Krugman: Obama Has Become "The Anti-Change Candidate"

New York Times:

Broadly speaking, the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar policy proposals -- the dispute over health care mandates notwithstanding. But there are large differences among the candidates in their beliefs about what it will take to turn a progressive agenda into reality.

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[AxelDC]

04:14 PM on 12/22/2007

Krugman hyperfocuses on one issue, nitpicking tiny differences between Obama's plan and the others, and then calls him both too cynical and too naive at the same time.

I respect John Edwards, but unless the opposition coalesces around Obama, Hillary will be the nominee. If Hillary is the nominee, it's back to the 1990s, when it's all about the Clintons. Republicans can focus their hatred and anger on the Former First Lady who is more divisive and has fewer political skills than her husband.

The only way to get the Republicans to back down from their obstructionist, backwards positions is through a massive electoral defeat. November 2008 has the makings for the biggest Republican disaster since the 1932 election, but Hillary takes the focus off Bush and his obvious failures. She supports the war in Iraq, war on Iran, and triangulates every position she holds. Democrats have the opportunity to gain 4-8 more Senate seats and a dozen House seats, and Clinton depresses the Democratic vote across the board.

As President, Hillary Clinton would be divisive and unable to achieve her retroactive vision. As nominee, she allows the Republicans back in the game and minimizes Democratic electoral gains across the board. Obama or Edwards would be far better nominees, but right now Obama is the only one energizing the Party.

[shamanbart]

12:54 AM on 12/20/2007

That was quite a spintastic piece by Krugman -- trash Obama, praise Edwards, while covertly championing his true love -- Hillary -- who is the strategic winner if Edwards wins Iowa and Obama comes in third.
The crux of Krugman's argument -- that Obama's position is naive -- is ironically much more naive. Krugman seems to believe that somehow half of Congress will roll over and allow the Dems to push through, what, single-payer or a scheme where insurance and drug companies are regulated out of business? That's wishful thinking on his or anyone's part.
Obama's grasp of the fact that there will be die-hard pro-corporate, paid-for-by-big-insurance types in Congress, and therefore pushing through a plan realistically means allowing big insurance to continue to do business to some degree.
The real benefits to the people will be increased competition from gov't plans, cost saving measures, new regulations protecting consumers.
While his plan is alas no single-payer system, it has the potential to eventually reduce the power and control of big insurance and big drug.
Given the current state of Congress, we should be more concerned about getting rid of the luddites and wackos holed up there. Our next Pres. will certainly have an uphill battle unless the voters throw out the bums!

[SCharb]

10:47 PM on 12/19/2007

!!REBUTTAL BY NEWSWEEK!!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1

Suck on that, Krugman, you hack!

[Melkor]

11:53 AM on 12/18/2007

The vast majority of these anti-Krugman comments do not address his basic argument. Its either he is a Hillary plant, or an Edwards plant, or accusations that he doesn't know what he is talking about without actually disproving his argument. Most of what I'm reading is a bunch of emotion-driven, cult of personality hysteria.

Krugman is deeply partisan - yes. He is a genuine liberal. He believes there should be a basic social safety net and that government should play a part in the regulation of commerce to protect the citizenry from big business. He is also deeply distrustful of economic elites and those that are beholden to them (mainly Republicans but increasingly now certain Democrats as well).

You may disagree with those beliefs - but understand that you are also disagreeing with liberal ideology. Nothing is wrong with that. What is wrong however, is to attempt to minimize or intentionally misinterpret his beliefs as somehow being a sinister allegiance to a rival campaign. It's also wrong to characterize Obama as some new breed of politician. He is yet another centrist democrat, saying almost nothing different to the centrist democrat cadre we've had since Bill Clinton.

I think what bothers Krugman (it bothers me) is that a centrist democrat is not enough to reverse the restructuring of the American society undertaken by the Republicans over the last two decades.

Get off the "he works for Hillary" comments and address THAT.

[WellbornBroad]

11:16 AM on 12/18/2007

Krugman has been riding the "one trick pony"
too long and is obviously a hrc sycophant.
Stick to your so-called expertise on financial
matters.

[BUSHsurvivor]

08:51 AM on 12/18/2007

I disagree with Mr. K for the simple fact that Obama is running his primary campaign so far-left that should he win the democratic nomination he will CHANGE to the center in the general election...thus leaving the progressives in the dust!

[midtown]

03:35 AM on 12/18/2007

The anti-change candidate is Hillary. She proposes (tonight) to have Bill Clinton and Papa Bush traverse the universe to clean up after Bush Junior.

Gee, she's a real change agent . . . .

[Leaftones]

01:09 AM on 12/18/2007

I totally agree with Krugman - I thought Obama was a progressive and a forward thinking but he really sounds from a policy point of view to be a conservative or republican prior to the rise of the theocons.

IMO the DLC will love him more than anything - disaster for progressives like Edwards and America as a whole - a wolf in sheeps clothing.

hate to say it but it seems likely - given his past use he should be supportive of LEAP (www.leap.cc) and not the just say no policies he seems to endorse at the moment as one example - Krugman can provide the cogent healthcare analysis missing from so many others - and then there's iran...

[CraigB]

12:56 AM on 12/18/2007

If democrats nominate Barack Hussein Obama, we will lose the white house, and once again will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[ystasino]

12:03 AM on 12/18/2007

David Brooks - opinion

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp

"Many of the best presidents in U.S. history had their character forged before they entered politics and carried to it a degree of self-possession and tranquillity that was impervious to the Sturm und Drang of White House life.

Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in "Dreams From My Father." Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant.

Like most of the rival campaigns, I"ve been poring over press clippings from Obama"s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none. The unity speech he gives on the stump today is essentially the same speech that he gave at the Democratic convention in 2004, and it"s the same sort of speech he gave to Illinois legislators and Harvard Law students in the decades before that. He has a core, and was able to maintain his equipoise, for example, even as his campaign stagnated through the summer and fall.

Moreover, he has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country"s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn"t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn"t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what"s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side."

[nellie]

10:50 PM on 12/17/2007

Sounds like a Karl Rove headline. Take the person's strength and turn it on its head.

It doesn't move me.

I hope the Democrats aren't taking notes from the Bush/Rove playbook, because those tactics don't work. They're just a good cover for election theft.

[lovethesinner]

10:37 PM on 12/17/2007

Krugman is absolutely right to say that what Obama has on the tabel now looks like fluff. But the last line in his piece at the NYTimes was,

"And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done."

That's true. But... I think Paul is thinking that Iowa is a state full of California hippies, or, a waiting room for guests on Democacy Now.

Obama is running for the Democratic nomination in the WHITEY-EST STATE IN THE UNION (95%) and then immediately in New Hampshire (90%). If he carried the same populist message that John Edwards is pitching, Obama would look like a threat. Especially as it was rebroadcast on the evening news, nationally.

Yes, I'm suggesting that he is pandering to the business class in a way to make him less threatening, but, that's part of the problem for a black candidate.

How to make change without making people SCARED.

Even though John Edwards heart is in the right place, and I'd love to see him get it done, is it really possible to just chuck all those guys out of the room? (god knows we'd all love to see America with single payer health care, like nearly ALL the other developed nations in the world. )

My hope is that Obama will join with Edwards and use him like Bush used Cheney, only for domestic agenda. Turn him loose into the business world and use his fine lawyering skills to crack down on the abuse.

(I've heard that the staff of Obama and Edwards are partying together, and it was interesting to watch Joe Trippi come to Axelrod's defence when Mark Penn was doing his smear "thang" on Hardball the other night.)

[policod]

10:11 PM on 12/17/2007

Paul Krugman is a gifted economist as well as a gifted teacher who in his column in the NYT has been able to simplify many difficult and complicated subjects. As an advocate, he has done the reverse especially because he has not indicated that he has become an advocate. In a recent review of his book in the Times, the reviewer lamented this transition and Krugman's reasons for it. Personally, I enjoyed Krugman the economist.

[stevenak]

09:36 PM on 12/17/2007

I can't believe it a NYT Times writer spinning it for the Clintons. Krugman is never right on his predictions. He is even wrong on the economy when he tries to predict it. Read his articles, he can only spin, he is a BS specialist. This article is nothing new. he even stole the title of his new book.

[Qbear]

08:39 PM on 12/17/2007

I'd put the SMART money on UNCOMMITTED delegates at caucuses.
I can't hold my nose and vote Hillary after Kyl/Lieberman and the WAVES of gutter fears & smears, kindergarten, teen drug experimentiation, toss of dice,,,but the slimiest Bob Kerry anti-muslim "COMPLIMENT"
Obama lost me over McClurkin, and Edwards seems a long shot.