Krugman: Obama Clinging To A Stereotype

NY Times:

Will Barack Obama's now famous "bitter" quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.

But here's a different question: was Mr. Obama right? Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.

Read the whole story: NY Times

Comments

[Genna]

I disagree with Krugman on this article and during his appearance on This Week. The underlying presumptions are not wrong across the board. Give us some facts to support your conclusion.

The wage rate did not necessarily go up under Clinton as compared to everyday cost of the middle state wage earner.

What's the Matter with Kansas is brilliant. Defeat that book based on the premises that lie therein. Same for Obama. Defeat Obama based on his platform issues not based on a caricature of one comment. There is something going on with low income Whites: whether it be a decline in earning potential or in relationship with their condition. Telling them to accept it without addressing it is going to lead to a downward spiral whether they be (as opposed to are) Democrats or Republicans.

[GingerB]

Damn! I vowed to myself to stop reading Krugman until after the nomination was a done deal, but I relented and read this article. Shame on me... it's just one more diatribe against Senator Obama. Goodbye Paul; you're not worth reading.

[StaggerLee]

How do people that live in Ivory Towers profess to know what it's like for the common man? I believe Obama is closer to this subject than Krugman, a well paid professional journalist, is. Obama has a better grasp of middle American's social struggles by proximity. This may not be true in a few more years but I believe it is now.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Mr. Krugman, why don't you really expose what is going on in this election?

That Senator Obama is being propelled into the Democratic candidacy by an International Billionaire named George Soros who wants his version of a "New World Order" to be implemented instead of that of the Republicans.

He is funding MoveOn.org to use the Liberal Left Wing of the Democratic Party to elect his stooge just like George W. Bush is for the Republicans so he can rape and pillage the economies of small Countries in the name of World Democracy just like the Republicans have been for 8 years.

George Soros is angry. In common with 90 per cent of the world's population, the Man Who Broke the Bank of England has had enough of President Bush and his foreign policy. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Soros condemned the Bush administration's policies on Iraq as "fundamentally wrong"—based as they were on a "false ideology that US might gave it the right to impose its will on the world".
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/George-Soros-Statesman2jun03.htm

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros
12 Nov 1996

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosta/licnosti/soros.1.html

This is the reason Hillary Clinton is losing this nomination and the Democratic Leadership is helping them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Her_Now

[ajax2]

Mr. Krugman, if middle America cannot be cowed into voting for flag pins, preachers, guns, race, and religion, than why do Republicans spend so much time and money moving them there?

[DocGreen]

Who cares what Paul Krugman thinks on this issue--he is simply a Clinton surrogate. When talks about ecnomic matters within his competence and not tied to promoting Clinton, then he worth reading. No wonder the NYT is going down.

[kkj1031]

I agree. Two words to prove that you are completely off the mark in your Obama article- Nash McCabe. Here is an idiot that seems to have suffered greatly and will suffer much more in the immediate future and yet she is bitter about something as inconsequential as Obama wearing a flag pin label.
By the way, the Clinton presidency was focused mainly on trivial matters like school uniforms and v-chips installed into television sets. Poor people did get special help from Bill and Hillary. Middle class people were decimated by Nafta, WTO and numerous other initiatives Clinton pushed through. Obama may wind up eventually being a shill for Big Business (hope not) but you know better than to push for her candidacy.

[rueffinserious]

Hello people! Hill and Obama are from the same party and they both want the best for the country, why the hell is everyone drinking so much haterade and spewing so much hate towards either of them or anyone that supports them.Do you not realize that Republicans are laughing their asses off, while John McCain will be rollin up to the white house with his walker to claim the presidency!

FYI: ALL POLITICIANS FRIGGIN LIE!!! DUH!
unless of course someone can show me an honest one!

[Beowoof]

Folks, step right up, step right this way. Right in front of your very eyes you will witness a genuine New York Times columnist dissect the rueful actions of a candidate. That's right! Krugman's a huckster selling something that no one needs.

[BinBaldwin]

Krugmans own chart on his blog clearly shows the HUGE slide in emplyoyment in this region beginning in 2000. Which of course was before Bush was elected.

[hippybaby1970]

keep running your mouth. we won't be forgetting you next year.

[Manx]

In his June 11, 2007 column, Paul Krugman said that Hillary Clinton wasn't to be trusted as a friend of labor. Quote:

"...Here's a suggestion: Why not evaluate candidates' policy proposals, rather than their authenticity? And if there are reasons to doubt a candidate's sincerity, spell them out.

For example, Hillary Clinton's credibility as a friend of labor is called into question, not by her biography or life style, but by the fact that, as The Nation recently reported, her chief strategist - a man Al Gore fired in 2000 because he didn't trust him - heads a public relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives."

And in Krugman's column dated April 18, 2008: "...The important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues."

Right. And when they do vote, it will be for a candidate they can trust. According to Paul Krugman, that doesn't include Hillary Clinton.

[SamEllison]

It is the first time that I couldn't finish a Krugman piece.

[agitcam]

This is a sad day. I relied on Paul Krugman to speak some truth and I believe that he could be relied upon. This article speaks plainly - he is just another pen for hire. Too bad.

[Doug Watt]

That's how I feel too. I reread his article today. It's easily debunked pap. I thought he was above this sort of thing.

[becky]

Thank You! Finally a smart person on the Huffington Post!

[mattashell]

Thanks Becky. Next time hit reply on my comment, and then everyone will know you're talking about me.

[evekendall]

Paul, please. You are just embarrassing yourself.

[CaptainSunshine]

Krugman is either stupid or shortsighted. With the war raging in Iraq, and the economy already showing signs of weakness, in 2004 the Republican party diverted the attention from the war and the economy, by pressing the idea with blue collar workers that Democrats wanted to attack the their Judeo-Christian faith, their right to bear arms as well as advantage illegal immigrants at their expense.

They argued that gay marriage was a threat, and that gays in the military threatened our national security. They argued that Democrats were weak on border security because they were pro-illegal immigration.

When weighing the balance of priorities wasn't it more important for them to vote for the candidate that offered the middle class a fairer break in regard to taxes. The middle class has borne the greatest burden in fighting in the war in Iraq.

It has become common practice for politicians to create wedge issues to win campaigns. The politicians know that they can instigate an angry bitter response when they argue that all that these blue collar workers have left during bad times is under attack.