Dr. Krugman on Obama

[Thorgrim]

ELECTION CENTRAL: A lot of liberal activists view Barack Obama as a liberal standard bearer. As the closest thing to an establishment voice that these activists have, were you surprised to find yourself battling Obama?

PAUL KRUGMAN: What started it on my end was Obama's health care plan. It was weaker than the Edwards plan. It drives me crazy when people try to assess candidates on the basis of how they look and sound, and there was all this enthusiasm for Obama as a multicultural symbol, but I was waiting to see some policy proposals.

EC: But your latest column criticizes Obama as the "anti-change candidate" across the board -- it isn't just focused on health care. Why did his health care plan end up triggering your larger critique of him?

PK: Health care is make or break for whether we're going to have a real liberal turn in policy or not. Health care is the gaping hole in the welfare state. We all agree that the system is deeply flawed. And health care has political spillover. If Democrats get major health care reform, then it kind of re-legitimizes the idea of activist government policies. Even conservatives say that.

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.

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 thing through a kind of outbreak of good feeling.

EC: But should his conciliatory tone really be the basis to this extent of our evaluation of him? Some, including Matthew Yglesias, have argued that this focus on Obama's conciliatory rhetoric obscures the fact that Obama would still more likely prove a genuinely progressive president than Hillary would be.

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.

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.

EC: What other things gave rise to your current critique of Obama?

PK: When Obama used the word "crisis" about Social Security it gave me a little bit of a sense of, "Hmmm -- I'm a little worried that my initial concerns were more right than I knew."

To have Obama sort of sounding like the Washington Post editorial page really said among other things that he just hasn't been listening to progressives, for whom the fight against Bush's Social Security scare tactics was really a defining moment. Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.

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.

EC: But surely there's something to the argument that the skills to build coalitions, to win over moderates on the other side, aren't without any importance. Should we really take tone and rhetorical skills out of the equation entirely?

PK: No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side. And as far as sounding moderate goes, the reality is that if the Democrats nominated Joe Lieberman, a month into the general election Republicans would be portraying him as Josef Stalin. Obama's actually been positioning himself to the right of both Clinton and Edwards on domestic policy and has been attacking them from the right.

The Democratic nominee is still going to be running on a platform that is substantially to the left of how Bill Clinton governed, and the Republican is going to nominate someone to the right of Attila the Hun. You want the Dem who's going to make that difference clear and not say things that will be used by Republicans to say, "Well, even their candidate says..."

And after the election, if you come in after having opposed mandates and having said Social Security is in a crisis, 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. Mostly it's a question of what happens after the election.

Late Update: Some have floated the rumor that Krugman has a son working for Hillary as a way of explaining his criticism of Obama, but this rumor is false.

Election Central | Talking Points Memo | In An Interview With TPM, Krugman Ramps Up Case Against Obama

Now, Dr. Krugman is a NYTimes editorialist and makes no qualms that he is a liberal...he is also however, accomplished academically, which is a rarity...politically active and relevant AND doing work in your field that gives you awards, also he teaches as Princeton, etc...it's really hard to make any sort of argument that he isn't intelligent, and with his writings of the NYTimes, it's hard to say he's not a valid figure in the Democratic Party

He is VERY respected by liberals across the board, from the DailyKos to Atrios to FDL, etc etc

So his opinions matter, and his critiques of Obama have been sound, logical, calm and in my opinion: dead on

I was once in the "anyone but Hillary" camp, but I've come to realize this is a 2...possibly 3 man race...and Edwards is a very small possibility, although these are changing times

So Obama vs Hillary, obviously we have to fully weigh them both, as DEMOCRATS (you people who aren't voting in the Democratic primary as a Democrat can ignore this thread if you want)

I've talked to too many moderate voters who think his one year in the senate...his "state legislature experience"...is just not enough in a electorate still swayed by 9/11 propaganda, that, in and of itself, is enough to question him

But ofcourse we can question Hillary too...she's too polarizing, voters are sexist, she has all the Clinton baggage, etc

However, I agree with all the points I highlighted that Krugman pointed out, and it, along with many other anti-Obama writings, has caused to support Hillary if it is a Obama vs. Hillary...we need to win, too much is at stake, (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on wikipedia...really scary...also Carhart v. Gonzales on the right to choose) with Ginsburg/Stevens almost certainly needing to retire (they might, please god no, die in the next few years) and Breyer, Souter aren't getting any younger...Kennedy, Scalia you never know...only Alito and Roberts are judges I know won't leave the bench in the next 8 years

Given the grave doubts raised by Obama...and his lackluster polling numbers vs Rudy/McCain...even Huckabee! I imagine once the hits start coming...he'll go down hard and I don't think he'll be able to pick himself back up, it'll be 1988 all over again

[JaJae]

Paul Krugman is about as reliable as Anne Coulter for accurate and sensible commentary. Obama isn't socialist enough for Krugman, that's a good thing.

[motivez]

What a joke, Ann Coulter can't really be compared to any other political commentator.. she's so much worse than everyone else out there.. and she's no where close to Krugman.. He's an admitted liberal partisan, but nothing like Ann Coulter.

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism either, if you had followed the exchange at all, it's a disagreement about some minor details in his plan vs some of the other candidates plans, mainly whether or not certain people will be left out.. and the fact that Obama has been using conservative talking points to talk about certain issues like social securities.

I think there are a lot of liberals out there who's worried Obama will be to willing to compromise progressive principles if elected.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

What a joke, Ann Coulter can't really be compared to any other political commentator.. she's so much worse than everyone else out there.. and she's no where close to Krugman.. He's an admitted liberal partisan, but nothing like Ann Coulter.

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism either, if you had followed the exchange at all, it's a disagreement about some minor details in his plan vs some of the other candidates plans, mainly whether or not certain people will be left out.. and the fact that Obama has been using conservative talking points to talk about certain issues like social securities.

I think there are a lot of liberals out there who's worried Obama will be to willing to compromise progressive principles if elected.

He's such a rookie to national politics...yeah if he were elected I think he'd have no idea how to play hardball and basically write the bill the GOP wanted for every issue

I think Hillary and Bill know how to work the Hill (zing!)

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

What a joke, Ann Coulter can't really be compared to any other political commentator.. she's so much worse than everyone else out there.. and she's no where close to Krugman.. He's an admitted liberal partisan, but nothing like Ann Coulter.

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism either, if you had followed the exchange at all, it's a disagreement about some minor details in his plan vs some of the other candidates plans, mainly whether or not certain people will be left out.. and the fact that Obama has been using conservative talking points to talk about certain issues like social securities.

I think there are a lot of liberals out there who's worried Obama will be to willing to compromise progressive principles if elected.

His columns are absurdly anti-Bush to the far extremes. He paints doomsday pictures of our economy and many other issues. He's an extremist the same as Anne Coulter. While Coulter is vile in her behavior and an attention whore, Krugman is no less extreme in his positions.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He's such a rookie to national politics...yeah if he were elected I think he'd have no idea how to play hardball and basically write the bill the GOP wanted for every issue

His being an idealistic rookie is part of his appeal to me. He isn't tainted. I'd rather have an honest politician than someone like Hillary who is so far tainted she'd be making policy based on special interests.

I think Hillary and Bill know how to work the Hill (zing!)

Bill nows how to work on the hill, but not with Hillary...

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

His columns are absurdly anti-Bush to the far extremes. He paints doomsday pictures of our economy and many other issues. He's an extremist the same as Anne Coulter. While Coulter is vile in her behavior and an attention whore, Krugman is no less extreme in his positions.

Well, we'll have to disagree. I don't think any of his positions are anywhere near as extreme as suggesting we go around and kill all the Muslims and convert them to Christianity

I'd challenge you to show me one that comes close.

[JaJae]

Here he essentially calls Republicans racist:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/op...on&oref=slogin

Here's more from his book where he blames southern white voters for our economic problems:

“White backlash against the civil rights movement is the reason America is the only advanced country where a major political party wants to roll back the welfare state. Ronald Reagan began his 1980 campaign with a states’ rights speech outside Philadelphia, Mississippi, the town where three civil rights workers were murdered; Newt Gingrich was able to take over Congress entirely because of the great Southern flip, the switch of Southern whites from overwhelming support for Democrats to overwhelming support for Republicans.”

Coulter has Bush Derangement Syndrome, Krugman has Gore Derangement Syndrome:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/op...15krugman.html

And on and on and on..

[motivez]

I don't think that's exactly what he's saying, but him talking rationally about what he perceives as the Republican party's problems with people who are different (see: Ann Coulter, lack of calls for border fence with Canada, etc, etc) is somehow equivalent in your mind to suggesting we go kill all Muslims and convert them to Christianity?

And that statement by Ann Coulter is hardly a lone crazybatshitinsane moment, it's a pattern of behavior prevalent in much of what she has to say..

They aren't in the same league when it comes to extremeness of rhetoric, not by a long shot. It was a ridiculous comparison.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

His being an idealistic rookie is part of his appeal to me. He isn't tainted. I'd rather have an honest politician than someone like Hillary who is so far tainted she'd be making policy based on special interests.


Bill nows how to work on the hill, but not with Hillary...

you ever see mr smith goes to washington?

It's a real tough game there, people will smile and then stab you in the back, if Obama is THAT much of a rookie, he won't get anything done and he'll get thrown out in 4 years for doing nothing

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think that's exactly what he's saying, but him talking rationally about what he perceives as the Republican party's problems with people who are different (see: Ann Coulter, lack of calls for border fence with Canada, etc, etc) is somehow equivalent in your mind to suggesting we go kill all Muslims and convert them to Christianity?

And that statement by Ann Coulter is hardly a lone crazybatshitinsane moment, it's a pattern of behavior prevalent in much of what she has to say..

They aren't in the same league when it comes to extremeness of rhetoric, not by a long shot. It was a ridiculous comparison.

In Coulter's defense, and I hate that I'm doing this, that isn't exactly what she said. She said kill their leaders, not kill all Muslims. And again, she says those things not to be serious but to get attention and to make a larger point. She has a backwards way of making her extremists views to get attention. But in the end, her overall political views are just as extreme as Krugman. She may be far more blunt and bitchy about the way she presents it, but Krugman is just as extremist wrapped up in an elitist NY Times article.

[zhiyi]

Obama is in his adolescent stage of his political career. His stand on social security and his attack of his rivals on mandate from right is an innocent mistake. Krugman sees it as more than immaturity. It's like a general confusing foes with friends in an important battle ground.

I tend to agree with Bill Clinton that Obama isn't ready for the prime time yet.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

you ever see mr smith goes to washington?

It's a real tough game there, people will smile and then stab you in the back, if Obama is THAT much of a rookie, he won't get anything done and he'll get thrown out in 4 years for doing nothing

Congress currently isn't doing anything anyway. I would prefer our government do the minimal it needs to survive. I am not for expanding the government. I wouldn't care if he got nothing major accomplished in 4 years. To be honest, I'd probably prefer that than Hillary getting a lot done. And if he got turned over in 4 years, I'd probably prefer that as well to get fresh blood in the White House. I'm tired of two-term presidencies. The second term is always a waste.

[Thorgrim]

His second article was really mild and pretty accurate...there are a lot of conservative who viciously hate al gore, to inexplicable depths

the first one is well documented in any history book written by a moderate source...the "Southern Strategy"
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lee Atwater, a notoriously vile campaigner, helped the GOP with it, after Nixon touched on it...

I want to explain this to everyone, the GOP officially apologized for doing this:
USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

And JaJae is pointing it out as an example of Krugman being too extreme...because he is pointing out what the GOP has admitted and apologized for...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In Coulter's defense, and I hate that I'm doing this, that isn't exactly what she said. She said kill their leaders, not kill all Muslims. And again, she says those things not to be serious but to get attention and to make a larger point. She has a backwards way of making her extremists views to get attention. But in the end, her overall political views are just as extreme as Krugman. She may be far more blunt and bitchy about the way she presents it, but Krugman is just as extremist wrapped up in an elitist NY Times article.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."

COULTER: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In Coulter's defense, and I hate that I'm doing this, that isn't exactly what she said. She said kill their leaders, not kill all Muslims. And again, she says those things not to be serious but to get attention and to make a larger point. She has a backwards way of making her extremists views to get attention. But in the end, her overall political views are just as extreme as Krugman. She may be far more blunt and bitchy about the way she presents it, but Krugman is just as extremist wrapped up in an elitist NY Times article.

Ok, I made a slight error on her quote, the jist of what she said remains the same

Go into another country, kill their leaders because they're of a different faith, and then convert them to Christianity.

Any way you want to look at it, she's not in the same league as Krugman.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

Ok, I made a slight error on her quote, the jist of what she said remains the same

Go into another country, kill their leaders because they're of a different faith, and then convert them to Christianity.

Any way you want to look at it, she's not in the same league as Krugman.

don't forget she advocated that we shouldn't worry about how high the civilian death toll was in that situation, "carpet bombing" killed more than nuclear weapons

[motivez]

Originally Posted by zhiyi

Obama is in his adolescent stage of his political career. His stand on social security and his attack of his rivals on mandate from right is an innocent mistake. Krugman sees it as more than immaturity. It's like a general confusing foes with friends in an important battle ground.

I tend to agree with Bill Clinton that Obama isn't ready for the prime time yet.

Good point, Krugman sees it as him being willing to look the other way when it comes to progressive principles, and maybe he's not wrong. With all of his talk about compromise, one has to wonder if he'll compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised on simply for the sake of compromise..

I don't know that he's not read for prime time, he has made some rookie mistakes, but I don't think "playing politics" is really one of the most important qualities for a candidate.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

don't forget she advocated that we shouldn't worry about how high the civilian death