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

[Chubbster]

Paul Krugman...ah, I'd be banned for saying where a decade of careful observation of the guy leads.

[Vincero]

the clintons have 35 years worth of hacks in the media ,in politics, in the cooperate world etc., that fear Obama. he will shake up the halls of power and that's why they all fear him and you see these type of hit pieces. hillary who agrees with everything bush has ever done now wants to be the agent of change. where was she the past 7 years?.if she had been the voice of the opposition would she be falling nationally in the polls?.or would she have been embraced?..no,,she is not trusted by informed people and expect to see much more of Obama bashing as she calls in her chips.

[sdskelton03]

I have to say Mr. Krugman is wrong here.

I am a conservative, so I have to disclose that I am a fan of neither candidate.

Krugman argues, basically, that "big medicine" is so evil that it must not be dealt with. Healthcare reform will be mandated by others and imposed on HMO's, Pharma companies and for profit providers. The purpose of thier exclusion is that if included they will undermine the process out of self interest.

Does Mr. Krugman believe that if excluded they are more likely to lay down and not fight? That is absurd. I would say they are likely to fight with more vigor and because of their exclusion they will fight armed with more public sympathy.

[RayZarukkus]

Krugman should just fall the fVck back with his obvious predilected rants.

[RAMHaiti]

Obama is "naive" at best...

[Bluedanube]

Mr. Obama is adopting the Rodney King approach to politics, "can't we all just get along?" Given the current Republican Party and the entrenched corporate interests in the halls of Congress this approach is naive at best.

[savertime]

What is Krugman's health care Plan. He needs to explain why the candidates' plans will not work and why. No one expects the insurance and pharmacy cartels to give up all the power they wield overnight. Change is not, nor has it ever been, "immediate." Any candidate that has a plan to provide comprehensive health care should be given credit as it represents CHANGE, not attacked by Krugman.

It does not go unnoticed that he didn't mention HRC's plan while most agree that all three are similar in substance. Why attack the Dems when the Repugs are quite satisfied with the status quo - "if you can't afford the high cost of health care, then that's your problem, not the governments."

Krugman, a champion of liberal causes, is showing his bias.

[KeysDan]

Professor Krugman has captured my concerns about Senator Obama. He prides himself on his state legislative compromises (his U.S. Senate record is too scanty for comment) and says hebelieves similar tactics will yield a successful presidency. However, qualities that result in success as a legislator and success as president are quite different. I trust Senator Obama knows the difference, and that the"big table" from which all that is progressive is to emerge is campaighn rhetoric geared to a citizenry that wants change without all this partisan conflict. Apparently, those pesky right wingers will just fade away. The reality is that a President Obama will be crushed by the big business steamroller if he does believe his nice campaign speeches.

[StephenDedalus82]

Krugman is one of the best of the mainstream columnists out there. I think it's about time people started calling out Obama on his lack of substance and reality. He's received by far the most positive news coverage of the campaign, and I for one hope a more reasoned estimation of the candidate gets play in the media before caucusing begins.

[eustiscg]

It's intellectually dishonest to conflate Pharma and Insurance's PARTICIPATION with its domination of the reform process. Obama has made clear, to anyone interested in reading his books or his policy rather than relying on media caricatures, that he will have a vice-grip on everyone around that table. He will be saying, in effect, "X, Y, and Z changes WILL occur. How will that happen most efficiently?" He's bringing them in not so that they can set the agenda, but so that his reforms jive as well as possible with the corporate structure. That just seems like common sense to me.

What's more, I happen to think that Obama's healthcare plan is the most likely to leave Pharma/Insurance with no choice but to obey. He has spoken of forbidding companies the privilege of accepting the healthcare tax-credit checks if they don't play ball. Nothing speaks like money, so play on their lust for market share .... Again, seems smart to me.

[myname]

Does Krugman do anything else for living other than attacking Barack Obama?

[MrsHaskell]

"Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?"

Thank you, Dr. Krugman. There it is in a nutshell. It should be clear to anyone that's paying attention that Republicans are out to destroy our way of life: dismantling our civil rights, civil liberties, labor protections, social safety net, even the very integrity of the vote. For all these years I've been complaining that by acting as if it's business as usual, Democrats are bringing a knife to a gunfight. Obama's not even bringing a knife. He's got flowers, a nice little bottle of wine and (never at a loss for Hope) maybe even a condom. Either he's delusional, he just doesn't get it, or he's not the anti-war populist that he claims to be. And here's a hint: he's neither delusional nor clueless. Anyone who does want change, and want out of Iraq needs to look elsewhere for a candidate.

[outnow]

On the issues, Obama is a middle of the road guy. That's his image.

Tort reform - what a joke. Only a totally "sold out" candidate would support this madness, and guess what - this is one of the jewels in Obama's would-be crown. There are many others - manbe thorns in our crown.

No progressive candidate would support eliminating compensation from wrong-doing corporations.

Why give the multinational corporations there breaks. Don't "sit down with them" to see if they will eliminate the big scoop they take right off the top of insurance premiums, drug costs, and medical expenses. The answer is to buy the political support and the support of the MSM as the "non-Hillary."

Vote for Edwards for change. Paul Krugman does not go far enough in his criticism of Obama as the ultimate "sell-out."

[jeanruss]

Krugman, as usual, makes his point-these are not times for the faint-hearted-Obama thinks Joe Lieberman has the right idea-oh, please-Lieberman just endorsed a warmongering Republican-Obama is on the wrong side of many progressive issues-he voted for the Peru free trade agreement(Nafta has been a colossal mistake)nuclear power is deadly and unnecessary-he doesn't get where the country is right now-we need a fighter like Edwards to get the Constitution back and start evening the playing field-corporations are out of control.

[SCharb]

Krugman and the other Clintonite brownshirts are getting desperate. The attacks are becoming less and less reasonable.

"On Saturday Mr. Obama... declared that 'We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.'"
"Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that 'us' includes the insurance and drug lobbies?"

Yes, we do. Obama has already explained this: they will get a seat at the table, but they won't dominate the conversation or have much influence. Obama wants to include everybody in the process, so we can reach a compromise. If they're not part of the solution, the pharma lobbyists will make sure it fails in congress, just like Hillarycare. That's not leadership.

This is a consistent Obama theme that matches his foreign policy of direct negotiation with our enemies.