Krugman Hits Obama Over Working-Class Voters

fter Barack Obama's defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: "Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race."

He may well be right -- but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it's talking about math. "Yes we can" has become "No she can't."

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[CivilDisobedient]

Actually it's become...Oh no you ditant.!!!

[marc1antony]

are you one of the "paid" pundits on the Hillary payroll that will never see a dime? An you call yourself an economist!

[Manx]

In a column dated June 11, 2007, Krugman said that Hillary couldn't be trusted by blue-collar workers because her campaign was run by strategists who head a public relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives. I agree with Krugman.

[MRb1000]

THE BLUE COLLAR WORKER ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO READ A NEW PAPER TO FIND OUT ALL THE FACTS.

[CivilDisobedient]

Krugman hasn't been right about anything in so long it's pitiful.

[ApolloniaCreed]

I hate to state the obvious here, but shouldn't the colletive "yes 'we' can", override the no/yes "she" can/can't."..

[CivilDisobedient]

"yes 'we' can",

Who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket?

[spaceman3838]

omg a journalist had the nerve to not slobber all over obama he has to be a racist

[JiminNC]

Nope just an idiot

[CivilDisobedient]

Anybody criticizing Obama and now Rev. Wright, are bigots. Too funny. I guess if we're being bigotted against Obama, we are only bigoted against half of Obama?

[ApolloniaCreed]

Precisely.

[Hallucinocynic]

Paul, this campaign has been described as the perfect storm. What were the chances that 2008 would provide the electorate with the first serious African American and woman candidates running for president? It's no wonder that enthusiasm, and criticism, is running high for both candidates and that respective supporters have felt the need to embrace hyperbole and even encourage tactics which are deplorable. The implications, and accusations, made by both sides, have been destructive. But what's worse is that MSM, including you, Paul, have fed into the negativity that characterizes this contest.

If campaigns hinged entirely on the issues we would all be the better for it. That's not going to happen. Personality, race, religion, and gender are the trump cards that columnists toss out in an effort to attract readership. This column is no different. If you were really serious about finding a sensible balance you would be questioning the editorial policies of your own paper rather than alluding to Obama's lost transcendency. While I appreciate that there are many viable questions about Obama's positions, I also recognize that BO's flaws - and Hillary's as well - have been, and will continue to be, magnified by a diverse collection of writers and commentators who have an equally diverse set of agendae.

But, to respond to your notion that Obama might not connect with middle-class white voters, I would posit that only the general election will clearly support or deny your supposition.

[Tellmethetruth]

Look at the RNC website, and you find out quickly what the Republicans believe it. Yes, they function on a belief system.
However with the Democratic DNC website, all you get it Howard Dean's venum directed at McCain. The Democratic leadership (DNC) can tell you what they don't believe in, but not what they do believe in.

Krugman writes the traditional Democratic party in the past stood for the worker in America, as the party of Labor, and helped to create the middle class of America by advancing labor laws and benefits to the worker that the employer (corporate America) never would have given away without a champion willing to fight for the worker.

If Obama can't win the worker's vote, then he is not representing the working class America. Instead of workers, he has gotten the racial bias of Blacks in America, votiing for him solely because he is Black and for not ideological reason, or qualifications. Obama has gotten college students who have yet to enter the work force, and the wealtiest Democrats who don't need to work for a living like Carolyn Kennedy, and John Kerry, and yes, he has the far, far, far left wing that is anti-authority activists. People who work, contribute to society, and the worker isn't voting for Obama.

The worker has no where to turn in this election if Hillary Clinton doesn't make it beyond McCain or Nader, as Obama is not the champion of the worker. Krugman's got that right.

[Hallucinocynic]

It is the DNC's JOB to direct their 'venum' at Crash. And I don't know why you make this reference when I specifically address Krugman, and MSM by extension.

The Democratic Party continues to support the workers - the middle class - of America. There is that portion of the party that has coalesced with the GOP and, as a result, has turned its back on America. The DLC sided with the Republicants and brought the country NAFTA and GATT - which are about as anti-worker, anti-middle-class, as legislation could be. And to suggest that Crash McCain is more pro-worker than Obama is absolutely without basis!

Also, this dismissive note about college students or 'wealthy' Democrats is just more low-brow, uneducated terminology for 'elitism.' If you wish to dismiss African Americans, college students (or anyone in academia), wealthy Democrats and 'anti-authority activists,; then all you'll be left with are conservative 'Democrats," better known as 'wolves in sheep's clothing.'

[AuntSally]

Looking for a Cabinet post in a Clinton administration, Paul?
That ship has sailed, my friend.

Every candidate is imperfect, but Obama is the Democratic nominee. Time to stop pouting and get onboard. I know you can count, Paul; I suggest you take one last look at the delegate math and then pull you head out of your hindquarters and get with the program...

[Boadicea]

Krugman has become a joke.

A Clinton apologist from waaaaay back, Krugman has lost touch with reality and is no longer capable of unbiased thought.

[ggmome]

"Yes we Can" has become "SHE BETTER NOT'.

Back in SC, what turned the tides for the Clinton's was Bill, opening his mouth and inserting his foot. All of his and her other faux pas, have solidified what has become, the downfall of the Clinton's reign. Instead of stepping aside gracefully, they are going down dirty. Despicable behavior of Bill not conducive to a former President, will preclude any future endeavor of hers. Deceptions are not what most Americans want any further... We have had it! What part of that don't the Clinton's understand? Further Wars, and bullying and torture and destruction of our Rights and Constitution are not on our plates. The Clinton's need to get a clue, that cozying up to the Bushes and following the Book of Rove has been played out. Divisive tactics are 'old school'...

Threatening the new younger base of voters, as well as those who dare to dream, would make for a down and dirty Convention. The dream of Limp Paw of a riot at the Convention would be the demise of the party. What I don't understand is... Why couldn't party leaders reign them in before it got to this point?

[Boadicea]

They didn't rein Hillary and her schills in before this because Obama is black.

If he'd been a white southern man with his remarkable set of skills, this would have been over after it became clear that it was impossible for Hillary to win fairly.

Of course, now Hillary wants to change the rules near the end of the contest. LOL!

[CivilDisobedient]

Oh boo hoo!

[Shozen]

So, Obama should just toss in the towel and give the nomination to Hillary, despite the fact he is ahead? Lame argument.

Look at it this way. What about the fact Hillary despite entering this contest with an air of inevitability, as the presumed front runner, with the backing of a considerable number of super delegates, and the most powerful set of fund raisers ever to grace a democratic candidate, has been unable to maintain a lead, let alone establish an insurmountable lead. Is this a sign of fundamental miss match between Clinton and the Democratic Coalition that should cost her the nomination?

[JadedAggie]

It's pretty hard to take this article seriously when Hillary has actually came out and said no he can't.

[WongChin]

This Krugman has become Strawman too.

What's the point then? She lost galantly? Ok, give yourself an A for a hilarious piece.

[Demoid]

THE PROBLEM WITH KRUGMAN ISN'T THAT HE'S BECOME A WHORE FOR THE CLINTONS; IT'S THAT HE DECIDED TO BECOME ONE BASED ON A HANDFUL OF POSITION PAPERS HER CAMPAIGN HAS CHURNED OUT.
YOU'D THINK HE'D BE SMART ENOUGH TO STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE REAL CLINTON RECORD. IF HE DID HE'D REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS RUN TO THE LEFT, BUT, ONCE ELECTED, OPERATED AS TRIED AND TRUE DLC DEMOCRATS.
SOME OF US REMEMBER 1992 WHEN HER HUSBAND RAN AS THE CANDIDATE OF "MAIN STREET VS. WALL STREET" WHO "PUT PEOPLE FIRST." THEN, ONCE IN OFFICE, HIS FIRST PRIORITY WAS NAFTA!
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN BE SURE OF WITH THE CLINTONS IS THAT THEY WILL SAY WHATEVER THEY NEED TO TO WIN ELECTIONS. GUYS LIKE KRUGMAN ARE FOOLS TO THINK OTHERWISE.

[sclucie]

You are absolutely right. Look up the Clinton campaign literature from 1992. Universal health care! Free retraining and training for people in the global marketplace! Positions on everything! Anybody see that health care? Anybody see those national job retraining programs?

Krugman has not written a single unbiased editorial since this primary began - and he insulted the intelligence and integrity of anybody who dares not support his beloved Hillary.

And I'm not listening to anybody from Princeton, which is elitist capital of the universe whine about anybody else being elitist.

[mamacat]

Mr. Krugman, what do you hope to accomplish by forsaking impartiality? Since there does not seem to be an overriding logic to your reasoning, it leaves one to wonder if there is an ulterior motive to your partisanship.
In the long run, would you not rather be known as someone who can be respected for their intellect, than for their choice of alliances?

[AAKAlan]

Krugman

Your continuing and obvious bias against Obama is OK for only one reason.
You're a columnist, not a journalist. In which case, only your perverted opinion matters, truth doesn't enter into the equation at all.

Sort of like a comic book.

By the way... how did you manage to completely abandon your integrity?

[kawika]

I am from Hawaii and not of the Hebreic faith: Here we would say; do you know where your Okole is?

[kawika]

Krugeman, Krugeman,Krugeman, Krugeman, Goniff..when were you were last a woking man!

[dumboldfarmer]

You are allowed to have your opinion, just as you are allowed to be wrong. It's ok, sooner or later you will get it right. But don't expect us to wait, ok?

[ElliottPhD]

People all over the world are asking, "Why is anyone still supporting Hillary? much like they were astonished when this country REELECTED Bush in '04. They are asking, "How could so many people get it so wrong?" I agree and see it all as a failure of our educational system to instill critical thinking skills into our nation's electorate. Isn't it clear that Hillary's strongest base of support is voters who didn't graduate high school? Women who want a woman -- any woman -- as president? Racists who won't vote for the wrong color candidate? And corrupt political insiders who want to hang on to the status quo? And, oh yes, the Limbaugh minions who are driving up Hillary's popular vote numbers but will never support her in the GE? In fairness, many of Limbaugh's supporters are the least educated, so we shouldn't count them twice.

The one good point that Krugman makes is that Obama should pay greater attention to policy detail and substance, especially when addressing the 45+ crowd. Without much information, how can voters feel that they are making an informed decision? He will have to make that change to win Indiana.

[Boadicea]

You've hit the nail on the head.

Our teacher training system and teachers unions (mostly run by women and supportive of Hillary Clinton, which should tell you something) are miserably failing this country. I know, I'm a teacher, I live it every day.

We don't teach deconstructive thought here the way they do in other countries where I've taught. Instead, teachers here are allowed to bring their own biases into the classroom, and that perpetuates the problem, lumping all issues thinking into the realms of emotion and opinion. Kids should not need college to understand the importance of deconstructive thought in their lives.

It's teacher training that is so poor in this country. I thank God I got mine in Canada,, but I'm fighting an uphill battle trying to teach deconstructive thought to kids in this country.

[dtmaciag]

Krugman is right. Obama is an empty suit. Without a script, he is nothing. He hesitates and stammers when asked a direct question. He is not fast on his feet when it come to being spontaneous. He can not speak without a script. He is wishy, washy.

After all, he is the guy who always votes "Present" rather than take a position on anything. It is easier to defend a "Present" vote, than being courageous and taking a stand on anything.

I think HE shuld drop out of the race and stop ruining Hillary's chances against McCain.

[savertime]

Hillary has no chance against McCain. She might get the No. 2 position on McCain's ticket.

The number of "present" votes in the Illinois senate were planned and carried out for specific purposes. 100 presents out of over 4,000 votes is not enough for you to even be posting,
It's a Clinton campaign talking point; another distortion. Hillary was so humiliated after the Potomac Primary, the she didn't even bother to show up at the senate for an important vote on telecom immunity. Oh wait, maybe she didn't want her aye vote to dog her for the rest of the campaign the way her Iraq Resolution vote has dogged her throughout this campaign.
She certainly couldn't vote nay with all the telecom money coming her way.

Why would the person leading in delegates, popular vote and number of states won consider dropping out of the race.??? That's just as insane as the person losing offering the person who is winning the #2 spot on her ticket. Too, too much irrational thinking coming from the Clinton supporters, thus explaining why they are Clinton supporters.

[savertime]

I can't believe how "robotic" Clinton supporters are. One must totally suspend principle to not even acknowledge the game playing, the dirty politics, the lies, distortions race baiting and the pandering the Clintons have been doing. They will truly say and do anything to get back in power. Onece they do, the blue-collar workers that Hillary can now "identify with," will be dumped for the establishment crowd of Washington, where all the real money is. It's mind-boggling that their base are the same people that were screwed by Clintion legislation from the nineties; the same people still feeling the harsh impact of the Clinton Years.

Krugman is one who has suspended his principles and is now wearing his political agenda on his sleeve. It ia sad.

[sclucie]

Actually, since the primary started, Obama has been in the Senate and has voted more than both Clinton and McCain. Hillary takes plenty of positions - for example - on universal health care. SHe did that 15 years ago, remember? And it was a two-inch policy paper. There was abipartisan plan which would have covered 20 million Americans on the table at the same time - but the Clintons insisted on their own - and Americans got nothing.

When Clinton has been in the Senate, aside from naming many post offices, she also voted for some pretty wretched legislation - the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act and the Cheney-led plan to lay the groundwork for the invasion of Iran. Just what we need. Another senseless war.

[FlowerGirl]

"Empty suit" -- my my, how original!
But considering that she started with a 25+% lead and ended only slightly more than 9% ahead, with the demographics strongle favoring her, the entire state party machinery and the Philadelphia machine working for her, he did pretty good.

[nellie]

The "empty suit" meme is so yesterday. You need to come up with a new smear.

Krugman is making something out of nothing. Do you know how someone wins a primary? By winning. More delegates, more states, more votes. But writers need to write something to get paid, so even when there's no news, they do their best to create it. Nothing to see here. Just empty words. You recognize that accusation, right?

[kettletop]

you disgust me.
You claim Clinton hasn't been negative? She's had nicer things to say about McCain than she has Barack Obama.
Then you say her attacks are badmitton compared to what the Repbulicans will throw at him? Well, McCain has shown a willingness to be reasonable. McCain defended Obama against the ridiculous Rev Wright hoopla, and Clinton fanned the fires and continues to do so.

With Democrats like Hillary, who needs Republicans?

What he hell is wrong with you? Why do you hate Barack Obama so much? Because anyone can see that both Obama and Clinton have very similar stances on issues. So that can't be it. Her "experience" is debateable. She rode on her husband's coattails to become a senator of a state that was hand picked in a calculating fashion. He actually had to get where he is on his own. You have no respect for him.

Let's face it. You hate him because he is running against Hillary and winning. What is likeable about her? Jack squat. What kind of leadership has she shown us? Strong arm techniques against those who supported her husband but don't want to back her. Her campaign staff has no focus nor leadership. A prominent "hillraiser" is throwing his support behind Obama.

We know why you hate him. Man up and admit it.

[FlowerGirl]

kettletop, that would take guts. Do you really think it possible?