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

[SeanGardner]

He's on the Hillary payroll for sure.

Man, you know you're doing good when Krugman knee-caps you, Hillary knee-caps you for writing an essay in Kindergarten, Bill Clinton knee-caps you on Charlie Rose, Bill Shaheen knee-caps you by floating that you were a drug dealer, and Bob Kerry knee-caps you by repeating the lie that your father was a muslim, when in fact he was an athiest, and seeking to limit you to being able to ONLY inspire Black youth with "self-destructive behavior".

Obama endorsers and admirers (more often than not) simply speak eloquently about their candidate. Hillary endorsers and admirers (more often than not) knee-cap Obama.

And more more knee-capping is on the way for sure.

OBAMA '08

[MNmommy]

Achtung! Criticism of Obama by anyone is VERBOTEN!

Interesting that Alter (the history major) is criticizing Krugman (the economist). They certainly both have different views!

[outnow]

I have read Paul Krugman's article in the NYT and the interview. I have also read parts of his new book. The points Krugman makes are the following:

Obama's health care plan is weaker than Edwards.

How a candidate looks and sounds is not important.

Being a multicultural symbol is not the issue.

"Let's make a deal" approach is naive when there are billions, if not trillions at stake.

An outbreak of good feeling will not make hard-nosed corporate interests give away anything.

Hillary's proposal on domestic policies are actually more progressive than Obama's who favors tort reform, for example, a classical republican talking point.

No Democrat will end this war. No Democrat will start another war.

Signaling that one wants to compromise before one is elected, will only make the right move further to the right of Attila the Hun.

You can't start compromising on social security when it isn't in a crisis. Compromising before the fight is even begun reflects Obama's youth and inexperience.

You have to say, "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans want tax breaks, not Universal health care coverage." There is no middle ground. If elected, I will bring this overdue benefit to all Americans, whether the Republicans like it or not.

I spend time lobbying against insurance company "reforms" of the tort system. I spend my own money for PACs. Obama is simply wrong in his naive approach. These entrenched interest must be forced to change by a majority vote.

If Obama had invented a new idea that was never heard of it would be different. He hasn't.

[KRANKY]

There is only one true liberal in this race for president. That is Dennis Kucinich.
Others come close, but they fail. Ask ANY of the other Dems if they would cancel NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO. Stunned silence...Corporatists, all.

Americans have to stand with the ONE TRUE DEMOCRAT: Dennis Kucinich.
NOT with the phony BAPF K Street suckers.

KUCINICH 2008!

[greejambri]

SensibleAmerican, are you really ConcernAmerican in drag?????!!!!!! I think you are! Your self-coined term "Nader-herd" is a dead giveaway. If any candidate gathers people who have a "herd mentality" it is Hillary Clinton. Once again -- Hillary is registered as a Democrat, this is true. What is NOT true is that she is a liberal and she is definitely NOT a progressive. She represents the status quo; she is a total corporate politician; she is the hand-picked poster girl of the DLC (the corporate wing of the Democratic party); and she voted for war with Iraq, without reading the intelligence, and still has not apologized for it. She also voted for the Kyl-Leiberman amendment, which will be Bush's justification for bombing Iran if and when he does that (the NIE has taken some wind out of that sail). You are a Hillary Kool-Aider. Hillary Clinton has NOTHING to do with change in this country, and change is what is desperately needed.

[globalcitizenlinda]

People should wonder why the political establishment and media pundists are so afraid of Obama's challenge to the status quo and conventional thinking.

[arks]

One more point about passing legislation from the outside and with no money:

If you want to get things done, work in ways to see that it happens. Move the middle. True progressives and populists know that through cold hard experience, because they've done it. There's no more frustrating or rewarding experience than real, grassroots community activism. Edwards did most of his work in the courts, which is very different from doing it at the grassroots level by connecting the people directly with local and state governments. The former requires hard fighting and the latter requires a bigger table and a willingness to listen. That's the reality those who want reform will have to deal with. It doesn't mean compromising principles or bowing to corporate pressure or money. It means understanding the circumstances you cannot change just by willing it and working most effectively around them.

Corporate interests have full time, well paid people working day and night to get them their way, and a slew of congressmen in both parties who will want to give it to them when the new president takes office. Which candidate can best deal with that reality is more important than the healh plans themselves for those who truly want healthcare reform.

[arks]

Obama has worked as a community organizer and in doing so, even before becoming a politician, he had to have learned a lot about how things work if you want to get as much as you can from the system for the people you're trying to help.

As a local and state organizer myself, the most valuable lesson I learned, from a national organizer, was "move the middle." You will not get anywhere if you don't do that.

I don't know Krugman's background in progressive/populist grassroots work or with legislatures, much less congress. But the old adage "half a loaf is better than none" definitely applies here. I like Edwards a lot, but it isn't realistic to think the influence of corporate lobbyists on congress will melt away with a populist or progressive president. The president can't make significant changes in the system without congressional support. (Remember "don't ask don't tell"?) The candidates' rhetoric is only as good as their ability to get their ideas through congress.

If Krugman is fond of Hillary's plan, he needs to look at her ideas of implementation and what she means by "mandate." NCLB is a mandate. The word itself is meaningless without details on how it will be achieved and funded (add the word and any plan, however poor, automatically becomes universal--again, look at No Child Left Behind). It has the potential to be openly and even aggressively punitive against the poor if it's not FULLY funded, as NCLB has repeatedly shown. Krugman also needs to take a look at Hillary's donors list before asserting his confidence that she will get the job done with healthcare reform.

With Edwards' plan, which I like, we run a real risk of getting nothing. With Hillary's, unless she makes clear how these mandates will work, who will be providing the coverage, and how well private providers will be regulated by the government, we could end up with less than nothing, especially if the program funnels government money directly to private businesses at the expense of those who need the services.

[hankandted]

One of Obama's best lines in his speeches is "the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot in November."

Krugman really needs to think about that.

Also, I am almost positive I heard Krugman say on Al Franken's show a few year ago that raising the cap on social security wages made sense. Now, he seems to attack Obama for bringing up the subject and using the wrong characterization, but what does he think about raising the cap?

Edwards got it wrong the first time, which is one reason I am an OBama supporter. All of those apologies just don't do it for me.

Picking a president is not just picking the person with the position papers you most agree with. Can that person get those positions enacted? Can you sit down with the person and talk about the pros and cons of the positions? Will the person listen and take direction from the grassroots?

Obama went to the Walgreens every weekend, put up a card table, and for years asked the people, the neighbors, the constituents what they were concerned about.

[MPeter]

Krugman is looking more and more like a foolish partisan crusader; a paid hack rather than an honest analyst. Today's rebuttal from Newsweek's Jonathan Alter was right-on. Krugman should quit before he destroys whatever little respect of him is left.

[treelake]

Krugman's attacks have been extremely viscous and lacking any intellectual substance. I think he has an emotional hatred for Obama.

[OhPlease2007]

That's interesting; there WERE 11 comments, now there are only eight. What happened to my comment? We know the Obama-Rama dominantly frolic about HuffPost, but this is getting a tad bit, too comical. LoL

Edwards '08!

[OhPlease2007]

Sorry, but in my opinion, the Obama camp has been trying to get by with a bunch of feel-good-fluff about hope. That just doesn't cut it with me. We have some serious problems on our hands and we need a real leader, not a rock-star. I, for one, am glad that Krugman is calling out the Obama camp on their 'smoke and mirrors campaign.' There are many looking at Obama and going, "Where's the Beef?"
The way 'I' see it, Obama is appealing to the young voters, who somehow hope that Obama is going to give them hope, in that, once president, they won't have to make their beds or mow the lawn anymore.

Talk is cheap, and Obama is very big on, 'talk.' If Obama had a better attendance record in the Senate, he might be able to get away with his rhetoric, but as it stands, the educated are not getting duped by all of his, 'fluff-talk.'

I want a doer, not a talker. In my opinion, that is John Edwards. My vote is going for John Edwards.

[Janco54]

I think Paul needs a real nap.
And a Paxil.

[snruB]

This man wants a position in Hillary Clinton's cabinet, and he's willing to become one of her surrogate attack dogs to get it