Krugman Ramps Up Criticism Of Obama In Interview

Talking Points Memo:

One of the more intriguing subplots of Campaign 2008 has been the ongoing battle between the Obama campaign and liberal NYT columnist Paul Krugman. In an interview with TPM Election Central, Krugman reiterated his critique of Obama, which centers largely but not exclusively on health care policy, and added a whole lot more.

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[MRb1000]

Krugman is nothing less than a big cry baby. Yeah I here you Mr. Krugman, but where were you years ago. I wonder what you were talking about then. Cry baby

[RogerHWerner]

For what it's worth, any healthcare plan that involves insurance companies in their present incarnation will fail. Insurance companies are part of the problem not part of the solution. Call it whatever you like but the only universal plan that makes any sense is a single payer model. I believe everyone knows this including the GOP but no one will admit it as they would risk being tagged with the label supporter of socialized medicine. For generations, conservatives have worked overtime to paint any sort of workable universal healthcare coverage as socialized medicine and the situation today represents the culmination and success of conservative efforts. If Americans can't get past the socialized medicine stigma, then we won't get universal healthcare. And yes, I believe it will take a crisis such as the one that occurred in the 1930s to end the stigma.

[itsnotmyfault]

I for one am more than willing to admit that Paul Krugman is a smarter man than I am. If one looks at the actual record of Obama there is really nothing there to recommend him. Sorry but it is true.

[ystasino]

Major Clinton hitpiece in the NYTimes:
Clintons charity donors received government favors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?

[Querent]

Obama keeps going on about how he's the one who knows how to compromise, how he has the skills to bring everyone to the table, how talking to the opposition is the way to get past the divisiveness of the past, etc., etc. He's talking about compromising with the Repigs across the board. This would be fine, except the Repigs don't do compromise. They get their way, or they sabotage.

Additionally, I don't want to get past the divisiveness of the past. The Repigs have had their way on everything for 7 years, and they have utterly refused to compromise on anything. They have been abusive, arrogant, snotty, superior, smug, punitive and mean, and just plain wrong on everything. I want a President who isn't going to compromise with them, who is going to just beat them into the ground.

A Democratic tidal wave is coming in both houses of Congress. We will most likely have a Democratic President, too, if Hillary or Obama doesn't blow it, and what we really don't need is a President who is going to cater to the Repigs.

Throughout this campaign Hillary has been trying to prove that she's tough. OK, she proved it. Now let's see Obama prove as much.

[Doofus]

It occurs to me that if Paul Krugman
is going to be somebody's Treasury
Secretary, (and it sounds like
the offer has been made) that
somebody is not going
to be Barack Obama.

[ystasino]

Huffington post is full of Edwards plants who have filled us with 3 Krugman columns but won't bother to post their rebuttal

"Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul. You could even include Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. Instead of exploiting the peace and prosperity of the 1990s, Gore ran on a "people vs. the powerful" message. It never ignited."

[ystasino]

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

"Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform? That would be zero, Paul. You could even include Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. Instead of exploiting the peace and prosperity of the 1990s, Gore ran on a "people vs. the powerful" message. It never ignited."

[EyeWantOneNation]

EVERYBODY EMAIL huffingtonpost.compost.com

TELL THEM THE NEW FORMAT DISCOURAGES BACK AND FORTH DIALOG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE PROTEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

E V E R Y B O D Y !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[klondiker]

It is disheartening to see all these childish, immature attacks on Krugman.

He has been a reliable liberal intellectual for many years. He has no incentive to support one candidate over another - he is not a political operative or a lobbyist.

He is, in fact, one of the top economists in the world, and one of the most substantive voices on the left.

Obama supporters: your candidate is not God. Stop attacking everyone who calls out his mistakes. It is okay to admit when he has made a mistake.

Bottom line: Edwards has a far better health care plan than does Obama.

[lungwort]

Paul Krugman is an embarassment.

[NCYvonne]

Krugman is nervous and jealous. His wife probably thinks Obama is cute. Nerdy guys like him who are married to sistas always fear they'll lose out to the brother. (Before anybody jumps on me. . . I'm completely joking! I can't figure out why he is so darn mad at Obama. It's bordering on irrational.)

[Doofus]

I have tremendous respect for Paul Krugman, but
one this issue, I really don't see where he's at.

The Clinton plan (just?) does 'mandates', which
is to say private healthcare & the requisite
premiums become mandatory, with low-income
subsidies & undefined penalties. I think I read
that there were to be some economies achieved,
through electronic records & other technology,
but I haven't seen anything about this lately.
What this REALLY seems to be is guaranteed
additional income for Big Insurance.

The Obama plan seems similar, but adds 'jaw boning'
with Big Insurance & Big Pharma to get costs down.
Since we have such a horrendously expensive system
to begin with, why isn't this a sensible idea?

Can we achieve Universal Coverage without
getting per capita costs down?

As for Massachusetts, the penalties for NOT
getting coverage kick in in the 2007 state
income tax, with the loss of the personal
exemption. It's quite likely the un-insured
don't realize this (yet), don't care, simply won't pay or
just can't afford the premiums. As for further
subsidies, it seems there's no more money in the
state budget for them, nor will there be. Further,
penalties for non-compliant employers
are not in effect either. So the Massachusetts
plan may well turn out to be a sham. But we just
won't know for several more months.

[SCharb]

Krugman's a jackass; the mandate debate is retarded. To say that Obama is "attacking from the right" on health care, based only on the mandate, is a pretty damn stupid exaggeration.

To say that he's "attacking from the right" on EVERYTHING, based only on that one minuscule policy difference, is outright ridiculous.

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

knowing Obama, he'll listen carefully to everybody with new ideas before deciding if they're right and how they can be incorporated with other good ideas. and he'll do it openly, with everyone allowed at the table and nobody will be able to buy a chair.