I bet Obama would love to have Krugman sitting at the table...

I just can't wait until Obama is President and we can evaluate what he actually does, instead of indulging in this idiotic headcount game (how many people labeled 'centrist'? how many people labeled 'progressive'?). I know this is crazy talk, but to me it seems like Obama is strong enough and confident enough to set his own policies that his people carried out--as opposed to having an administration that is merely the net sum of the views of the people he appoints.

Paul Krugman is one of my heroes. I know very little about economics although I am confident I know more than McCain. The real documentation for my affinity for him is not just the Nobel Prize, or his continued relationship with top newspapers, or his appearances on cable news. It comes from the choking sound I hear every time a Republican mentions his name.

I agree with Krugman's points, especially about adding people to the new economics advisory council.

One point he did not make was made by Bonior. The Labor Secretary should have been part of the economic team.

I actually am getting pretty sick and tired of all this label bullsh*t. Is he or she a "liberal" or a "progressive" or a "progressive in sheep's clothing" or whatever. Who really gives a flying f*ck in the mainstream of the country. They don't. All they want is for something to get done on their kids getting educated and healthcare and the tanking economy and getting the f*ck out of iraq and making the world a safer place and making the future better for their children. I really don't give two sh*ts about who he appoints and what you label he does as long as he accomplishes some of this, just a little bit. I am sure that's how most people feel, except the "progressive" elite who want to lose the next election and rally the republicans to block his every move. Give me a gd break. Give the guy a chance to get something done. Jeez.

The mainstream of the company not giving a s**t about who runs our government is a major reason why the financial system has collapsed the US is in 2 wars and the world dislikes us.

How about this, when you let me pick your doctor, your dentist and your accountant for you, I will not say a word about who Obama picks for top positions.

Politicians operate based upon 2 things - money and political pressure. Progressives complain or 'bitch and moan' or whatever you want to call it, because the more noise we make, the more politicians are required to listen to our concerns.

Most people who consider themselves 'left' or progressives have not been complaining for 8 years, we have been doing so for 28 years or so, ever since the US govt first began trickle down economics. Since then, manufacturing in the US has been destroyed and exported overseas, the gap between rich and poor has become gigantic, our economy has become incredibly unstable (savings and loan, enron, tech bubble, subprime mortgage) And derivatives are valued more than actual work. Not to mention that our economy is dominated by gigantic companies that all are trying to reach "too big to fail" status, so that they require billions of dollars of tax money when things go bad.

Its not about picking progressives, conserviatives, trekers or any other group you can think of, its about picking people who were not the architects of the current financial system like Summers rubin and geitner.
They
-deregulated the financial sector
-broke down the borders between banks and financial institutions
-established protections for derivatives and other bulls**t financial 'instruments'

And trust me, there are plenty of quality progressive economists, analysts and thinkers of all kinds who have predicted our current problems, have suggested solutions, and have been ignored for years. Let me know and i will send you a list.

Amen, Mike A. Here we are standing on the edge of the abyss,with a guy holding the dice who can't seem to do anything wrong, and the Jacobins are near revolt and ready to crucify a guy who was a clarion voice during the 2000 election and beyond because he supported a candidate in 2008 calling for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Any Dem with a degree and a pulse who didn't advocate free psylocybin (which I support) worked for the Clinton admin. Obama is on the roll of a lifetime. Let's go with it.

Most liberals don't have much use for pragmatic politics either.
amk

Go to hell.

These cabinet picks work for Obama. They do what he tells them to do.

I'm of two minds about all this fooforah that progressives keep wanting to kick up over appointments.

One minds says: our role didn't end with the election and letting it be known what or who pleases us is important because we had goals when we elected Obama that we wanted to see met. The other says: I don't give a shit who he appoints as long as it isn't a neo-con or a torturer. I trust his judgment.

I'm really divided internally on this.

Finally, a sane opinion.

-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive

Freerider says, "Krugman is a liberal but look up the word 'ideologue' and you'll find his picture".

It seems to me that who is and who is not an "ideologue" is a very subjective matter. My sense of an "ideologue" is one who is guided by an idee fixe rather than a reasoned assessment of relevant evidence. It also seems to me that a person can be an ideologue in some areas and not in others.

Krugman may be an ideologue about some things, but on the economy has he not been correct in his forecasts thus far over the past more than two years?

As to new voices from whom I hope Obama gains insight, I would put James K. Galbraith at the head of the list. He is perhaps a bit more pugnacious than would be ideal, but he has a very keen historical knowledge of what has and has not worked since the 1930s.

I don't want someone who insists on a liberal or a conservative solution; that's how we got into this mess

Apparently you and Obama think alike.

People looking for ideologically driven policy making are in for a very big disappointment.

Obama is not an idealist. Obama is a pragmatist. Whatever works. And to that I say: hell yeah!

On United States governmental policy making I offer the following excerpt from an article by Peta Smith (please note the sentence beginning "Legislative outcomes [policy making] are shaped...":

In pursuing its bold health reform plan, the centrepiece of the President’s
first term, the Clinton Administration alternated between overtures to
Representative Cooper and denunciations of his plan in an attempt to quash
its viability as a legislative and political alternative. This contradictory
stance toward Cooper weakened Clinton and underscores the importance of
effective presidential leadership within the United States fragmented system
of government. Legislative outcomes are shaped by the interaction of
institutional, policy, political and economic factors in the policy process that
are in constant flux; successful policy initiatives demand an awareness of
these factors. The policy process provides opportunities as well as obstacles
to presidential leadership.2 Exploring Clinton’s policy reform and
appreciating that context as involving an integrated process contributes to
our understanding of how policy successes and failures emerge from the
U.S. system of government.

End excerpt.

Source: AustralAsian Journal of American Studies, "The Limitations of Leadership: Presidents, Policy Making and Policy Husbandry" by Peta Smith

The only building criticism I have been hearing from the right has been that Obama has appointed too many ex-Clinton people.

I find this a rather weak way to build an attack strategy. Oh those horrible Clinton years we sure don't want to go through that again!!

So the rights second follow up charge is that Obama promised change and how is more Clinton change? Well its change because its very unlike the disaster called the last eight years. Its change because it draws from previous success to build NEW SUCCESSES, and takes on the NEW ENVIRONMENT of 2008, and its NEW SET OF PROBLEMS. Change is the approach, the plans, and the results. Those that have been put in place are the cogs and not the levers.

To again expose the personality disorder of hypocrisy that republicans suffer from lets see who filled REAGANS first cabinet.

Secretary of State Al Haig, former Nixon administration, Malcom Baldridge Secretary of Commerce, worked for Nixon, James Watt Secretary of Interior, Nixon appointee in Dept of Interior, Caspar Weinberger Secretary of Defense, chosen by Nixon to be head of Californias Republican party, Pat Buchanan communications director, former Nixon staffer, Samuel Pierce Secretary of HUD, former general counsel dept of treasury under Nixon. With all those Nixon people makes it understandable how we transitioned from Watergate to IranContra.

Like a majority of people who are rational I'll wait to see the results that come from the Obama administration.

Well, I am wary whenever someone says "the best and the brightest." If you don't know why, check out the book.
While I'd give Obama some room on appointments, since he will be directing policy, that is tempered by his backtracking on his pledge to repeal with Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Good grief, a few percentage points more from those who can afford it. He made a convincing case during the election, but now doesn't follow through. That makes me really wonder about all the Wall Street folks he is listening to.
As for Hillary, I just think he is paying his political debt. I can't knock him for that.