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

[joeamerica]

You just don't get it Paul. Although seeing candidates as one dimensional might make for a cute article, it doesn't fit with real life. To say that Obama can't or won't be tough on insurance companies or big pharma because he gives them a "seat at the table" is ludicrous. I actually like both Obama and Edwards in that scenario because either would be one of the smartest, most articulate people at that table and I think either would represent joe america quite well. And when Obama says "I'll tell them Harry and Loise are lying", he's simply saying he will use the bully-pulpit to faciliate change. He's saying he will make his case to the public outside of the media filter, which has been done successfully by several great presidents.

[bcb232]

say what you will but paul krugman is a highley respected economist who knows what he is talking about. there is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with obama's policies, particulary healthcare. krugman has been fighting the good fight for liberals for a long time....be­fore there ever was any democratic primary nominees.

[Melkor]

Why don't you people get off the psychoanalytical swiping and address the substance of Krugman's article? You have to either be a fool, a wimp or part of the apparatus to say you can negotiate the kind of substantive changes our society needs with the very forces responsible for the problems.

Edwards is the only genuine populist with a shot at this thing.

[MNmommy]

Good call.

Here come the nattering hordes to assail your opinion though...

[Mileva Maric]

My perspective is much like Krugman's. I felt this way about Obama long before Krugman wrote word one on Obama.

So you know, there are just different views. Some of us see Obama as Krugman has so well described here.

Who's to say who is right? Only time and either success or failure in an Obama administration.

I'm too concerned about my country and the future of my children to want to roll that dice. I'm not one to easily fall for "charisma" and Obama has failed to impress me in any other way. I am not in support of his health care proposal.

And it may be that I am from a military home (or a past Reagan Republican), but I did not disagree with the vote for the resolution on Iraq.

If I were president (and not a criminal such as Bush) I would want Congress to grant me the power necessary to defend the country as the situation requires. This was what the vote for and not an "authorization for war." This administration and the Republican Party deployed a systematic mass marketing campaign for the war in Iraq. It focused heavily on demonizing the Democratic Party by bastardizing words and phrases to maximize their cover for war and discredit any detractors (AKA anti-Americans).

It was the Bush administration that said the democrats, by signing the resolution were giving him the power to go to war. And it was repeated for years (catapulting that truth over the propaganda until you believe him as Mr. Bush calls it) until it became a fact.

And anything that takes more than a sound bite to explain does not make it to the news.

Here we are today, Democrats repeating the same Bush lies that he uses to justify his war in order to elevate one of our own candidates. It's just ... sad anymore.

There is nothing broken with our system. We have had broken characters running it.

[Laprawler501]

Thank you for posting this. The fact that Obama has suckered in all this support is appalling to me. He has no answer to any of our problems except to sit down and talk to people. A problem he claims to have a solution to (his health care plan) is by far the worst of the big 3 demo. candidates.

He is getting away with a lot in this campaign. I agree with Krugman 100% all these people Obama is going to talk to (Big Drug Companies, Insurance companies, I forget how many world leaders) are not going to back down with a phone call or a round table meeting with Obama.

[Gabrielle]

I tend to agree with KRUGMAN, I used to really like OBAMA but he KISSES the BIG PHARMA and other BIG CORPORATIONS's ASSES TOO MUCH....

Naive? Dishonnest? Calculating?

Don't know...but JOHN EDWARDS is looking better by the minute....

[coonce]

Mr Krugman,

You are partially right. John Edwards would handle the insurance companies, the health industries and the pharmaceutical companies VERY WELL. This is why I think he'd make an excellant choice as Health and Human Services Secretary for Barack Obama's administration Cabinet.


Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

[nolalily]

Well, Edwards' persona is that of a scrapper. I'm not sure that that's what we need right now. Our country and its citizens have had about enough of this garbage.

I remember watching a very, wishy-washing Krugman let Bill O'Reilly get the better of him a few years ago. Maybe Krugman wants someone like Edwards and is willing to ignore common wisdom in hopes of getting someone who'll go punch O'Reilly for him.

[snruB]

I don't know if he's pro-anybody, you guys. He's just anti-Obama. He hates him! He must if he's devoted so many articles to him. Sheesh....­just do one and get it over with!!!!

[edzeppelin]

It appears Krugman wants to flex his muscle, maybe trying to derail Obama will prove to himself [Krugman] that he has sway over the democratic electorate? Its not appealing. I wouldn't want to see him write so negatively about any of the Democratic candidates, it only gives ammunition to the Republicans in the general election.

WTF indeed

[Xspackle]

I think Krugman has been an articulate and useful essayist, but is less effective as a partisan hack.

Is it normal for the NYT columnists to be so obviously in favor of one candidate and to act as surrogates to attack Her opponents?

He's obviously coordinating talking points with the HRC campaign. It's politics, but I'd thought more highly of him before he recently lost his ever loving mind.

[snruB]

WTF

Krugman has a major hardon for Obama or something. He wants his attention so bad