Krugman Nails It Today!

[Sweet Pea]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">Here at the NY Times:

Just a snippet:

Self-Inflicted Confusion
By PAUL KRUGMAN
After 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.”

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

Hate to say I told you so.....

[kid a]

1. The last sentence in your snippet shows he's SPINNING like a toy top.

[kid a]

7. oh..and yes, he DID nail the Clinton propaganda - he's got it memorized

[PoliticalAmazon]

74. Krugman spent the first 4 yrs of the Bush administration with Bush's....

...dick in his mouth.

That he's now carrying water for Hillary Clinton is no suprise.

[uncertainty1999]

83. What evidence do you have for this statement?

I've been reading Krugman for years and he's been extremely & consistently critical of Bush -- show me what I've missed.

[nomorewhopper]

2. he is going to be the nominee and nothing will change that

get used to it because it IS going to happen regardless of your fantasy

[tokenlib]

3. Krugman has been shilling for Hillary so long--he is now on ignore n/t

[knixphan]

6. yep!

[JoFerret]

33. Foolish you.

.

[tokenlib]

47. Foolish? No, I'd say prudent...

I've read Krugman for years. His recent non-stop assault on Obama has been more bias than scholarly.

[JoFerret]

57. Amusing

But - always best to tune out intelligent dissent.

[redqueen]

4. Nails what? Spin?

He's got the talking points down, that's for sure.

[nichomachus]

Krugman is great when he sticks to what he knows

He's an economist and his economic columns are great. When he wanders into a field where his emotions are stronger than his knowledge of the process, he makes a fool of himself. He's done this a lot lately.

[Cant trust em]

14. That's exactly how I feel

In general, people shouldn't stray from their expertise. They lose credibility when they start talking about things outside of their sphere. He may be totally correct, but I think that showing bias towards Clinton makes it tough to believe that he's unbiased in the other aspects of his editorials.

Another perfect example. Cindy Sheehan was a great anti-war activist when her son died. Perfect picture of what the war does to families. But when she started talking about the need to free Palestine, it hurt her credibility on the Iraq War front. She just became another "loony lefty" and hurt her main mission.

[femrap]

52. Many experts in the ME realize

that the heart of the problems there stem from the Palestine/Israel conflict. Maybe you're believing all of the AIPAC's propaganda and brainwashing material.

[Cant trust em]

56. I agree with that, but more importantly people should stick to what they know

I think that Cindy lost some credibility when she took on too many issues. If she were a policy expert on the middle east, that would be fine. But I think she would have been better served as an anti-war mom and left it at that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. She IS an expert on the middle east

Good grief. How many times have YOU been to Iraq and to Palestine? How many middle eastern leaders have YOU met with??

[femrap]

67. I keep coming across more males

who say they are in San Fran and they display attitudes that are so narrow. WTF? Once a Mom, you're stuck as a Mom? You don't think Moms can understand international relations? Isn't Cindy running as an Independent...why shouldn't she have knowledge of this arena?

Are you another paid poster? Or you just want Moms to stay home and mourn?

None of the men who run for office are experts in the Middle East. You have some issues with women, but I'm sure you think you are the most liberal of all.

[Cant trust em]

69. running for office and protesting are two separate things

As an elected official a broad base of information is necessary, so I do agree that she doesn't need a PhD in IR to get that job.

But I feel that as an protester it's best to stick with one issue and ram it home. I think that from a marketing perspective it's easier to bring attention to a single issue than a multitude of issues. Being an anti-war protester for her was perfect. But I felt that without some academic credentials/degrees, it was more difficult for her to pull of the image of a traditional "expert" at least how the MSM and the people who watch it would define the term.

This really wasn't about her being stuck as just a mom. It was more about creating an image that will best attract attention to her issue.

[femrap]

75. Some people actually CARE

about people and don't believe life is a shallow marketing plan.

[Cant trust em]

76. When I was at lunch I figured out the analogy that best explains my position

Let's say CNN comes up and says we're going to give you five minutes of airtime in an interview. I think it's more effective to spend five minutes talking about one issue instead of one minute talking about five issues. Though all of those issues may be interrelated, I think you'd wind up making a greater impression on the people watching if only one topic is covered.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. The peace movement in this country has been very supportive of Palestine

for as long as I can remember. That is one of our many causes, other than the war on Iraq. Cindy was just reflecting the views of our movement when she said that.

Also, as a personal friend of Cindy and a peace activist myself, I resent your label of "loony lefty". Sadly there was a time here on DU I didn't have to worry about seeing that kind of name calling. :mad:

[Cant trust em]

64. I put in quotes because I felt like that was what other people were calling her

Those are certainly not my feelings, but when I'd read about other people talking about her that's what I saw.

This would have made a lot more sense if we were talking in person.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Sorry but you posted TWICE

criticizing Cindy and questioning her expertise both times.

[Cant trust em]

66. Let's start over. I think this was just a marketing/PR mistake

I agree with you as well as Cindy on anti-war as well as peace activism. I'm concerned, however, that by taking on too many aspects of peace activism, she lost an opportunity to speak directly about the Iraq war. I think she would have been more effective if she would have said something like "I don't know about all of those other things. I just want to end this war so other mothers don't have to lose their sons like I did."

I think that when she was just an anti-Iraq war mom, she had a more captive audience than when she took on the other issues.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. And I disagree

She went to the middle east to see for herself what was going on. Several times. So she wrote and spoke up about it. I would much rather hear her speak on this topic than someone who hadn't actually been there.

Peace in the middle east is a key component of the mission of the peace community here in the US and internationally as well. So it made perfect sense for Cindy Sheehan to talk about this.

[Cant trust em]

72. Cool. Though I would have gone about it differently, what's more important

is that we agree on the actual point she's trying to make. How we go about educating voters may differ, but as long as we're on the same page policy-wise I'll be happy.

:toast:

[JoFerret]

87. It's a sideshow

.

[JoFerret]

34. And health coverage is one of those big issues. And the economy

those are what he truly knows. He goes for Hillary on both

[Eurobabe]

86. Agreed, he's a great economist, but he needs to lay off

the Hillary sauce.

[kentuck]

5. Unfortunately.

No.

[Dawgs]

8. Read this before continuing to make a fool of yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5680973&mesg_id=5680973

Krugman is a Hillary shill that is just repeating her campaign's talking points.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. FAIL

[nichomachus]

10. Here's what he should nail

Nail that freaking thing shut

[cali]

poor paul. he's bitter that his gal is losing.

understandable. hope he can get over it. it'll be interesting to see if he continues attacking Obama when he's the nominee.

hey, did you hear that Stiglitz endorsed Obama? As far as economists go, I'll take him over Krugman, though I still have a lot of respect for Krugman

[JoFerret]

79. So shape up Obama. Put the pressure on him...

...and get him to do something about health coverage. Universal health coverage. Not Obama coverage.

[JoFerret]

91. Don't waste your pity on "Paul"

save it for all of us.

[lapfog_1]

11. And what does that say about Hillary

who started this campaign with

a) an overwhelming advantage in name recognition

b) all the big Democratic donors

c) the party elite bowing before her majesty

d) the expectation that it would "all be over by Feb 5"

And now what... she is still behind in delegates, popular vote, number of donors, amount of money raised. And she will not catch up in any category.

And the general election polls suggest that she WILL lose to John McCain. And by a larger percentage than Obama.

So, you told us so. So what.

[Cha]

38. One thing it showed is just

what an A$$$hole hilary clinton can be when she's not getting her way.

[phillysuse]

12. Krugman is just pissed off that he has lost

his job in the Hillary Clinton administration.

[DUyellow]

13. show me the numbers from OH to PA, he made inroads across all demographics

[cliffordu]

15. I'd throw up if I had to spin that fast...

:puke:

[graycem]

16. Utter nonsense..

He goes into a state, his numbers go up and hers go down. He did what he had to do in that state.

[BlueIdaho]

17. Just my favorite thing in the whole wide world

Partisan Journalism.

[DUyellow]

18. Good Dems drop out of races when there is no hope, it is not the Obama camp that is the problem.

[OzarkDem]

30. Good Dems don't discount the wishes of half the Dem voters

Especially if they want to keep the party unified.

[jenmito]

You hate to say you told us so about someone's opinion?

:rofl:

[Cant trust em]

19. I don't remember anyone ever saying that Obama was going to easily sweep the nomination.

It's tough to take down a political dynasty.

[lisa58]

20. No you don't....

...you love to say, "I told you so"

just admit it

[bowens43]

21. Rediculous hillary spin......

Obama slashed a 20+ point lead down to a single digit lead. The only thing that has changed since PA is that the inevitable end to of hillary's political career is closer.

[GOTV]

22. You were impressed by that?

He says that

"This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences"

Silly. It wasn't "supposed" to play that way at all. This process started with the assumption that Clinton would be the winner and that Barack would be the neophyte crushed by the Clinton machine. You remember all the chatter about inevitability.

By starting his article with this false premise he gets to paint Obama as having fallen short instead of as achieving far more than anyone expected.

You fell for it.

You've been Krugmaned.

[Cant trust em]

23. Obama may be able to eliminate her money and organizational advantages,

but he'll never be able to take out her name recognition.

It's the best thing she's got working for her. People have great memories of the Clintons.

[ProSense]

24. While Krugman is still trying to play psychologist:

Two Nobel Prize Economists Recommend Obama

[truebrit71]

25. More unsubstantiated horseshit...

...:eyes:

"And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain"

Um, NO douche bag they DON'T, but don't let reality get in the way of your little skreed....

[OzarkDem]

37. What about Obama trashing the Dems record

on improving the economy, securing social security, balancing the budget, expanding access to education and health care, getting rid of the budget deficit?

[truebrit71]

51. You mean when Slick Willie was in the WH and between blowjobs destroyed the safety net...

...ordinary folks had, and doing things that republicans had only DREAMED of doing?

THAT record?

Sorry but I don't buy into the rose-coloured aura of the Clinton era...

[OzarkDem]

54. Are you a Republican?

Only Republicans would trash the good things Democrats (Bill Clinton and Dems in Congress) accomplished during his term.

So which is it? Do you just hate the Democratic Party or are you a Republican?

[truebrit71]

55. I'll answer that right after you tell us all when you stopped beating your wife...

...Nice try pal...but Clinton was not "all that" and the Dems in congress were thrown out during his tenure if you recall...

See here.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5669911

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

81. Clinton made some very un-Democratic policy choices...

Signing NAFTA and giving China most favored nation status are two that come to mind...Oh, and DOMA

[GreenTea]

26. Just as today...Krugman ALWAYS "nails it"....He's the best!

[Citizen Kang]

27. He's just another paid Clinton shill

sad really, I used to respect him. Now he's just angling for a spot in another Clinton administration.

[pdx_prog]

28. The reason he can't close the deal

is because she won't accept that it has already been closed. It was closed long before PA. Any other politician would have applied logic and common sense and would have conceded.

He has already closed the deal. Carrying on this horror show only serves to wound the party...

[OzarkDem]

29. Obama spends more time attacking Clinton's health care plan

than he does talking about Universal Health Care. Wonder why?

[Seabiscuit]

31. Hate to say ... Krugman is right.

Its becoming clear that Obama has pissed off a lot of white voters not because they are white, but because he has mocked them (Rev. Wright's words were hurtful to many but Obama still has not backed away from him or his words), denigrated their lifestyle/culture (the bitter comments with guns/religion et al) and comes off as aloof to that voter base. Why Hillary is winning that base is purely on economics, she understands that the working class in this country (white or otherwise) need a huge boost. Her proposals appeals to them more so than Obama's proposed policies.

[OzarkDem]

40. Dissing Dem's record of success in governing the US isn't good either

Why do Obama supporters think its a good idea to let him trash our party's reputation as proven problem solvers?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

82. Somehow I don't think you hate to say it...n/t

[Adelante]

32. Krugman has a grudge

I can't take him seriously anymore.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Just on nominee topics.

[OzarkDem]

46. He's talking about the economy

and he's rightly pointing out that Obama doesn't have real or proven solutions. Instead of relying on the lessons Dems learned in recent history about successful economic reform, health care reform, etc. Obama rejects it simply so he can attack Clinton.

Krugman has no respect for Obama not because he likes Clinton, but because Obama is trashing good Dems good record on public policy.

[BlooInBloo]

49. Hush. Go peddle the lies elsewhere - I'm not buying.

[OzarkDem]

53. So you think its ok

for Obama to trash the Democratic Party's record of policy success in solving the country's problems and securing its future?

Ok. Just so long as we're clear on that.

[Adelante]

60. Right nt

[OzarkDem]

35. Krugman's most important point here...

"They (Democrtic Party) can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

Obama's constant negative attacks that characterize the Clinton/Gore administration as a "failure" are not only wrong, they're destroying the Dem's hard won reputation as the party that finally fixed all the ills of GOP malfeasance and coporate controlled public policy.

That's huge. That a few Dem leaders in Congress are willing to destroy the Democtratic Party's reputation as one of proven success simply because they are jealous of Bill Clinton for getting it done is nothing short of an abomination.

How the hell does any Democrat justify letting Obama play the GOP game of historical revisionism and trash the good reputation of the Democratic Party?

The solutions Obama trumpets are nothing more than warmed over GOP/corporate solutions. Dems worked their asses off in the 1990's and brought about historic, yes historic, sea change in our economic and foreign policy. And now we want to let a souped up televangelist talk it down?

[Buzz Clik]

36. You know how funny it sounds when you pinch your nose when you talk?

Does Krugman sound like that when he nose is wedged up Hillary's ass?

[PATRICK]

41. What is not mentioned

when the talk about the irrelevancy to the race is noted- correctly- is that what Hillary is winning and maintaining is extreme power over the nominee and Convention in a system designed to make losers go broke, cave and fade. That IS the problem for Obama and not one he can even speculate on in public. the longer this "horse race" irritant continues the more Clinton maintains her base, her delegates and her current power, insufficient as it is to win the nomination.

You can complain how the contest is now hurting us in the fall but it is odd that here on DU no one brings up the more obvious fact how troublesome this co-rivalry will continue to be forever. There are, fortunately, many simple and unchanging reasons why either one would not be good for the number two spot on the ticket(Hillary's negative points perhaps only mathematically greater). However her will in this matter has not even been heard yet and it grows in significance as she maintains up to the Convention.

The super delegates AND the Obama campaign had to make two things happen minimally. Get her to tone down the lost cause negativity simple because it is useless in terms of the overall campaign, and then concede gracefully in due course with healing unity, etc.

Instead she has bullied the party down effectively(who couldn't these days) and threatened them much more effectively with real damage. Given that they SHOULD have threatened behind the scenes to cut off as much money and influence as possible and stampeded to the Obama camp depending on the behavior immediately after the ultimatums. Instead she has done unto others as she would have done in their place. That might be strong leadership if it wasn't based on the corrupt corporate influence among her donors, the ever so temporary MSM collusion and a mind-swindled base living on madly distracting past dreams and crummy information. She uses what she has and who wouldn't have succumbed to that temptation when faced with weak party leadership? I only wish it would disappear with her candidacy. To date none of the crap is going away any time soon.

[charlie]

42. It's always astonishing to see the very smart Krugman doing the Hillary Inversion

of pinning his candidate's shortcomings onto his opponent. It wasn't Obama who claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday and campaigned accordingly. It was Hillary who had the hubris to declare she'd "sweep easily to the nomination, then march, etc..." He knows that.

Gads. There's nothing wrong with Krugman being a strong partisan, but he was the last guy I'd thought would go starry-eyed.

[madfloridian]

43. IMHO Krugman is acting like Larry Johnson and Taylor Marsh...

and Armando.

He is for Hillary, no matter what.

It shows.

[CakeGrrl]

44. Camp Clinton stays on message with the spin

"What's gone wrong" with the Obama campaign?

Talk about spinning a LOSS of a 20-30% point lead down to 9% in PA and projecting it onto your opponent.

The SDs will not jeopardize their own political futures to hand the nomination to the losing candidate just because she and her handlers whine and project and moan about it.

[RBInMaine]

45. IDIOTIC analysis. We have UNIQUE candidates splitting the demographics, and that is why it's a

state to state race.

[cottonseed]

48. No where in here do I see why Hillary is a better candidate.

Talk about, "No * can't". The Clintons have been playing attack politics since SC. Of course this thing is going to drag out. Obama will cruise through the finish line with his dignity intact. More than I can say for the Clintons.

[OzarkDem]

50. Read the whole column, then.

Krugman notes that Hillary represents the successful policies of Democrats and their proven ability to fix the problems of the country and secure our future.

He rejects Obama's idea of trashing the Dem party's reputation as problem solvers, simply to score points on Clinton.

Put the country first, not personal ambition.

[wowimthere]

58. It's the elected Delegates... Supers will go with that equation. Stop the spin.

The media, like some here are just piling on to see a good fight but in the end Obama is our nominee.

[jefferson_dem]

59. Krugman is bitter personified.

Ack.

[baldguy]

63. California, Michigan & New York are not going to vote for McCain

And Texas & Florida probably won't either

[Milo_Bloom]

71. In fact, polls show Clinton puts CA into play.. while Obama wins it solidly.

[jumptheshadow]

78. McCain has a good shot at Florida

In an Obama-McCain matchup, the older, Latino and working class voters may well go to McCain.

Obama can do well in the other swing states, if the ranks close behind him. He and his supporters will need to court Hillary's supporters.

But I am worried about Florida. He is not on a track to bring in that state.

[MarjorieG]

68. Reality is O is up against a name brand and people loyal to them. Women whose votes he needs.

Obama has improved in all his categories from Ohio, and careful improvement is where we need to be. Without turning off Hillary's voters, whom he needs.

Krugman didn't get Edwards, then Hillary, now hissy-fitting over Obama. Truth is O's health care plan better; affordability over accessibility, with a work across the aisle manner better suited to passage of anything.

Her plan is DOA, but I don't think it's all the plan. He's your typical, self-important, arrogant academic, with a tin ear for policy and politics.

When Krugman lost Dean, he was disgusting against Kerry, as well. I just may do an LTE.

[gaspee]

90. Make sure you're

More coherent than this post was if you write that LTE.

[followthemoney]

73. We keep on forgeting that America is an evil nation,...

corrupt beyond belief and will sooner put an innocent black man on death row than consider his intelligence and human worth.

So, anyway, Krugman reminds us.

Surely not out of desire for political gain through racist fear, one hopes.

"Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class."

Still, I have a dream.

[jumptheshadow]

77. I think he makes some good points if you read the article

Look, I will vote for either candidate, and I have mixed feelings about both candidates. But Democrats do need to focus on:

1) The good record that the party has in generating economic prosperity. Dems have real credibility in the area.

>>Krugman: Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.<<

2) What they will do, in specific detail, for working and middle class Americans who want true economic leadership.

>>Krugman: They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.<<

3) How to institute universal health coverage. The *time is right* for strong measures.

>>Krugman: Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.<<

Krugman is correct that the sparring in the Democratic primary has been like badminton compared to what the Republicans will put our nominee through.

I know, that in discussing my concerns about issues, I am probably setting myself for attack. But that's one of the problems with our country today. You can't have a serious, reasonable conversation about issues without the discourse getting poisoned with ad hominem attacks. It's one of the reasons we're so far off track.

[Doctor_J]

80. He's lost his mind

Hil conflating Obama with Osama is not as bad as Rove conflating Cleland with Osama? Even brain-dead Dittiots would believe this

[bigbrother05]

84. Obama was told they would be playing chess, Clinton is playing Wack-a-Mole

He's winning, but not without being beaten about the head and shoulders.

[hulka38]

85. She was supposed to be crowned on her throne - that's the way things were supposed to play out .

[Orsino]

88. "Yes, we can" is exactly what has demonstrated that "No, she can't."

It's made the crucial difference. However much we may mourn the similarity of our candidates' platforms, or their near-complete failure to mount any progressive action, Obama quite simply looks more like the hope we so badly need right now.

It comes down to ageism, I'm afraid, and money. We've been ruled by rich old white men for so long, a rich old white woman (whatever her virtues) can't distinguish herself from the pack the way a young, mixed-race man can who isn't very rich, is only recently so, and who hasn't been in Washington for very long.

Hope is going to win this primary and the subsequent presidential election. I wish we could have a real liberal running things, but that possibility has been long since crushed--America needs progressivism, but is afraid to admit it. We're left with only possibilities, but those can be as big as our imaginations.

[gaspee]

89. Krugman is right on

Clinton/Obama '08

'cause they can't do it without each other.