazini wrote on December 21, 2007 2:17 AM:

Sorry for the double post.

mkolb wrote on December 21, 2007 3:42 AM:

Someone 'way upthread stated rather forcefully that Dr. Krugman, who is a hero of mine, should stay out of politics and stick to economics.

Since when is healthcare NOT a question of economics? With Americans deciding between food and medicines, mortgage payments and operations, nothing strikes the economic heart more than healthcare.

Geesh, people, get a grip. Dr. Krugman was quite rightly commenting on Sen.Obama's approach to the problem. He was not really making comparisons with other programs - just talking about this one. It was not an attack and it wasn't personal. Let go of the hair triggers and pay attention to the substance.

As I understand it, insurance companies routinely reject something like 75% of all claims on the first pass. They figure less than half of the rejects will fight them so they get to keep the money. If anyone thinks they are going to easily give up this power and $$$, they are exceedingly young and innocent and haven't been paying attention for the past umpteen years.

cloudy wrote on December 21, 2007 1:21 PM:

I think that the EC interviewer, as some commentors noted, failed to get to the bottom of what he has against Obama. The notion that Obama is ever so slightly more moderate than HRC and talks too much about conciliation and not enough about confronting special interests is simply not plausible.

Perhaps Krugman doesn't have any relatives on HRC's payroll, but he still has a bias that is just as strong as if there were some similarly identifiable conflict of interest.

Krugman went WAY beyond merely criticizing Obama for being too moderate. He actually described Obama's attempt to defend his position on health care as better than the alternatives as "mudslinging". He went eagerly after Obama not just on policy, but on the issue of integrity, in a way that I haven't seen him or any other NY TIMES columnist do with ANY of the other Democratic candidates.

David Brooks' similarly incongruous praise of Obama was much more tepid in tone, by comparison.

It should also be noted that Krugman might see mandates as a kind of litmus test on the premier issue of national health care (and let's get real -- the leading Democrats all support similar proposals, none of which are single-payer like Kucinich advocates and I hope Krugman supports); but at TPM Cafe and on Huffpo (column by ESKOW) the progressive case against mandates has been made rather forcefully. Even though Krugman might not AGREE with these arguments by other liberals & progressives, he could at least refrain from impugning Obama's character on that basis, as if Obama were caught voting in secret committee in favor of something he had consistently and publicly said he opposed. (This is something many supposedly progressive politicians do).

denise wrote on December 22, 2007 12:47 AM:

Does no one see the irony in these threads? The same people that love Obama because he's going to bring everyone together and be non-polarizing can't even seem to be civil in a discussion with people in their own party. You tell Dr. Krugman he needs to STFU and call him a shill and a hack and unintelligent, and yet you claim to want less acrimony and partisanship?

Get real folks. This is the most acrimonious primary I can remember for 30 years, and as far as I've seen most of it is coming from the Obama camp. After indulging in all this hatefulness, are you going to be able support the Democratic candidate if it's not Obama, or are you going to go home with your marbles?

And from where did so many people get the idea that Mr. Krugman is abusing his position by criticizing a candidate? This is Op-Ed, people, not the front page. His job is not to be perfectly neutral, it's to give us his opinion. Anyone who wants to be the leader of the free world had better be able to take a little criticism. Anyone who wants a big tent had better be able to have disagreements without hurling insults and profanity. This is minor stuff compared to what's going to happen after the nominations. Pull yourselves together, start practicing what you preach, and keep your eye on the real battle coming up.

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 7:28 PM:

But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.

Jacob wrote on December 24, 2007 7:24 PM:

Krugman's son was raised as a muslim!!!!!! I heard that somewhere.

Wetskeype wrote on December 27, 2007 10:11 PM:

http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib23.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib20.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib38.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib83.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib66.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib54.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib14.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib51.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib87.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib4.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib71.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib69.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib70.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib9.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib89.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib37.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib92.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib46.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib30.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib56.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib73.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib7.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib57.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib59.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib53.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib58.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib91.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib11.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib42.html http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib35.html School Finance Buy Tramadol Cod Tramadol Calmador Zytrim Tramadol Cloridrato Tramadol Apap Ultracet Online Prescription Tramadol Tramadol Tamoxifen Online Tramadol Ulcers Site About Tramadol Dip Cheap Tramadol Online Prescriptions Zyrtec Zyrtec Tramadol Hcl Acetimetaphin Tramadol Neuropathic Pregabalin Cheap Comment Leave Tramadol Tramadol To P O Box Cheap Day Mg Next Tramadol Tramadol Junkie Tramadol Prescriptions Delivered Cod Tramadol Online No Prior Next Day Tramadol Helps Withdrawal Tramadol Report Tramadol Show Up Dot 3 Test [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib46.html]Tramadol Night Sweats[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib54.html]Buy Cheap Discounted Tramadol[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib97.html]Cheapest Tramadol Free Script[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib71.html]Tramadol 3F[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib51.html]Ordering Tramadol Online Cod[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib76.html]Tramadol 120 Ea Cheap[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib21.html]Tramadol Hydrochloride Uk[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib42.html]Tramadol Overnight Fedex[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib24.html]Seap Debt Counseling Tramadol[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib98.html]Tramadol Hcl 100 Mg[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib30.html]Purchase Tramadol Online[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib63.html]Tramadol Review[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib2.html]Tramadol Stimula[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib12.html]Tramadol Cheap Cod[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib89.html]Tramadol Online Om[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib50.html]Cheap Online Order Tramadol Tramadol[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib53.html]Teva Pharmaceuticals And Tramadol[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib23.html]Cod Tramadol Money Orders[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib10.html]Tramadol 537[/url] [url=http://www.lib.hcu.edu.tw/board/board1/upload/tramlib37.html]Quote Car Insurance Buy Tramadol[/url]

Drorignosse wrote on December 28, 2007 1:54 PM:

http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh94.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh61.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh64.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh39.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh88.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh92.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh70.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh72.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh85.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh21.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh75.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh16.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh11.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh14.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh31.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh93.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh8.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh71.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh84.html http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh78.html Tramadol Chemistry Pharmacy Tech Cheap Tramadol Cheap Referrers Total Tramadol Tramadol Arrest Tramadol Prescribed For Dogs And People Tramadol Proper Doses For Dogs Buy Ultram Tramadol Mg Tablets Tramadol Online Online Tramadol Tramadol Ultram Tramadol Cod Guaranteed Tramadol As Antidepressant Cheap Online Tramadol Tramadol Online No Prior Next Day Toxicology Tramadol Lethal Level Tramadol Apap Limit Dosage Tramadol 50 Mg Tabs Generic Tramadol Or Ultram Tramadol Free Shipping Cheap Tramadol Free Fedex Shipping Tramadol Nmda Tramadol To Purchase [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh92.html]Tramadol Package Insert[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh72.html]Tramadol Germany Manufacture[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh24.html]Pharmacy Search Tramadol Online[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh25.html]Generic Tramadol 0894[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh34.html]Buy Mexico Online Pharmacy Tramadol[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh16.html]Tramadol Order By 3 Cst[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh45.html]Slovakia Tramadol Manufacture[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh79.html]Tramadol Free Fedex Cheap No Rx[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh88.html]Tramadol Hcl-Acetaminophen Par Effects[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh20.html]Tramadol Hcl Tabs Side Effects Of[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh28.html]Buy Check E Online Tramadol[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh22.html]Tramadol 50 Mg Tablets[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh94.html]Tramadol Buy Online[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh27.html]Teva Pharmaceuticals And Tramadol[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh84.html]School Finance Buy Tramadol Now[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh19.html]Tramadol Prescription Drug[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh60.html]Tramadol Giving To Dogs[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh0.html]Tramadol Medicine[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh68.html]Psoriasis Tramadol[/url] [url=http://asp.khjh.hc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/tramaspkhjh21.html]Tramadol Sr[/url]

Wetskeype wrote on January 5, 2008 4:42 PM:

http://free-diaper-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://printable-food-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://bed-and-bath-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://dell-computer-online-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://free-blockbuster-video-rental-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://giordanos-pizza-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://avis-discount-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://online-printable-cat-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://medifast-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/ http://coupons-online-dell-notebook-sale-discount.xrumed.info/ http://alaska-airlines-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/ http://free-baby-food-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://printable-hotel-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://bath-&-body-works-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/ http://overstock-coupon-code.xrumed.info/ http://great-clips-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://dell-laptop-coupons-discount.xrumed.info/ http://coupons-dell-xps-notebooks.xrumed.info/ http://internet-coupon-spiegel.xrumed.info/ http://greyhound-bus-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/ http://half-com-coupon-code.xrumed.info/ http://bed-bath-beyond-in-store-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://bed-bath-and-beyond-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://walmart-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://discount-coupon-book.xrumed.info/ http://las-vegas-free-attraction-printable-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://free-vacation-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://dell-outlet-server-coupons.xrumed.info/ http://free-vegas-coupon.xrumed.info/ http://activate-coupon-code.xrumed.info/ hobby lobby internet coupon coupon for marlboro dell small business coupon printable hotel coupons dell coupons laptop petedge coupon code santa fe restaurant coupon gymboree printable coupons coupon for cici s pizza peter stuyvesant cigarette coupon grocery coupon free online coupon bed bath and beyond dell dimension coupons golden corral restaurant coupon free subway restaurant coupon fast food coupons bed bath beyond store coupon avis coupon code discount motel coupon free jamba juice coupon free coupon canada free hotel motel discount coupon office depot coupon code coupons free pizza hut buffet coupon cici's pizza buffet coupons dell canada coupon find grocery coupon merit cigarette coupon dominos coupon [url=http://love-coupon-free.xrumed.info/]love coupon free[/url] [url=http://coupon-restaurant-wendys.xrumed.info/]coupon restaurant wendys[/url] [url=http://j-crew-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/]j crew coupon codes[/url] [url=http://2bhipbuckles-coupon-code.xrumed.info/]2bhipbuckles coupon code[/url] [url=http://albuquerque-restaurant-coupon.xrumed.info/]albuquerque restaurant coupon[/url] [url=http://ebay-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/]ebay coupon codes[/url] [url=http://jcpenney-discount-coupon.xrumed.info/]jcpenney discount coupon[/url] [url=http://kohl's-online-coupon-codes.xrumed.info/]kohl's online coupon codes[/url] [url=http://disney-store-printable-coupons.xrumed.info/]disney store printable coupons[/url] [url=http://discount-hotel-coupon.xrumed.info/]discount hotel coupon[/url] [url=http://dominos-pizza-online-coupon.xrumed.info/]dominos pizza online coupon[/url] [url=http://linens-thing-printable-coupon.xrumed.info/]linens thing printable coupon[/url] [url=http://cheese-pizza-coupon.xrumed.info/]cheese pizza coupon[/url] [url=http://free-sex-coupons.xrumed.info/]free sex coupons[/url] [url=http://coupons-for-dell-notebook.xrumed.info/]coupons for dell notebook[/url] [url=http://cigarette-coupon.xrumed.info/]cigarette coupon[/url] [url=http://find-cigarette-coupon.xrumed.info/]find cigarette coupon[/url] [url=http://ebay-coupon-code.xrumed.info/]ebay coupon code[/url] [url=http://advance-auto-part-coupon-code.xrumed.info/]advance auto part coupon code[/url] [url=http://free-pizza-coupons.xrumed.info/]free pizza coupons[/url] [url=http://free-online-coupons.xrumed.info/]free online coupons[/url] [url=http://online-coupon-discount.xrumed.info/]online coupon discount[/url] [url=http://pizza-hut-coupon-code.xrumed.info/]pizza hut coupon code[/url] [url=http://wal-mart-grocery-coupon.xrumed.info/]wal mart grocery coupon[/url] [url=http://budget-truck-rental-coupon-code.xrumed.info/]budget truck rental coupon code[/url] [url=http://las-vegas-palace-station-coupons.xrumed.info/]las vegas palace station coupons[/url] [url=http://dell-coupon.xrumed.info/]dell coupon[/url] [url=http://dell-wizard-coupon.xrumed.info/]dell wizard coupon[/url] [url=http://lowes-coupon.xrumed.info/]lowes coupon[/url] [url=http://amazon-coupon-promotion-codes.xrumed.info/]amazon coupon promotion codes[/url]

MypeontopsFes wrote on January 5, 2008 8:09 PM:

http://franchise-business-opportunities.xrumed.org/ http://business-canada-franchise-opportunity.xrumed.org/ http://sports-bar-franchises.xrumed.org/ http://top-money-making-franchise-opportunity.xrumed.org/ http://franchise-businesses.xrumed.org/ http://business-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://self-service-car-wash-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://financial-franchise-opportunity.xrumed.org/ http://franchise-loan-consultants.xrumed.org/ http://dollar-store-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://vicksburg-mississippi-fitness-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://top-franchises.xrumed.org/ http://buying-a-franchise-fort-worth.xrumed.org/ http://ice-cream-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://southern-california-franchises.xrumed.org/ http://cleaning-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://business-franchise-internet-local-marketing.xrumed.org/ http://best-franchises.xrumed.org/ http://coffee-franchise.xrumed.org/ http://business-franchise-opportunity-sale.xrumed.org/ tire wheel franchise business opportunity creamery franchise marble sale slab business franchise group internet marketing advertising franchise existing franchise for sale own car wash franchise ca franchise tax board buying into a franchise franchise internet business franchise texas international franchise opportunity australian franchise business chinese fast food franchise franchise business for sale business franchise home opportunity work small restaurant franchise question for buying a franchise health food store franchise pizza franchise 27brick oven find car wash franchise [url=http://business-franchise-home-opportunity-work.xrumed.org/]business franchise home opportunity work[/url] [url=http://franchise-coffee-shop.xrumed.org/]franchise coffee shop[/url] [url=http://business-opportunity-vs-franchise.xrumed.org/]business opportunity vs franchise[/url] [url=http://seve-eleven-franchise-for-sale-in-virginia.xrumed.org/]seve eleven franchise for sale in virginia[/url] [url=http://golf-franchise.xrumed.org/]golf franchise[/url] [url=http://fast-food-restaurant-franchise.xrumed.org/]fast food restaurant franchise[/url] [url=http://creamery-franchise-marble-sale-slab.xrumed.org/]creamery franchise marble sale slab[/url] [url=http://franchise-lenders.xrumed.org/]franchise lenders[/url] [url=http://subway-restaurant-franchise.xrumed.org/]subway restaurant franchise[/url] [url=http://business-franchise-opportunity-party-party.xrumed.org/]business franchise opportunity party party[/url] [url=http://bird-franchise.xrumed.org/]bird franchise[/url] [url=http://starbuck-coffee-franchise.xrumed.org/]starbuck coffee franchise[/url] [url=http://find-car-wash-franchise.xrumed.org/]find car wash franchise[/url] [url=http://franchise-boys.xrumed.org/]franchise boys[/url] [url=http://dem-franchise-boyz.xrumed.org/]dem franchise boyz[/url] [url=http://palm-beach-specialty-coffee-franchise.xrumed.org/]palm beach specialty coffee franchise[/url] [url=http://work-from-home-business-franchise.xrumed.org/]work from home business franchise[/url] [url=http://business-dfw-franchise-opportunity.xrumed.org/]business dfw franchise opportunity[/url] [url=http://coffee-store-franchise.xrumed.org/]coffee store franchise[/url] [url=http://business-coaching-service-franchise.xrumed.org/]business coaching service franchise[/url]

DiltViammeple wrote on January 6, 2008 11:40 PM:

http://www.ssps.chc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/sspschcviagra97.html Natural Viagra [url=http://www.ssps.chc.edu.tw/jkcboard/upload/sspschcviagra51.html]Viagra Constituents Uk[/url]

anetaClaike wrote on January 7, 2008 2:31 PM:

http://alprazolam-snorting-xanax.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-without-prescription.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-and-pregnancy.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-highest-single-dose.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-xr-alprazolam-xr.xru-med.org/ http://development-of-alprazolam.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-15-mg.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-online-without.xru-med.org/ http://methadone-alprazolam.xru-med.org/ http://fluconazole-and-alprazolam.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-cant-come.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-greenstone-manufacturer.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-discountusdrugscom-gabapentin-prescription-soma.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-gcms-analysis.xru-med.org/ http://05mg-30-alprazolam-buy-order.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolm.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-u-s-pharmacies.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-cr.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-purchase-online-cheapest-price.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-0-5-mg-does-it-work.xru-med.org/ http://buy-alprazolam-off-shore.xru-med.org/ http://md-consuitatlon-alprazoam.xru-med.org/ http://cash-on-delivery-alprazolam.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-online-without-prescription.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-sleep-dosage.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-about-alprazolam-drug.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-2mg-overnight.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolam-teva-mg-cp-s-c.xru-med.org/ http://xanax-alprazolam-information.xru-med.org/ http://alprazolan.xru-med.org/ alprazolam 2 5 mg alprazolam symptom withdrawal alprazolam overnight delivery alpha alprazolam hydroxy alprazolam misuse of lorazepam vs alprazolam bust xanax alprazolam florida train michael 05mg alprazolam anax greenstone image what age group uses alprazolam alprazolam tablets ip 1mg tranax 1 buy alprazolam 2mg online no prescription 25mg alprazolam alprazolam kill you alprazolam 25mg alprazolam overnight ingredients in alprazolam alprazolam 5 alprazolam effects255d side introducing alprazolam alprazolam pills online buy alprazolam g 3722 alprazolam pharmacodynamics alprazolam overdose aprazolam mexico no prescription overnight buy alprazolam from europe alprazolam expired alprazolam bar online overnight delivery cod 2mg alprazolam alprazolam dog dose alprazolam on line [url=http://alprazolam-pharmacies.xru-med.org/]alprazolam pharmacies[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-manufacture.xru-med.org/]alprazolam manufacture[/url] [url=http://order-2mg-alprazolam-online-no-prescription.xru-med.org/]order 2mg alprazolam online no prescription[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-tablet-buy-cheap-alprazolam.xru-med.org/]alprazolam tablet buy cheap alprazolam[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-discount-hepsera-soma.xru-med.org/]alprazolam discount hepsera soma[/url] [url=http://xanax-alprazolam-overnight.xru-med.org/]xanax alprazolam overnight[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-2mg-90.xru-med.org/]alprazolam 2mg 90[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-user-rating.xru-med.org/]alprazolam user rating[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-synthesis.xru-med.org/]alprazolam synthesis[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-hydrolysis.xru-med.org/]alprazolam hydrolysis[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-cat.xru-med.org/]alprazolam cat[/url] [url=http://stydy-alprazolam-grapefruit.xru-med.org/]stydy alprazolam grapefruit[/url] [url=http://buy-alprazolam-from-mexico.xru-med.org/]buy alprazolam from mexico[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-erowid-vault-xanax.xru-med.org/]alprazolam erowid vault xanax[/url] [url=http://order-alprazolam-no-prescription.xru-med.org/]order alprazolam no prescription[/url] [url=http://u-s-pharmacies-with-alprazolam.xru-med.org/]u s pharmacies with alprazolam[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-cheapest.xru-med.org/]alprazolam cheapest[/url] [url=http://treatment-pain-alprazolam.xru-med.org/]treatment pain alprazolam[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-alcohol.xru-med.org/]alprazolam alcohol[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-clonazepam-diferencias.xru-med.org/]alprazolam clonazepam diferencias[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-chemical-name.xru-med.org/]alprazolam chemical name[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-2-mg-same-day-delivery.xru-med.org/]alprazolam 2 mg same day delivery[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-online-purchase.xru-med.org/]alprazolam online purchase[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-clonazepam.xru-med.org/]alprazolam clonazepam[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-paypal.xru-med.org/]alprazolam paypal[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-pregnancy.xru-med.org/]alprazolam pregnancy[/url] [url=http://foreign-pharmacy-alprazolam.xru-med.org/]foreign pharmacy alprazolam[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-2.xru-med.org/]alprazolam 2[/url] [url=http://buy-alprazolam-home-delivery.xru-med.org/]buy alprazolam home delivery[/url] [url=http://alprazolam-pic.xru-med.org/]alprazolam pic[/url]

Ladyrourroumb wrote on January 10, 2008 7:48 PM:

http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p8.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p3.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p26.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p10.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p29.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p5.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p25.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p31.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p14.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p27.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p28.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p15.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p13.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p23.html http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p18.html U S Pharmacies Propecia 6Effects Propecia Sexual Side Buying Propecia Hairloss Baldness Propecia Excessive Hairloss On Propecia Propecia No Prescription Online Pharmacy Cialis Viagra Propecia Levitra Erectile Dysfunction Hair Loss Propecia Stop 6 Propecia Acne Cure For Propecia Side Effecrs Internet Pharmacy Propecia Soma Zoloft Propecia Before And After Photos Buy Now Propecia Does Propecia Promote Muscle Growth Concord Nc Pricing For Propecia [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p30.html]Propecia Laser Comb[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p26.html]Hairloss Baldness Propecia[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p20.html]Mexico Propecia[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p25.html]Propecia Forum[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p15.html]Propecia Buy Online[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p1.html]Buy Propecia Pills[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p23.html]Propecia 0A[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p5.html]Propecia Side Effects Hot Flashes[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p10.html]Propecia Prostrate[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p4.html]Buying Propecia[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p7.html]Propecia Efectos Secundarios[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p14.html]Proscar Vs Propecia[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p6.html]Research On Procerin Vs Propecia[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p12.html]Propecia On Line Prescription[/url] [url=http://www.ceag.kh.edu.tw/boardnew3/jkcboard/upload/p27.html]Order Propecia Online[/url]

bloostats wrote on January 13, 2008 2:50 AM:

http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb93.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb0.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb43.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb55.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb44.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb9.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb67.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb95.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb5.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb90.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb74.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb82.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb26.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb47.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb24.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb3.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb50.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb37.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb91.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb46.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb80.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb16.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb31.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb92.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb78.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb96.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb65.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb10.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb83.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb15.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb27.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb36.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb40.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb77.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb76.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb30.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb97.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb70.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb69.html http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb79.html wellbutrin and birth control wellbutrin herbal supplements wellbutrin ingredients studies on wellbutrin stopping wellbutrin champix versus zyban differences between zyban and wellbutrinn information on bupropion hydrochloride bulimia wellbutrin budeprion sr zyban wellbutrin sex dreams wellbutrin snorting maker of wellbutrin zyban advantage program what is a zyban machine petechiae and wellbutrin zyban and panic attacks anxiety disorders and wellbutrin zyban problems personal experiences of patients taking wellbutrin wellbutrin time takes to work what is wellbutrin wellbutrin and anxiety 2 wellbutrin and ginseng antidÃpresseur zyban can wellbutrin cause anxiety zyban crushing reactions to zyban how long does wellbutrin stay in your system zyban smoking cessation drugs wellbutrin medication no prescription zyban and the patch zyban jack daniels wellbutrin help with anxiety zyban indications zyban medication wellbutrin interactions with chromium vitamin wellbutrin testimonial prijs zyban wellbutrin message boards [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb44.html]wellbutrin vomit[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb98.html]zyban high[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb79.html]wellbutrin ache[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb45.html]withdraw syptom of zyban[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb43.html]zyban prescription drug[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb96.html]embark.to generic link online vicodin zyban[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb90.html]zyban generic brands[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb26.html]taking zyban and welbutrin concurrently[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb95.html]wellbutrin sr 100mg[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb61.html]zyban more medical authorities[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb21.html]wellbutrin and side effects of medicine[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb88.html]lexapro and wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb22.html]dangers of zyban[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb41.html]wellbutrin causes rage[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb77.html]wellbutrin and cymbalta prescribed together[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb57.html]sperme avec zyban[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb37.html]adverse reaction to wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb52.html]wellbutrin xl take morning or night[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb7.html]what does zyban look like[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb56.html]bupropion tramadol[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb14.html]zyban sigara bÄraktÄrÄrmÄ[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb16.html]wellbutrin xl vs. prozac[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb36.html]zyban attempt pregnancy[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb58.html]novo bupropion[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb32.html]bupropion tramadol analget[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb87.html]does zyban work?[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb15.html]zyban safety[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb86.html]can wellbutrin cause muscle incoordination or clumsiness[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb71.html]smoking wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb78.html]bupropion side effect[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb17.html]antidepressant wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb97.html]getting used to wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb19.html]wellbutrin testimonial[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb4.html]prozac wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb54.html]pictures of wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb60.html]drug information wellbutrin[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb33.html]zoloft and wellbutrin interactions[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb59.html]wellbutrin zyban in uk bupropion online[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb69.html]zyban interaction birth control[/url] [url=http://w3.pcjh.tp.edu.tw/read/board1/upload/wzbb38.html]zyban to qiut smoking[/url]

Post a comment

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