Krugman: what’s good for Obama is not necessarily good for his aides

[Zenlitened]

Nor vice versa, I'd add:

Think about it: Complaints that the administration should have pursued a bigger stimulus, or fought harder for the public option, or taken a different position on Afghanistan aren’t going to matter in the midterms. But they might hurt White House aides who argued against a bigger stimulus (to the point of not even passing the option on to the president), or argued against a harder push on health reform (perhaps even calling for retreat after Scott Brown), or have argued that continuation of Bush foreign policy is a political winner. The point is that the president might actually take those criticisms to heart, and rethink who he listens to.

Of course, aides aren’t supposed to put their own interests above those of the man they serve. And they probably aren’t doing that consciously. But still ….

Link:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

I don't know that Gibbs is involved in arguing policy. Some spokespersons do, some just articulate whatever the message is, it all depends on the organization.

But either way, whether he was spouting his own POV or "inartfully" expressing that of the WH,this whole thing was a pointless blunder.

He needs to "spend more time with his family," commencing mid-November.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Fuck the Professional Left who equate Obama with Bush!

I agree with Gibbs.

Guess I'm gonna need to spend more time with my family too!

[Zenlitened]

2. Not if doing so would detract from your multitudinous charming posts.

:hi:

[vi5]

3. Oh no. Please. Don't.

N/T.

[depakid]

4. Krugman implies what some of us have been saying for at least a year now

that this administration has saddled itself with group think- which has made it quite impervious to criticism and incapable of responding to feedback in its decision making processes.

This is dysfunctional in any organization- and downright dangerous when it infests the office of the presidency.