What the interview on Election Central at TPM missed, and so did this columnist and at least many of the commentors, is not that Krugman merely argued against Obama's position on mandates, or objects to the use of the word "crisis" to describe the financial situation of Social Security; Krugman went the extra mile to specifically impugn Obama's integrity -- not merely to criticize his conciliatory rhetoric and presumably too-far-right positions.

On TPM Cafe, as on Huffpo (columns by Hundt and ESKOW, respectively, among others), progressives have already argued the AUTHENTIC PROGRESSIVE case for Obama's position on mandates. Krugman uses mandates as a litmus test on health care to such an extreme that he questions the integrity of Obama for disagreeing (and then being so egregious as to DEFEND his policy position as better than the alternatives offered). The latter part earned Obama the characterization of
"mudslinging" in a Paul Krugman column.

It might be a case of an overly partisan approach to politics, or some other motive, but something is deeply wrong here. I suspect that what it is is Krugman's loyalty to HRC, possibly amplified by a desire to kiss up/score brownie points with the likely next president, even though the rumor that Krugman's son works for HRC is apparently fiction. No one either on the op-ed page of the NY TIMES nor in venues with wider visibility than TPM Cafe and Huffpo, nor even in the Election Central interview, seem to have seriously taken PK to task for what PK actually argued, at its cutting edge.

I would add that I am significantly to the Left of the platform put forward by Obama, as well as the liberal politics of Krugman. On health care, I support the Kucinich platform of a single-payer nonprofit system, and, being a socialist, have no qualms about (SHUDDDDDER)
'socialized medicine' -- the real thing not what the GOP and even some liberals label "socialized".

To me, at least a part of PK's opposition to Obama might fall within the 'narcissism of petty differences'.

What troubles me about Krugman's attack on Obama is that he disregards the importance of foreign policy. As he knows, the president has limited power to influence the economy, but immense power to do great damage in the foreign policy sector. Part of the reason that Hillary's vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution was troubling was that she voiced the Bush Administration's line about WMD's, but even more troubling, she brought up 9/11 as an argument, again mocking Bush.

Her explanation for that vote has been disingenuous, basically blaming Bush for deception and incompetence. She makes the case that she thought that Bush would use diplomacy, when in fact, she voted against the Levin amendment at that time which called for diplomacy.

I see her vote as either political expediency or a sign of a liberal hawk in the Scoop Jackson tradition, which, as we all know, led to the neo-con movement.

So, foreign policy is of supreme importance to me and I remind people that LBJ, for all his greatness in promoting human rights at home, was largely responsible for the initiation into the tragedy of the Vietnam War.

I have a feeling that Obama would do better than Hillary Clinton in foreign policy, but as Bill is a crap shoot. But he was wrong to suggest that only Obama would be a crap shoot. Hillary would very much be one too.

And it is sad that she keeps on bringing up the experience issue, as if that were the only or even the most important attribute of a president. I think of JFK and the Cuban missile crisis. There what was needed was a leader with imagination, integrity and most important of all, courage, the courage to go against his own advisors, including his brother, so as to prevent a third world war.

Therefore, I hope Mr. Krugman, a man I admire, will reconsider his notions of the relative unimportance of foreign policy. Remember, foreign policy was relatively unimportant in 2000 and look what we got.

Just after Bill Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Sound familiar? This is essentially what Obama is proposing for health care after he's elected. If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993"instead of convening a secret task force"she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.

Obama's idea is a better one: Get every special interest out in the open on television, where the new president can cross-examine them and expose their phony rationalizations for charging $100 a pill or denying coverage to sick people. Then, having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow.

Johnathan Alter - Why Krugman Is Wrong
http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1

Here's what former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has to say about it:

"Will someone please explain to me why Paul Krugman has it in for Barack Obama? And why the Times oped page continues to devote its prime real estate to Krugman"s repeated attack? Here he is again today, for the third time in two months, excoriating Obama for compromising too much with insurance companies and drug companies in his health care plan, without mentioning that (1) HRC"s health care plan compromises at least as much, (2) all the leading Democratic plans are basically the same apart from mandates, which would apply to a tiny fraction of the currently uninsured, and (3) Obama"s may be marginally better than HRC"s if he"s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured couldn"t afford to pay HRC"s mandate anyway".

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-times-oped-page-and-obama.html

Paul Krugman sweats for years (mostly on the side of Progressives) with facts and figures rather than emotional outbursts and we villify him because he injects a reasoned, factual, argument against a democrat?

We never learn. David Brooks pulls one pro-democrat article out of his anus, after years of Bush cheerleading and Republican support and he is suddenly quoted as a hero?

There is something wrong with this picture.

Someone needs to take the O-Bomb-a thing out of running... out of contention. No candidate should get a affirmative action free pass to the White House. Check out his background and make the O-Bomb-a-nation wither in endless pain.

Sadly, all of the candidates will shape their policies to accommodate what the lobbies want. Until we publicly finance campaigns, will we only get to vote for the prostitutes that can be bought by industry.

Obama is one shady character. What Krugman had said about Obama's healthcare plan was true. Here's another thing I find problematic with Obama, there are three lobbyists working for his campaign right now; lobbyist for Walmart, oil company and insurance company.

In May 7, 2007 issue of Newsweek, Obama use his office in the US Senate for campaign to round up endorsements from party leaders, thus using equipments like FAX machine and staff paid for by taxpayers. This is UNETHICAL. Why is it the mainstream media up to now is not talking about this?

So YOUNG and CORRUPT, no one talk about his relationship with Tony Rezko. Obama is worse than Bush, MORE dangerous than Bush.

Unfortunately, both sides of the political aisle have their share of Paul Krugmans. They are the bitter partisans who constantly want to fight the fight for the sake of fighting, with a winner take all mentality. They not only want to witness a constant stream of political fights, they want politicans who love the taste of their own blood as well as the blood of their enemies. Or as Krugman wrote in a recent article, those who "appreciate the bitterness of the battles".

Paul Krugman's supposed fight with Barack Obama has nothing to do Obama's stance on Health Care. It never did. What angers Krugman is that Obama has the audacity to suggest that both sides work together for the common good. To a bitter partisan like Krugman, this is blaspheme. Paul Krugman has never been about working together or finding solutions to our challenges, no more than Ann Coulter has. It is the conflict and divisiveness that they feed which allows them to sell their books, to receive large payments for speaking tours, and to live a very comfortable lifestyle. It is the division between us that butters their bread.

I have always enjoyed reading Krugman. In fact I read his column first because he is so reliably reasoned, and thoughtful. His analysis of Obama is on point.

Of course Obama did get the endorsement of another NYTimes columnist, David Brooks. Yes the arch conservative pandering illiterate scribe who writes columns for the times between BJ's he delivers to our sitting President (I mean that to be taken literally). Let me think...would I abide by Princeton Professor and arch Liberal(and I mean that in the nicest way) Paul Krugman or do I join the daisy chain of rightwing sycophants mysteriously supporting Obama, like the David Brooks?

It's not about compromise, it's about clarity. If you bumrush the drug companies, the populists love you but the conservative martyrs for big business among the poor and middle class just trying to give Big Pharma a fair shot at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Profits are going to forever see it as a railroad.

But if you let the drug companies try to defend themselves in broad daylight, suddenly the complexion of the debate changes. Suddenly you're like Diebold sitting there with your thumb up your ass admitting that your system is a failure and your arguments on why paper trails are bad are idiotic. Suddenly you're a telecom company sitting before a congressional panel admitting that you're engaged in strict monopolist practices. Suddenly you can't lie anymore because you're getting a fair chance but the subpoenas are out and on the table.

So bringing the power players to the table is a good thing. Giving them the power to bargain without laying out their hand is a bad thing.

Hillary wants to give them the benefit of the doubt and Edwards wants to take them out behind the tool shed. Hillary will be a shill and Edwards will look like a bully. Obama should let them hang themselves.

Obama hasn't had an opportunity to have well thought out plan on anything, just slapped together campaign promises. It is obvious and even Joe Biden admitted as did the other presidential candidates that Clintons' plan is indeed the most well thought out plan that can happen as she has thought about it for 15 years. On health care - you have to give it to her.

If people like Obama, they like him for other reasons.

Obama has no plan for getting us out of the war with Iraq - he mentioned in the last debate, he would go the generals and let them draw up a plan. this is no plan.

Joe Biden is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican that has committed a plan to writing, submitted it to the UN and got approval of 5 ranking members of the Security Council (April of 2007), and has had the plan overwhelmingly approved by Congress (Senate in October, House in December) and it currently sits on George Bush's desk. If you want to end the war in Iraq - Joe Biden is the One to pick for President. Anyone else doesn't know what they are doing and that would cost us in American lives, finances, years, and respect in exiting with regard for the Iraqi people as well as our own.

Does anybody else want to kick Paul Krugman's ass?

NYT's Krugman (whom we may allow to plead temporary insanity once his horse in this race, Hillary, falls out and he regains his equanimity) depicts "another" Clinton heading "another" Clinton administration as the candidate of change and Obama as "anti-change?

It is NYT's conservative and unlikely David Brooks who has taken up Krugman's slack. Yesterday he stated, "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.

"In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual."

Krugman is contradicted by another great piece in London's Financial Times by Clive Crook: "the Democratic party's progressive base has mixed feelings about [Obama's] revival. What is their problem, one wonders? What could be more exciting or more transformative, from their point of view, than this candidate? Mr Obama is a clever, reflective and engaging man; he has dedicated his impressive intellect to a liberal political vision; he has a voting record in the Senate that puts him well to the left of Mrs Clinton; he makes, nonetheless, a strong appeal to the centre; he carries none of the baggage of the Clinton dynasty; and, in a country still riven by race, he just happens to be black. [Hey, Krugman] What's not to like?

"....Angry progressives are as repellent to the centre that Mr Obama aims to recruit as the Republican fundamentalists at the other extreme. If the centre counts -- and there lies the gamble -- then the squirmings of the Democratic base are an asset to be exploited."

The zeitgeist demands real change -- a momentum swing and paradigmatic shift to civility, unity, and actual diplomacy.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Full Stop: OBAMA 2008

The Zionist war on Obama, a guy who can't be so easily bought & sold by AIPAC, seems to be escalating. This says more about the NYT than Obama. Even the Washington Post makes the NYT seem like the Jerusalem Post in drag...