Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Every 4 years in December, Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, seems to morph into some sort of a zombie that turns on progressives... or maybe he's always that way. During the last Presidential cycle at this time, Robert Gibbs was the face and spokesperson for the front group that attacked Howard Dean in Iowa with one of the most dispicable TV ads of our times. This cycle, he's out trashing the credibility of Paul Krugman on behalf of Barack Obama.

But it's not right to pinpoint Gibbs as the disaster behind this attack on Krugman's credibility. The fault is with Obama. It's obvious that Obama feels comfortable attempting to trash the credibility of progressives like Krugman. It's even more disturbing when coupled with the admiration that Obama holds for Republicans in his post-partisan quest. But this is just plain stupid.  

What's the point? "Krugman Then, Krugman Now." Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive.

Actually, it's worse. Couple it with the quote of Obama's above the PR that says: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama". It is plainly and simply an effort to call Paul Krugman a liar.

But it's also a telling quote of the way that Obama would govern as President-- by attacking those who are most outspoken in the being progressive.

If there's one person that I would point to in the establishment press that was there during the wilderness, the period of '01-'03, before Dean arrived on the scene, it was Paul Krugman. The guy should be awarded some sort of Presidential award by the next President for his truth telling while nearly all the rest of the establishment press could only be found on their knees in front of BushCo during the beginning of this decade.

Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman?  Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian?

It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too.

Tags: Barack Obama, Paul Krugman (all tags)

Comments

208 Comments

Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

What next from you?

by iamready 2007-12-07 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Don't ask.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Don't tell.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:05PM | 0 recs
Another bullshit attack from Jerome

Since when does presenting someone's own words from several months ago on a topic and contrasting them with their current position constitute an attack. If Obama had made up quotes from Krugman, then sure you'd have a point. Simply asking for consistency from someone who has used his position as a journalist to launch a weekly critique is pretty light stuff.

If this is what constitutes an attack these days, then this will be the nicest, most pleasant primary ever. Not like someone questioning an opponents character, or questioning their qualifications to even be president. Oh, wait, that did just happen.

There is just no substance to this diary.

by commoncents 2007-12-07 06:54PM | 0 recs
Of course not - Obama never attacks-

he "just sharpens the differences"-

Its only Hillary that ATTACKS!

righto?

wow, dont I sound like I too belong on Hardball?

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 07:46PM | 0 recs
Krugman had same tone toward Obama all along

The part of the June 4, 2007 column  that's not quoted that referenced in the Obama Factcheck
 [New York Times, 6/4/07]

They just used the beginning.

"So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan. In fact, it would have been considered daring if it had been announced last year.

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope.

On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn't quell my worries that Mr. Obama's dislike of "bitter and partisan" politics makes him too cautious. But at least he's come out with a plan.

Senator Clinton, we're waiting to hear from you."

These are the exact same sentiments and characterizations he made in his recent columns about the plan, about Obama and his lack of partisanship making him too cautious  Krugman hasn't changed his evaluation, the Fact Check just a baldly bad job of selective editing to misreperesnt Krugman's tone.  

The Fact check is like those newspaper ads that quote movie critics......Vince Canby said "This movie is amazing"  but the real quote was truncated.  It was "This movie is amazing...amazingly bad"

And so was the Fact Check.  Jerome is right,

by debcoop 2007-12-07 09:48PM | 0 recs
I was SHOCkED when basically

during day one of this campaign - I saw the phrase "sold out the lincoln bedroom" being quoted from team Obama and then saw that the words actually came from the comm dir for that camp - who was and is the one and lowly, Robert Gibbs.

What?!  I screamed!  I figured that piece of filth had followed the lovely Tricia's command and crawled back under his slmey rock - and  he was now working as a spokeshack for the Peabody Coal Company or another group just as vile....but no.....he had been personally chosen by Axelrod and Obama himself to run the campaigns message.  Well that really should of prepared us all for what was coming.  Plus it immediately showed that the new kind of nice-nice campaigning that Obama promised was just gonna be hype.  Which is all its been - hype.

How may synonyms for "liar" has Obama used to describe Hllary.  

How many times has he used the totally bullshit Gerth charge that the clntons had a 20 year plan to put Hllary in the WH?  {3 tmes btw] How many times dd the Clnton temm respond with the same list of barry quotes that showed he's been planning for the WH for many years himself?  
Also  3.  Now comes the Obama team on monday acting all shocked and just by coincidence - they had set up a  brand new website to show how hillary attacks even 5 year olds?    A steely false move - and an OBVIOUS SET UP - third time they had seen this same quote at Hillary Fact Check site?  - and NOW they were shocked?!!! pleaseeee -and OF COURSE the refs in the media didnt and dont say BOO about the use of the Gerth lie -  hell - the big media lives to help spread RW lies about thhe Clntons!  All the village cares about is another chance to talk about how awful those Clntons are!!  It was smart grant you - never said Gbbs wasnt smart- just that he's a vile reptile.

To me, the worst thing though in this entire campaign was obamas completely going over to the darkside and carryng water for the GOP and the meda during the NBC debate.  His words about SS crisis have been much discussed - but it was his joining with Russert and demanding that the Clntons authorize an early release of the WH papers was AMAZING to even cynical old me.  Did he not know that the GOP had been sending out releases demanding this for months and months?  Did he not know that they and the MSM just want those files - so they can play gotch with Dems thru the entire election? Did he know that the media had never demanded the same from GOP administrations? Didnt he know that this release could hurt MANY Dems not just his foe Hillary? For years maybe? Of Course he new - they knew ...he and they - just didnt care!  

Thats when I finally realized that to Team Obama - its ALL about whats good for Team Obama. Always. He, Gibbs and Axelrod have shown that they dont care how badly they scar, injure or wound our probable nominee.  {I say probable- though looking at what happens after SC tells me its way more than that -  just to be nice} They reinforce right wing and media talking points about the Clintons- day after day after day.  {I suggest you all go visit my dear friend - the incomparable Daily Howler - to see how concerned and disappointed Bob is about this.]  Ive never seen anything like it in the 30 years that Ive been around campaigns and I pray I  never do again.  I only hope that the damage that he and they do on their way out - doesnt cost us our chance to win back our Government.  

Those three Obama, Axelrod and Gibbs - might not care what happens after they dont get the nod, but millions of other Dems like me - sure as hell do.

And also -
KRUGMAN IS THE LEFTY-PROG-DEM COLUMNIST HERO.   There is no other.  No one comes in even a close second. Thats why the insiders in the media itself despise and belittle the guy - cause he even calls them on their bullshit...which of course the sweethearts in the media never-ever do.

To see them imply that he is a liar would make me so mad at those people - but since I already am -  now it just makes me more focused.

Though Im still close to 100% sure its gonna be Clinton in the end - I now say - ABO! Anybody!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 07:41PM | 0 recs
How can you possibly push Iraq war hawks, Jerome?

Your actions of attacking Obama (and other comments) indicate that you might prefer Hillary or Edwards. Given how they hawked the war (Edwards did more, and Hillary has Kyl-Lieberman under her belt now in addition to the IWR), how on earth could someone like you support these opportunistic war hawks?

by NeuvoLiberal 2007-12-08 05:15AM | 0 recs
Apparently it is reasonable to disagree with Obama

from the right, but despicable to disagree with him from the left.

by jsamuel 2007-12-07 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Apparently it is reasonable to disagree with O

BaReagan I'll bomb ya returns.

What do you expect from the man that admires Ronald Reagan and more or less threatend to invade Pakistan?

To his, or her, own I suppose.

by world dictator 2007-12-07 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Excellent observations, Jerome.

Krugman is right.  So they personally attack Krugman.

This has been going on for a long time and it is not pleasant to see:

it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle.

Can you imagine how much worse it will be in the general election?

Even his half-way plan will be forgotten.

by TomP 2007-12-07 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

That is what scares me.  His present votes on contentious issues for example.  I think Obama in the general election would run to the middle and that, in my opinion, would cripple democrat's chances at the WH and congress.

by jsamuel 2007-12-07 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility
the campaign released a statement from Chicago NOW director Lorna Brett, who devised the strategy on abortion issues that led Obama to vote present, saying "I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an Emily's list donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago NOW, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman's right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues.
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/12 04/emilys-list-goes-after-obamas-leader ship-on-choice
Obama collaborated with the pro-choice activists for the best possible outcome and voted present. Hillary voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as U.S. Senator.
by jb1125 2007-12-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

there are a lot of Illinios Dems in the Senate at that time who dont agree with her or you on this - including the present head of Chicago NOW and NARAL

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Compel people with a legal requirement to make them buy private insurance?  In a 'for-profit' marketplace?  This isn't a problematic general election position?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

2 points here. Edwards and Clinton offer public plans that everyone can buy into, while Obama does not. So they are compelled to buy into either a public plan or one offered by a highly regulated private insurer, and if they are too poor to afford the insurance, they get it free. Under Obama's plan, you can only sign up for the public plan if you are otherwise uninsured.

The 2nd point is that the Obama plan actually incentivizes healthy people to avoid buying insurance. After all, if an insurance company can't turn you away due to pre-existing conditions, why pay into the system until you actually have one?

by clarkent 2007-12-07 05:59PM | 0 recs
Because of that fundamental flaw, a possibility

arises that the plan always was window dressing.  It's not meant ever to be adopted.  

Obama needed a plan because Edwards had one.  He figured Clinton would not go universal , so he triangulated.  Clinton then adopted a plan similar in some ways to Edwards' plan. Obama was stuck, so he played the mandates as a right wing critique.  

Krugman saw just that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinio n/07krugman.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/ Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnist s/Paul%20Krugman&oref=slogin

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that "my plan begins by covering every American," it didn't -- and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan's weakness, he's attacking his Democratic opponents from the right -- and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econom istsview/2007/11/paul-krugman-ma.html

I'd add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn't that serious about achieving universal care -- that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Thus Krugman must be discreditted. So, the personal attacks.

by TomP 2007-12-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Public plans?  Then what is Cohn talking about?:


In all of these cases, however, the only way to make sure these people get insured is to compel them to do so--in other words, to make it a legal requirement. That's a relatively simple matter if you have a single-payer, government-run system; you just enroll everybody at birth. (That's one more reason why folks like me continue to talk up this option, even though none of the leading candidates have taken to it.) But if you want to provide universal coverage mainly through private insurance--which seems to be where we're heading at the moment--then you have to make people buy it.
Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic 7 Dec 07

This 'mandate' of private insurance is what really bothers me.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Over 80% of Americans currently have insurance and are happy with what they have. Clinton tried to move them to a more public system in 1994 and public opinion turned strongly against her. So the rationale is that we must preserve the mainly private insurance system to maintain public support.

The Clinton and Edwards plans (and possibly the others, I have not read them) set up a public plan that competes with private plans on the individual and employer level (most Americans are insured through their employer). Since most public plans (Medicare, the VA system) have much lower overhead and provide better care than most private plans the theory is that a broad-based public plan will be cheaper and better and will out-compete the private plans.

Obama's public plan is not available through most employers, so for the most part it would not compete with private plans.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

So the insurance industry is just as motivated to oppose these public plans as they would single-payer?  When has the private sector idly permitted such potentially deadly competition?  If you are going to wrestle the insurance companies to the mat why not go the whole way?  So we are going to have this public and private system side-by-side with a bureaucracy over the top of the whole thing 'mandating' insurance, applying fines and garnishing wages?  What did Rove say?  Go ahead, send us that one. I dare you.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Yes, the insurance companies will oppose any Democratic health care reform. Everyone realizes that, even Obama. The point is not to alienate the public, which is why no one is proposing taking away the private insurance that most people are happy with, and which single payer would eliminate.

Again, since the vast majority of Americans already have health insurance the mandates would affect a small portion of the population. Rove is welcome to  THOSE numbers.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

OK, so in the interest of not alienating the public why impose a 'mandate' which from all accounts will have a marginal impact on the uptake of the proposal and may be a sticking point with some voters?  Ideological or political?

These all seem like half-measures to me, compared to single-payer.  Why get all cracked up about the mandate?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

You impose a mandate for two reasons:

1. a third of the uninsured, roughly 15 million people, is not marginal. A mandate closes that gap to marginal, inducements don't.

2. to remove perverse incentives from the system. Under Obama's plan a rational, healthy person has a disincentive to purchase insurance.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I understand the theory, by now, I just don't get the politics.  Why bet the farm on this?  Why not get the foot in the door with a non-mandated proposal and then do the best possible with whatever Congress we get in November?  Sounds to me like we are giving the Republican nominee a stick to beat us with otherwise.  We can win this one if we don't get to didactic and realise the Republicans worst nightmares in our own stump rhetoric.  Make 'em work for it, I say.  Once we get a super-majority, well, that's a different story.  Nationalise the health insurance industry if we can get away with it, or whatever.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Because bad policy is bad politics, too. Look at it this way, Republicans are going to attack any plan that expands government involvement in the health care sector. And the perverse incentive aspect of Obama's plan will give them just as big of a stick (especially insurance companies) to fight with.

By the way, I don't want to "nationalise" health care in America. We can do better than the Canadian or British models of health care.

by clarkent 2007-12-08 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Shaun:

That's the political flaw in Obama's failure to include mandates.

Yes, the insurance companies are going to kick and scream about many of the proposals (like not allowing them to deny coverage). But, 47 million new customers is a pretty juicy carrot. Just like it is a carrot to the private insurers to drop their pants every year to get a slice of the Federal Employees Heath Benefits customer base -- that Clinton's plan makes available to every one. The competition among private insurers to be an approved option is intense now...and will be even more intense. Now, pit that private insurance pool against a public Medicare option and let the market sort things out.

If, in the battle, Clinton can only get Congressional approval for the Federal Employees Benefits private insurer menu for everyone and has to jettison the public-payer as a big compromise, she ends up right where Obama is starting. What's his bargaining chip?

You don't pass grand sweeping reform legislation without bargaining something away so both sides can claim a win.

by hwc 2007-12-08 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

The problem with the Clinton plan was that it forced  people into gatekeeper HMO's under a "Mommy knows best" theory. People strongly opposed the loss of their choice of physician, not the public nature of the plan.

Clinton draws the wrong lesson from the defeat of her plan because she can't accept that Mommy doesn't know best.

by antiHyde 2007-12-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

You may not have noticed but since 1994 most plans have become HMOs, and they have a whole mess of unregulated "utilization review" gatekeepers. Clinton anticipated what was going to happen and tried to head it off with some regulation.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Yes, there are many HMO's. And everyone who actually gets sick hates them.

by antiHyde 2007-12-10 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

That is false. 30 seconds on Google will take you to the current Federal Employees Health Benefits menu. There is every kind of insurance product from HMO, to traditional insurance with various levels of deductables to choose from. The foundation of Clinton's American Health Choices Plan is making this exact menu of insurance options available to any company or individual who wishes to purchase insurance. The same insurance Congressmen have now.

by hwc 2007-12-08 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

That is not false. What she is proposing now is irrelevant to what she proposed then. At least that's what the Edwards haters tell us.

by antiHyde 2007-12-10 04:52AM | 0 recs
Before you attack do some research

Edwards and Clinton would allow people to buy into a public plan like Medicare. The idea is that the public plan is cheaper and better because ther is no profit...just like Medicare.  

And that this will propel people to choose the public plan....therby growing the public plan (a single payer plan within this system.. You may not know it but Medicare does have premiums....they are just small, reasonalble sums)
A growing public plan would challenge the private insurance companies and shrink their share.

For those who don't initially pick a plan they would be enrolled into the public one when they encounter certain situations....a hospital emergency room.  Thereby also growing the public sphere.

by debcoop 2007-12-07 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Before you attack do some research

Then what is Cohn talking about?  He made a pretty in-depth case for 'mandates' without going in to the public sector coverage.  This public option strikes me as an invitation to the insurance industry to go to the mat against these proposals.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Before you attack do some research

The lesson here: Don't believe everything you read in the media (even the so-called liberal media). Remember, most journalists are lazy and don't bother to really understand policy positions of the candidates. Unless of course, those in the media aren't actually journalists and are instead respected academics whose job is to examine such things (e.g. Paul Krugman).

by adamterando 2007-12-08 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

looks like you found a point and a bone and arent moving -

why do i even try?

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 07:55PM | 0 recs
Yeah, that would never fly

I mean, mandatory health insurance today, then what--mandatory auto, liability and retirement insurance? Never gonna happen!

by kovie 2007-12-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Oh no, oh no, Obama dares to be critical of our sacred left-leaning economist!! Off with his head!

Give me a break. Krugman's piece was directed at Obama's character as much as policy. He basically invited this kind response.

by DPW 2007-12-07 05:46PM | 0 recs
Yes, it's the victim's fault.

This is complete and utter bullshit:

He basically invited this kind response

You can rationalize any attack as "he had it coming, because he dared to question Obama on issues."  

Krugman critized Obama's attacks on universal health care.  So you thijnk the Obama camapign shoudl call him a liar and go after him personally instead of defedning their plan.

As for "sacred left-leaning columnist," well you sound almost Republican.  Left-leaning is good in the Democratic Party.  We want universal health care.

Armstrong is correct.

by TomP 2007-12-07 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it's the victim's fault.?

"So you thijnk the Obama camapign shoudl call him a liar and go after him personally instead of defedning their plan."

Could you calm down. No one called him a liar. If contrasting your words today with your words a few months ago leaves people with the impression that you are a liar, then the problem isn't with the person who pointed out the difference. The problem lies with the inconsistent Mr. Krugman.

Krugman is hardly some poor defenseless victim. He is a writer for one of the most read newspapers in this country.

by commoncents 2007-12-07 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it's the victim's fault.?

look up thread.  The Obama folks engaged in very selective editing.

by debcoop 2007-12-07 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, it's the victim's fault.

First of all, he didn't call Krugman a liar, and he has defended his plan. In fact, Krugman's most recent piece is a response to Obama's defense of the plan.

Krugman did however lace some of his Obama-related articles with personal jabs (e.g. "played for a sucker"). So, it's fair to say that Krugman wasn't just interested in a policy debate. Also note that this whole thing began with Clinton at the Nevada debate when she argued Obama's health care plan reflected his lack of boldness, integrity, and concern for Americans. This was elevated to a personal level from the beginning. Given that atmosphere, it's hard to argue that Krugman enjoys some sacred, protected status. Krugman didn't pull any punches, why should Obama? Certainly, there's nothing particularly vicious in reminding Krugman that he once viewed Obama's plan more favorably--e.g., as "passing a basic test of courage" and as being "tough" despite his present characterization of Obama's plan as "cautious."

And, as far as me sounding "almost" like a republican . . . whatever. I reject the left/right dichotomy, so I don't really have an intelligible way of placing economists or myself on such a one-dimensional continuum. I just used the term here to to reflect the notion that Krugman is apparently beyond criticism simply because his political views lean in our direction. He's a fucking academic and owes any credibility he has to the ability of his work to survive scrutiny. To pretend outrage just because his claims are criticized by a candidate is plain stupid.

I also used the term "left-leaning" because much of Krugman's criticism of Obama lately is due to Obama's use of "right-wing talking points." Frankly, I hate when this little tactic is used to chill debate about something. It's as if you have to follow certainly rhetorical rules or you're "giving aid to the enemy," as Krugman claimed. I think that's a load of anti-intellectual bullshit.  

by DPW 2007-12-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
look up thread to see the selective editing

the Obama Fact Check did with Krugman's June 6th 2007 article they quote to prove theri point.  

by debcoop 2007-12-07 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

obama has done nothing compared to the work krugman has.

but you insult him.

there the new kind of politics folks!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 07:57PM | 0 recs
Maybe I'm just being picky...

Every 4 years in December, Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, seems to morph into some sort of a zombie that turns on progressives...

You only gave examples for 2008 and 2004.  That isn't every December.  

"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama"

Wouldn't it be... 'with the truth." -Barack Obama' ?

Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman?

'Is Obama just plain...'

Sorry, but the other day you said you blog about what you want to blog about... I figured you'd want to blog about something with good grammar.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 05:51PM | 0 recs
Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

That will win people over!

by jsamuel 2007-12-07 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

I took him at his word.  I figured he didn't imagine himself blogging with bad grammar so I thought I'd lend him a hand on the few things that stood out to me.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

You're a really immature prick.

by FilbertSF 2007-12-07 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

Hey!  While you're here, maybe you can tell me why you troll rated somebody for saying "More Dems in congress!" ?  

Abusing the troll rating system?  I could say the same to you buddy.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

So sue me.  Report me.  What are you going to do about it?  Whine?  

Here, have some cheese.

by FilbertSF 2007-12-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

It's an honest question!  You troll rated a guy, who thought it would be good to have more dems in congress.  Seems rather suspicious to me.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't agree? Attack his grammer.

Then shut up about it and report me.  I wait with baited breath.  Come on!  Don't be an Obama.  Put some muscle behind all that hot rhetoric.

by FilbertSF 2007-12-07 06:27PM | 0 recs
I bet in person you

would piss your pants if you met me or him.

Big e-courage.  I disagree with him regarding his criticism of Jerome, but your comments are ridiculous.

So act all tough on the internet.  It impresses no one.  

"Have some cheese."  What are you in?  Some bad movie?  The dialogue you write for your comments is pathetically bad.

by TomP 2007-12-07 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

"That isn't every December."

I meant to say "That isn't December every four years."  Exclaiming that I thought you'd need more than two examples to make the case that he turns on progressives every four years.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

Do not play the grammarian if you have not mastered standard English.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Foul

I just noticed that you have gone through an entire diary and troll-rated every comment by an Obama supporter, irrespective of content, cordiality or merit.  That is foul.  If it is not undone in the next few hours I am definitely going to make a formal complaint about you.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Foul

Bring it on, pussy.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

What you said barely makes sense.

He said every " 4 years in december " didn't he ?

The last time I checked there is only 1 month of december in a year. So he obviously cannot give more than two examples between 04 and 08.

Stop being a wise ass and address the issues he raised . Stay away from the grammer thing , its petty.

by lori 2007-12-07 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

He said every four years in december.  I think you need more than two examples to say every four years.  What about 2000?  1996?  Twice in a row?  Saying every four years with only two examples sounds weak and premature.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

That's the best you can do?

by who threw da cat 2007-12-07 07:58PM | 0 recs
When Gibbs was forced out of the Kerry campaign

He was the communications person who represented that awful 527 that attacked Howard Dean in the run up to the Iowa caucuses.  

I supported Kerry, admred Dean and hated those ads.  Theywere dishonorable.

And Obama hiring Robert Gibbs was one thing that set off my "I don't like this " antennae.

I googled this below

"Then there's the attack ad, paid for by Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values:

Who are the Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values? Their press secretary is Robert Gibbs--who, until recently, worked on John Kerry's campaign. Their Treasurer is David Jones, who used to raise money for Dick Gephardt. The president of the organization, Former Congressman Edward Feighan, was one of the earliest $2,000 contributors to Dick Gephardt's presidential campaign.

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archi ves/009169.html

by debcoop 2007-12-07 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

No, you're just being a dick... you obviously aspire to much, but I'd just as soon shoot it from the hip and not worry about annoying the most anal of the readers.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

I'd just as soon shoot it from the hip

Shoot what from the hip?  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

Quit being juvenile.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

I'm assuming it's a figure of speech, I haven't heard it before.  Don't really get it.  That's what happens with a lot of figures of speeches that you haven't heard before.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

Too young to have seen any Westerns?

by souvarine 2007-12-07 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

Sounds like good advice.

by mboehm 2007-12-07 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

" You only gave examples for 2008 and 2004.  That isn't every December. "

- Perhaps because he said "Every 4 years in December ", just like you block quoted.

 lol.

"I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama"

- he doesn't seem to be doing that , is he . His healthcare plan is not universal , so why did he put up ads saying it is and when called on it refused to take it down.

 

by lori 2007-12-07 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

You should check.  I corrected myself.  I meant to say that doesn't constitute as every four years.  Two examples?  Please.  Every four years should be at least 3 out of 5 or 6 examples.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-12-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
pot, meet kettle: part two

This is really getting old, Jeremiah. You're not really one to talk.

by bowiegeek 2007-12-07 07:32PM | 0 recs
oh the ol grammar insult...

nice.

what a dork.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

He didn't say every December, he said

Every 4 years in December, that would be 2004 and then lookie, another four years and it's December 2008.  

If you are going to be "picky" at least get it right.

And typos happen.

by Ellinorianne 2007-12-07 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe I'm just being picky...

Oh, you corrected yourself.  Maybe you should give others the benefit of the doubt if you are going to nitpick.

by Ellinorianne 2007-12-07 08:10PM | 0 recs
Another hit piece from Jerome Armstrong.

by rapcetera 2007-12-07 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Another hit piece from Jerome Armstrong.

Actually, it was about Obama's hit piece on Krugamn, but I guess you missed that part...

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:00PM | 0 recs
You mean...

by Obama "hit piece" that it's just the accurate representation of Krugman's stunning change of tone and manufactured "outrage" in his series of hit pieces, right?

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: You mean...

Yea, it's this type of attack on Krugman by supporters of Obama like yourself that just makes me shake my head, sadly.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:49PM | 0 recs
How can you possibly deny...

... the obvious fact that Krugman has suddenly changed his rhetoric on this?

All of a sudden Krugman has realized that Obama doesn't adhere to progressive political correctness? Gasp! Who knew?

C'mon, man. Why is Krugman so upset about this, all of a sudden?

Because one time Obama said the word "crisis" in reference to SS, despite the fact that he'd repeatedly said the opposite? So now Obama's a right wing sell because he used the wrong word?

It doesn't add up.

You'd think that people who were interested in policy would care more about the policy than the rhetoric.

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 06:58PM | 0 recs
Right...

Because policy certainly proved to be wiser than personality on Iraq and Iran...

by kovie 2007-12-07 08:14PM | 0 recs
yeah - krugmans just bought and paid for

but wait - he doesnt take money from lobbyists either-

so doesnt that also make him, by definition, pure?

----

hey - its just as logical as their claim...

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Obama is a train wreck waiting to happen if he gets the nomination.  He, not Hillary Clinton, will drag Democrats down in Congress and at the state and local levels.

Just wait until the GOP attack machine gets started on him.  Hillary Clinton may not be the best choice, but she's a lot better than Obama. Edwards would be a lot better than Obama.

You got to stand for something, and Obama stands
for....almost nothing.

by mikelow1885 2007-12-07 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

He seems to stand for himself and his 'movement' about him pretty well, I think you have to give him that much.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

but apparently only certain types of democrats are allowed in his "movement". I shudder to imagine the kind of movement Obama would lead when people like Paul Krugman aren't even invited to join.

by world dictator 2007-12-07 07:30PM | 0 recs
ABO

ANYBODY
BUT
OBAMA!

Who's with me?

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Really Jerome, this is getting ridiculous.  I'm not supporting Obama in the primary so I have no axe to grind here, but I really don't see anything wrong with pointing out what a columnist wrote previously to what they wrote now and saying there are inconsistencies there.

And just because Krugman has been out there as the "lonely man in the wilderness" of the Bush presidency taking him to task doesn't mean he is right all the time.  Unfortunately because of the way you have gone after Obama consistently, I am tending to take what you have to say about him less seriously.  Perhaps that's unfortunate since you have brought up some good points from time to time but with most of it, it comes across as too much of a personal vendetta against him.

by minvis 2007-12-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Except it's selectively quoting Krugman to imply that he's being inconsistent.

by clarkent 2007-12-07 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

exactly - it was sooo deceptive.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Really. Jerome's personal crusade against Obama really damages both his own credibility and the credibility of MyDD.

If Obama's ever does do something worthy of hatred akin to Jerome's, no one will listen. Boy who cried wolf, and all that jazz.

by Kal 2007-12-07 06:06PM | 0 recs
This is the scary part of

a few Obama supporters.  For these few, any criticism of Obama on isuses is defined as "hatred" or "hating on him."
All critics must be personally attacked.  

The cult of personality he promotes, and these few adopt, is contrary to fundamental egalitarian values.

I see him as a moderate.  In a time that requires deep, fundamental change, his policies simply won't do.

by TomP 2007-12-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the scary part of

Could you please give the internet pop psychology BS a rest. The constant whining about what is wrong with Obama supporters is annoying and incredibly condescending.

by commoncents 2007-12-07 07:21PM | 0 recs
ABO!

This is a wise comment from Ezra Kleins blog today - where Klein was making exact same point as Jerome is here by he way.  

This, and Obama's apparent surge generally, is very, very troubling. It does not bode well for us at all, as Obama is the candidate most likely to give away an election that is ours to lose.

Democrats need to get really serious about this race really fast. People are always complaining about how "early" it is, but we're barely a month out from a handful of actual votes that will probably decide who carries the Democratic banner in 2008. There is very good reason to wonder whether Obama is ready for prime time, but we're on the verge of putting him there without even considering this question.

If Obama wasn't in the race, I think we'd see a more serious campaign. Clinton and Edwards have reasonably distinct ideological perspectives, and each would bring different electoral strengths to the ticket. It would be nice to have a forceful but rational debate over the future of the party and the different paths they represent.

But Obama is a sideshow, a candidate whose celebrity is his only rationale. It is very fitting that Oprah is campaigning for him. Obama's supporters represent a disturbing cult of personality that I do not see anywhere else (except Ron Paul). They seem to think that his very existence is somehow miraculous and that his election would be "transformative" in some ineffable, metaphysical way. Andy Sullivan's argument, essentially, which should really tell you something.

Posted by: Jason C.


by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: ABO!

Really, all these comments about Obama's supports being naive, silly, ignorant about policy, and members of a cult are offensive.

by Kal 2007-12-08 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I agree here...It's impossible to take jerome seriously on any points he makes about Obama.

It is so clear that he has a personal beef against him ad anyone that would take his opinion of Obama as bias is just crazy.

by Prodigy 2007-12-07 06:52PM | 0 recs
attack

attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack
attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack
attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack
attackattackattackattackattackattackatta ckattackattackattackattackattackattackat tackattackattack

and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on...

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Oh, no! Obama defends his policy solutions! That means we're sure to lose in November!

Run for the hills!

Unlike Jerome, I have no problem with our officials and candidates calling out media folks, whether they're on the left or the right.

by Kal 2007-12-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
calling out media folks!

You are kidding!?  Do you really know so little?

Team Obama is on Hardball every night give Matthews a handjob and they did even more for russert and Co - they are the darlings of the bought and paid for 500 of the media village -

but THE ONE INDEPENDENT VOICE in the entire MSM -

They ATTACK

and you -

think that is just so swell.

We will count you down amongst the completely CLUELESS!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: calling out media folks!

If somebody gets their policy positions wrong, or attacks them, I expect them to attack right back.

Unlike some people here, I don't want a repeat of 2004 where our nominee is too scared to defend himself.

Should Obama be attacking Chris Matthews et al if they give him positive coverage? If you think they should, it is you who is clueless.

by Kal 2007-12-08 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: calling out media folks!

go start reading www.dailyhowler.com

educate yourself on this.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-08 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Gibbs doesn't do Fact Check and has nothing to do with this response. It's done by the research department.

by jb1125 2007-12-07 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

And as the communications director he doesn't get the opportunity to look these over before they go out?  This isn't your everyday 'factcheck' put out by the research dept. At the very least on this one specifically, which attacks a person in the media, it'd be a very disorganized campaign which didn't run this attack with the approval of the communications director, and even the candidate himself.

I wouldn't be surprised, given Obama's thin-skin, to learn that the idea originated with Obama being pissed at reading it in the clips, and telling Gibbs to respond with a counter-attack.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I don't know how the research and communications departments coordinate.  

I would speculate the research director was told to respond to Krugman. They already have a fact check defending his plan and so the purpose of the response was to clarify what Krugman was criticizing.  http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200 7/11/30/post_2.php

It was important to illustrate that Krugman's tone towards Obama's plan has changed. This helps emphasize that what Krugman is most upset about is the change in rhetoric not the actual plan.

(I responded accidentally to the full thread below)

by jb1125 2007-12-07 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

get a grip hoss.  an atack on the leading left columnist of the frigging nytimes did not go out without the approval of the lowly Gibbs.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

As has been noted in several comments above, there was no frigging 'attack'.

In the same way, I don't regard Krugman's recent columns as 'attacks'. He published significant, well-earned criticism of Obama's policy and tactics.

I wish Obama had responded, in his own words, to those criticisms. As far as I can tell, he hasn't mounted a specific defense.

But his Fact Check page IS a general form of defense--not an attack.

by along 2007-12-07 10:02PM | 0 recs
of course,obama NEVER atacks

he just "sharpens the differencess" right?

we all know is only HILLARY THAT ATTACKS.

Right?

How much tweetie likes you guys now, that should make you ponder.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-08 07:54AM | 0 recs
The progressive language orthodoxy...

...is detrimental to the goal of achieving progressive policy.

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The progressive language orthodoxy...

Ain't it the truth.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Why in the world is any liberal or progressive supporting a right-wing Democrat or even a DINO, which is what Obama is?

Are people that easily conned by the media spin?  It worries me greatly, for Obama would be a 50-state loser were he to win the Democratic nomination.

He's the one candidate on the slate I would not support under any circumstances.

by Susan Nunes 2007-12-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
Hillary, Biden, Edwards & Dodd

all voted for the war, while Obama was against it, and HE is the right-wing Dem?

She's the one with the highest negatives among the public, and he has the highest support among the right, and HE is the one most likely to assure a 50 state defeat. FIFTY STATE?!? Even MA, NY, CA, WA & OR?!?

I can certainly see a number of issues on which to criticize Obama, including health insurance and social security. But in terms of how right-wing he is compared to most of the other candidates? Sheesh.

If you have a point to make, please, at least make it logical and reality-based.

And the whole tone of this thread reminds me of the whole "Oh no, we can't let that far-left nutjob Dean win the nomination! ANYONE but Dean!!!". The fact that Dean was cut down for being too left, and Obama for being too right (both of which are unfounded), is really irrelevant. They each just rub some people the wrong way.

And I continue to be amazed at all the criticisms made against Obama in ways that could just as easily be made of most of the other Dems. Hillary is suddenly a highly electable candidate who just oozes pure progressivism?

I give up.

by kovie 2007-12-07 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

if anybody is a dino, it's edwards. look at his voting record.

by jello 2007-12-18 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I think its time to start ignoring Jermones posts here.  He makes some valid points sometimes, even about Obama, but the way he does it, it's like theres some deep seeded venom in his posts.  I dont understand it.

by Socks The Cat 2007-12-07 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Well, to help you out a bit, you can start with figuring that I'm all about winning progressives and defeating Republicans, and take it from there.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
And Mark Warner is like what?

Dennis Kucinich?

If you're interested in a winning "progressive," Obama seems to be the only one with a shot at actually winning.

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 07:03PM | 0 recs
Yes

I doubt that.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 07:04PM | 0 recs
Then...

Which other Progressive does have a chance of beating Hillary?

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 07:06PM | 0 recs
hey pal..

Unions representing four million workers believe that Hillary is a strong Progressive and guess what - they dont need your approval to view her that way.

I will soon be joining my brothers and sisters in SEIU purple campaigning for her in NH and we dont take a back seat to anyone in our proud progressive views.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

this is a totally absurd diary. What the Obama campaign is pointing out is the 'about face' Krugman has made on his opinion on the Obama health plan. Checking out the Obama Fact Check site http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200 7/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.p hp
you will discover quotes from Krugman's initial review of Obama's plan and his current comments.

Why is Krugman, who always maintained his integrity, suddenly changing his opinions?to be a columnist with integrity
I post below to make my point:
KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning." [New York Times, 11/30/07]
COURAGE AND TOUGHNESS VS. WEAKNESS AND CAUTION

KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Plan Passes A "Basic Test of Courage" And Gets "Points For Toughness." Paul Krugman wrote, "It also passes one basic test of courage. You can't be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts. Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won't be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness. Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama's Caution...Led Him To Propose A Relatively Weak, Incomplete Health Care Plan." Paul Krugman wrote, "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

MANDATES AND ENFORCEMENT

KRUGMAN THEN: Krugman Talked To An Architect Of Obama's Plan Who Said "Obama Is Reluctant To Impose A Mandate That Might Not Be Enforceable." Paul Krugman wrote, "I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Most Troubling, Mr. Obama Accuses His Rivals Of Not Explaining How They Would Enforce Mandates" And Said He Was Implying That The Plans Would Require "Nasty, Punitive Enforcement." Paul Krugman wrote, "Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama Is Storing Up Trouble For Health Reformers" By Criticizing Mandates. Paul Krugman wrote, "Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that 'force every American to buy health care.'" [New York Times, 12/7/07]

It would be wonderful if diarists would utilize some core tenets of journalism (tenets which we no  longer evidence in MSM) and do extensive research before posting. Not presenting all the facts is counterproductive and divisive. A waste of our brainpower...

by boatsie 2007-12-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
are you stoned?

the whole point of this diary is that Obamas fact check was disturbingly unfair and misleading -

and so you then go and quote from it. Smooth!

It does seem that you Obamaites are really lost without your scripts arent you?!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:36PM | 0 recs
Is it fair to say

that, unlike Kos and the stated purpose of DailyKos, which is to elect Democrats, be they progressive, moderate or conservative Democrats (although with a preference towards the former), you, and this site, are much more about electing progressives, and not just Democrats (not that there are any viable non-Democratic progressives these days, of course, except for outliers like Sanders)?

I realize that this is not DKos and read Bowers' diary about this when he was on this blog, and I'm in no way arguing with this. Just asking for some clarification since I'm not as regular a reader and commenter of this site as of DKos (which for obvious reasons this site will always be associated with to many people, like it or not).

by kovie 2007-12-07 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Is it fair to say

I'm pretty pragmatic about it all, even moreso than most progressives I'd guess, so I'd guess you have your analysis upside down if that helps. You can check out 'Crashing the Gate' if you want a deeper explanation.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 08:59PM | 0 recs
I did read it when it came out

But have also read dozens of other books about contemporary politics and policy, so it all sorts of becomes a blur after a while. Might be time for me to give CTG a quick refresher skim, though. Although, from what I recall of it, I can see where you're coming from on Obama (e.g. enabling RW talking points to curry favor with the center and soft right), even though I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I do agree though that he's wrong on SS and health insurance, and that Krugman's got it right. I'm less bothered by the political elbow-jabbing, though (especially since Wolfson is no angel himself). Maybe it's a NYC thing, where this is common and I'm used to it.

by kovie 2007-12-07 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I did read it when it came out

I know how politicians consume media, and there are those that pay attention to progressives and our media, and there are those whom ignore it and instead focus on the traditional media. Kerry did the latter until it was too late in '04. That's pretty much where Obama is too-- he doesn't know the progressive narrative at all, you can tell this by the RW talking points he slips into, he's a beltway creature through and through.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 09:46PM | 0 recs
Well

I tend to value actual policy over words when it comes to politics (which is why, to give an example, Richardson's promise to remove all US troops from Iraq never impressed me much because not only didn't I believe that he really meant it, but I also didn't think that he could do it--it just sounded like what he thought would attract the most progressives to his side). So when Obama says things that are designed to please the center and soft right, I tend to dismiss it as much the same as what I think that Richardson did with the left--pander to them.

I.e. it's just politics. And I think that he's pretty good at it.

And, although I do not agree with some of Obama's policy stances--espcially SS and health insurance--I still view him as the "lesser of three evils" and the most promising in terms of the potential to be a good Democratic president among those whom I think have a chance of winning the nomination. Iraq plays heavily into this for me (and I initially supported the war, which makes me especially wary of politicians who also did).

The fact that he hasn't gone for the progressive vote isn't that big a deal to me. Both he and Hillary seem to have conceded that to Edwards, who is the least likely of them to win and who I do not believe will win (which is why I never really gave him strong consideration).

But in terms of who would actually govern more progressively between the two, I have to believe that it would be Obama, not Hillary, based on their track records. Perhaps not resoundingly so, but she just gives me a bad feeling about the sort of president that she'd be, in terms of politicans and policy. But between his working as a community organizer, opposing the war, and being a relative newcomer to DC, I see him as pushing forth a more progressive agenda, even if he isn't much of a "progressive" himself.

Not a very comprehensive or scientific analysis, I realize. But in terms of likely real-world results, I see him as more likely to actually be effectively progressive than Hillary (i.e. there's no point in being the most progressive candidate in the world--which of course Hillary isn't--if you either can't get elected--like Kucinich, Dodd or Richardson--or you are less likely to win over congress and more likely to make bad compromises--which I believe would be more likely with Hillary).

by kovie 2007-12-07 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

hey why stop there , why not ignore Todd Beeton as well ?

by lori 2007-12-07 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

My problem is not with disagreeing with one candidate or another.  It's how it's done.

Has Jerome come out in support of a candidate yet?

by Socks The Cat 2007-12-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

not too my knowledge.

he raises a very valid issue and a lot of people have switched to shoot the messenger mode without addressing the issues.

by lori 2007-12-07 06:39PM | 0 recs
Its that Obama "new way of campaigning"

discredit anyone who dare doubt he is not the newborn king.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

No, I don't have a favorite, and have been more vocal with opposing Obama than supporting any of the alternatives. I love Elizabeth Edwards if that matters (sorry John), and expect that Clinton will win, and sorta like Richardson at times, and think Biden might do well in Iowa (4th, lol), and I have to admit I never got into the Doddsquad swoon that happened one week fwiw...

Anyway, Obamafans can discount whatever criticism I see of Obama if they want, that's fine, whatever.

It's not really a predisposition that I come with to Obama (my posts from 9-12 months ago about him found his potential quite favorable) but more of a feeling of 'there he goes again' happening on a regular basis.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:45PM | 0 recs
So, you're resigned to Clinton winning...

When you've done nothing but trash the one progressive that actually has a shot a beating her.

And you say you want Progressives to win? I'm not sure I'm following the logic here.

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 07:05PM | 0 recs
again more with your speaking for all

"progressives".

let us here from the "voice of the people" the latest reasoning about how the unions and the labor movement have chosen to back Hillary Clinton by the millions and yet, no national union has chosen to support Obama at all.

Not one.

zip, nada, none.

Go ahead.

Tell us.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

What makes any of you think that these health plans are going to be enacted as they are currently written?

Not bloody likely.  

Congress will have its say, and whatever ultimately passes will probably look nothing like what the candidate initially proposed.

Anyone who discounts any of these candidates' health care plans based on such minute details is either being disingenuous, or has no political sense whatsoever.

I would have expected better of both Jerome and Krugman.  But apparently scoring points is more important than being intellectually honest.

by Wonk 2007-12-07 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I'd agree, that getting a more democratic congress goes further to getting universal healthcare coverage than does a debate about the presidential difference in their plans, and I had something about that in the post which I didn't include, because it's not really relevant to what's being done here in the attack on Krugman by Obama.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
The problem I have with Krugman

And to a certain extent, Edwards' take on this, is that they seem to presume that they have the right to tell us how to run our lives.

Most people, but especially Americans, don't like to be told what to do, and especially not by the government.  

So I guess the reason I prefer Obama's plan is because he treats us like adults.  He covers the kids, but assumes that the adults will choose to buy insurance as long as it's affordable.

I don't think the lack of a mandate is a flaw, I think it's the pragmatic response of a guy who was used to being the point man for getting consensus between Repubs & Democrats for 10 years in the Illinois legislature, and actually getting things done.  

by Wonk 2007-12-07 08:20PM | 0 recs
god - if you concentrate and

if you put your nose near your screen - you can actually smell the kool aid leftover residue from each of this persons keystrokes..

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:50PM | 0 recs
Um

This "people don't like to be told what to do by the government" argument is a very weak one to make in a progressive context. By this logic one could easily critizing auto insurance, income tax and seat belts--or traffic lights for that matter.

This isn't about some far-left socialist plan to force every to buy into universal health insurance, but a way to actually solve the health care crisis (as opposed to the non-existant social security "crisis" that Obama stupidly bought into).

And if mandated insurance isn't the best way to reduce costs for everyone (both in terms of up-front premiums, and back-end health care costs when you factor in much more expensive ER treatment for the uninsured), then someone needs to show me a better solution. But the reality is that there isn't one.

There's a reason that some things are necessarily mandatory: they are important, and to be effective, there has to be near-universal compliance, and for that to happen, people have to be required to opt in. Just like auto insurance, income tax, seat belts and traffic lights. Health insurance seems to me to be in that category.

Only libertarians could argue with that, I think. And they're nuts on most issues.

by kovie 2007-12-07 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

This is probably one of the most idiotic comments I have read online.  If one negotiates from the position of Edwards or Clinton, one will attain a universal health care plan that at least has universality.  If one negotiates from Obama's position, I doubt anything that will improve health care as it presently exists will pass Congress.  One does not negotiate from an already negotiated position, and this is why Obama's plan will fail.  At least with Edwards and Clinton we can begin from a position that will promise some form of reform, not just more of the same.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Rated zero...

...for following me around and troll-rating my comments. Really childish -- passive aggressive, too.

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Rated zero...

Rated unfavorably for lying and for stalking.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Rated zero...

Can you guys please cut this out?

by katerina 2007-12-07 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Rated zero...

Troll ratings are for meant for trollish comments, not as a brickbat to swipe at people you don't like.  Rated up the comment to compensate for your abuse of the rating system.

by katerina 2007-12-07 07:44PM | 0 recs
Couldn't agree more...

I've actually never troll-rated anyone on this site.

by Vermonter 2007-12-07 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Couldn't agree more...

Our mutual friend has just gone through an entire diary and troll-rated every comment by an Obama supporter, irrespective of content, cordiality or merit.  That is foul.  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Rated up

Cause I like nice women name Katerina!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Perhaps if you read Krugman's criticism you would understand that these 'details' are not minute. They are fundamental to the economic assumptions of each plan.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Obama doesn't even oppose mandates...

according to his health adviser. That's what's so disturbing about this attack-- he's just trying to characterize a progressive principle that we should all be insured against the reality that we will all get sick, giving up the freedom to be disadvantaged or negligent in order to benefit all American citizens as impossible and naive.

"If there are free riders, Obama is open to mandates. [...] He hasn't ruled anything out. It's a matter of priorities. The fact is, the policy differences on the mandate issue aren't that large at all. Sen. Obama believes they're an option down the road, if other approaches don't work.

It's just plain dishonest for his campaign to on the one hand send out memos to kids like Jeremiah to go talk about how mandates aren't Universal Healthcare and therefore they suck, when Obama personally knows that his plan will not fix the problem but only require massive investment with a necessary follow-up.

by bowiegeek 2007-12-07 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I did read it.  

It was pedantic, and it ignores the reality of getting legislation passed in a Congress that isn't going to be composed of all Democrats.

When Krugman says:

by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he's making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

He ignores the fact that it would be a far smaller step to go from where we'd be under an Obama plan to universal, than trying to get there from where we are today.

Americans are an independent lot, they don't like to be told what to do.  As someone who didn't have health insurance til well into my 30's because I couldn't afford it, it would have pissed me off to be told I must spend money I didn't have, for something I didn't need at the time, or otherwise the President would sic the IRS on me.

Obama's a realist.  That's what I like about him.

by Wonk 2007-12-07 07:57PM | 0 recs
Realistically, this is our chance to get change...

Would you be pissed if you had to spend money you were given? This isn't even up for debate. Everyone's plan, both Edwards' and Clinton's Universal Plans and Obama's non-Universal plan provides subsidies. The problem is not whether or not we should give subsidies, but whether or not they'll do any good if we can't make sure that medical insurance costs will come down due to a homogenization of risk in the system.

If we knew that every American is ultimately susceptible to something, and that that something will be more extreme, more costly, and more ruinous without long-term access to quality affordable care, what good is it for the government to hand out checks to only some people underwritten by the taxpayers who are expecting lower health costs (in time, money, and relieving overworked hospitals), when no such adjustment is likely to happen?

Also, I don't buy the "being realistic about a plan getting passed" argument. If Congress remains the way it is now, in which SCHIP's expansion was barred from making any headway because of the socialized medicine bugaboo, what makes you think Obama's plan which calls for mandatory community rating for all Americans (without anything to back him up in the inevitable fight, such as a mandate to cover everyone) will get any more traction?

Right now, health care is a big deal and on the minds of millions of Americans. Let's think a little bit smarter than pouring billions into a system that won't change the underlying problems today.

by bowiegeek 2007-12-07 08:39PM | 0 recs
It leaves 1/3 of the uninsured

uninsured.

When I actually understood that - it shocked me.

Forget the numbers - those made no sense to me -

but one out of three -

hhe would leave one out of three without coverage

BEFORE WE EVEN START?!

Come on!

Its a disgrace.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:55PM | 0 recs
Someone who actually is making sense.

NO PLAN will go to Congress intact.

There are those who think these plans are set in stone. Well, they're not. I'm very surprised at the vitriol by both Jerome and Krugman who PRAISED Obama's health plan when it first came out!

by Nedsdag 2007-12-07 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Someone who actually is making sense.

So why aim low from the start?

by bowiegeek 2007-12-07 08:40PM | 0 recs
EXACTLY

Obamas plan leaves 1 out of 3uninsured - still uninsured -

hats even before the powers that be - start whittling down who gets covered.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: EXACTLY

no, it doesn't leave those people uninsured.. they are choosing to be uninsured.

If you cannot understand the difference you are thick. You run on mandates in the western swing states of colorado,NV.New Mexico and Az. and I guarantee another repug in the white house.

Get out of the tower, stuck up there with St Paul. talk to real voters..

Armstrong has zero cred - that is obvious. He has lost all semblance of objective analysis. This is a hit job, pure and simple. Obama has the most progressive voting record of anyone but kucinich and they are spinning that he is not progressive. Up is down. black is white.. against the war.. bad
co-sponsor the war resolution- good , death in iraq- good ;negogiate with Iran- bad..

Someone pop this guys bubble and wake him up.

by hawkjt 2007-12-07 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: EXACTLY

People are choosing to be uninsured now, and they are also choosing to increase costs for the rest of us. I have no problem with people choosing to own a gun, or choosing to drive large SUVs that crush people on impact, or choosing to do any number of things that make this country so interesting-- but I don't see that it's a huge sacrifice to force people to buy medical insurance with the subsidy that they will automatically be provided if they can't already afford it if they and everyone else in the country will be better off as a result.

Read this latest piece from the National Journal which explains exactly why Obama's plan makes it harder for the insurance companies to go along because of the lack of a mandate:

It's here that Obama faces his own contortions. He commendably calls for building a broad health care consensus that includes the insurance industry. But in the states, the individual mandate has been critical in persuading insurers to accept reform, including the requirement that they no longer reject applicants with pre-existing health problems, a key liberal goal. If such a requirement isn't tied to a mandate, insurers correctly note, the uninsured can wait until they are sick to buy coverage, which will inflate costs for everyone else. By seeking guaranteed access without an individual mandate, Obama is virtually ensuring war with the insurance companies that he has pledged to engage.

This has nothing to do with Jerome. It has to do with helping the middle class and getting something done on this issue once and for all.

by bowiegeek 2007-12-07 09:38PM | 0 recs
prog?

hows that 30% cap on interest on loans working?

oh yeah - its not - Obama said they werent high enough.

Obama voted for the bush bankruptcy laws. my god.

yeah - your right - he does have
NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-08 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

jerome....

i dont know enough about u to speculate on your hysterical aversion towards senator obama  BUT the democratic party cannot afford to nominate another
pro-iraq war authorizer.  as much as i admire john edwards he has to backtrack and apologize for so MUCH--patriot act, iraq, nclb; its too much.  

i dont know if they wouldnt hire u at the obama campaign, but u think mark warner is/was more progressive?  ill take larry tribe's take on obama over your petty bitchiness anytime...

by maxnyc 2007-12-07 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

ANd I will take Jerome's years of committment to Democratic politics over the vitriol of a Johnny come lately any time of the day.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

You actually think Obama is going to lead us out of Iraq?  Obama is all about rhetoric.  But what did he do when he became Senator?  He voted for every single war funding bill.  He was against timetables.  He has been silent since 2004 on Iraq.  

I'm telling you this.  Obama will not lead us out of Iraq.  

by FilbertSF 2007-12-07 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Are you really P.G. Wodehouse? I see you DO have a shift key. Didn't anyone teach you to use it at the beginning of a sentence?

I don't want to be the grammar cop, but your post is hard to read.

by antiHyde 2007-12-07 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Wasn't it e. e. cummings?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Yeah, your right. English Lit was never my strong class.

by antiHyde 2007-12-10 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I think you mean e.e.cummings.  Wodehouse didn't have a problem with capital letters.

by Flynnieous 2007-12-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
hey is it impolite to say

shut the fuck up?

oh it is...well, nevermind.

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

You say:


What's the point? "Krugman Then, Krugman Now." Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive.

There are other options for reasons for his change than what you state.  But put that behind us, what is your explanation for the change?  Why has Krugman sharpened his words?  What is the explanation for trying to take down a plan which another critic, Jonathan Cohn has said:


 Obama's plan may not reach as many people as Clinton's or Edwards' would, but it would reach an awful lot of people--and, as such, do an awful lot of good. And, thankfully, Obama continues to say he wants to achieve universal coverage--that is, to make sure everybody has insurance. At least he has the right goal in mind.

by Piuma 2007-12-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Cohn's assessment of Obama's plan is tantamount to saying that s/he really tried, but s/he failed.  But s/he tried, and s/he said s/he tried, and that is all that should matter.  

I would not cite Cohn as a counterpoint to Krugman, as Cohn reveals what all of us know: Obama's plan is a failure, and his claim that it is universal is merely rhetorical.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I don't know how the research and communications departments coordinate.  

I would speculate the research director was told to respond to Krugman. They already have a fact check defending his plan and so the purpose of the response was to clarify what Krugman was criticizing.  http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200 7/11/30/post_2.php

It was important to illustrate that Krugman's tone towards Obama's plan has changed. This helps emphasize that what Krugman is most upset about is the change in rhetoric not the actual plan.

by jb1125 2007-12-07 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Given this 'research' goes on the website, an organ of communications, they coordinate pretty well.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-07 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

I started out liking and trusting Barack Obama but just thinking he wasn't quite ready to be President.  Today, he frightens the hell out of me.  He is very antagonistic when confronted about anything.  Krugman wrote his first column about Obama's mandate problem as a way of delivering advice - good progressive advice.  Obama can't take advice.  His entire handling of this is shocking.

But maybe Obama doesn't have to worry about being honest.  He's got Oprah to help him win the nomination.  

by samueldem 2007-12-07 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

What else do you expect for a deluded individual who thinks that this country which has a significant racist component is ready for a black President.

by Boilermaker 2007-12-07 06:52PM | 0 recs
Alright Alright Alright...

1 thing that I'd rather hear from this thread... From Obama supporters: yes this was definitely a stupid mistake, and from the other candidate supporters: this should not be overhyped.

I honestly don't believe that, while this was certainly a very stupid move on his part, that this actually reflects on him acting in a similar manner if he were to get elected to the white house.

by KainIIIC 2007-12-07 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Alright Alright Alright...

Now who's the one doing the triangulating? </snark>

by who threw da cat 2007-12-07 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Alright Alright Alright...

people here seem to live in a fantasy zone where every mistake is absolutely the worst thing in the world if they're not your candidate - and if they are your candidate - they're infallable.

by KainIIIC 2007-12-07 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Alright Alright \

people here seem to live in a fantasy zone where every mistake is absolutely the worst thing in the world if they're not your candidate - and if they are your candidate - they're infallable.

by KainIIIC 2007-12-07 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Krugman strikes me as an angry man who probably supports someone other then Hillary and because Obama is ahead in Iowa , he's attacking with full force.

Where was Krugman when Obama first released his plan earlier this year...I dont remember him viciously attacking Obama every week on a op-ed.

Anyway , i dont think Krugman matter and i doubt he'll have any infkuence on whether Obama wins or not

Oprah-Obama events starts tomorrow ..Are you fired up and ready to go?!!  hehehehehehe!

by Prodigy 2007-12-07 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

If you follow the links from Obama's hit piece you will see that Krugman has been consistently critical of Obama's plan:

[New York Times, 6/4/07]

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't

That is where Krugman was when Obama released his plan. Funny that Obama fails to quote this part, but that is how we know it is a sleazy hit piece. What has happened since June is that not only has Obama proposed a weak plan, but he has begun attacking the stronger plans for being too progressive and mandating universal coverage.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
You dont think Paul Krugman matters

but oprah does?

Theres your committed Obama voter!

Fired up?  You Betcha!

Heres the NEW chant -

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!

ok?  lets go!

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: You dont think Paul Krugman matters

I am glad to see that someone is finally using the phrase "ABO".

It's a sure sign that Obama is now the favorite to win the nomination.

by Sam I Am 2007-12-08 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You dont think Paul Krugman matters

20 points behind in a dozen national polls doesnt make you the favorite -

except on hardball of course.

ABO!
ABO!
ABO!

just a token of my contempt.

happy holidays!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-08 07:42AM | 0 recs
this is just amazing

There is not a single personal attack or negative word about Krugman.   If it is not legitimate to point out that an article calling a plan "weak" was preceded by calling it "tough," then we may as well  go home now.  

Really, if this a personal attack, then what are Jerome's posts?

by John DE 2007-12-07 07:02PM | 0 recs
NO

Obama NEVER attacks - he only "shrapens the differences" right?

Its only those who oppose his divinity that attack - right?

And then its ALWAYS an attack, never a difference, right?

Oh yeah - he same old double standard - what a new way of politics indeed!

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 09:12PM | 0 recs
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong


Paul Krugman can question the policy but his attacks are getting plain personal; he's questioning obama's motives, suggesting that someone who has worked on universal healthcare since he was first elected in public service is "not serious" about it.

The campaign was right to point out that krugman's charge of "seriousness" contradicts his own early assessments.

the fact-check has been doing this to critics just to put things in perspective. they have to continue to do that; it is a campaign.

jerome's attacks are plain juvenile; reading it you'd think it passed through a sieve of honesty.

Clinton's supporters have been suggesting that Krugman's tone suggests that he senses that obama can win the nomination and doesn't think the country will elect him so he's pushing progressives away from obama.

i've read several clinton supporters on dkos suggest that at this point everyone is coming after obama from the left 'cos they don't think he can win. it seems your dishonest attacks fits that bill. my 2cents.

by pmb 2007-12-07 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

It's all your fault, anyhow.  It must have shocked you when he did as you suggested, do you think he read your diary?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

i think he should write a piece in the new york times.

that's what i said. i wish he read it; i'd have headaches reading this if i was running for president.

by pmb 2007-12-07 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong

I was just kiddin' ya' but it is a remarkable coincidence.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

This would've been surprising a couple of months ago, but once you attack an opponent citing Novak and Gerth, I think you've pretty much declared your intent to use just about anything.  

The moment Obama mentioned Hillary's long-term plan for the WH, I lost a lot of respect for him.  Using discredited right-wing smears (which have a bit of a sexist undertone), is not any kind of new politics.  

If only he'd be this hard on Republicans.

by BDB 2007-12-07 07:10PM | 0 recs
he has said it three times now

and who gets the heat for it from the entire media this week?

Not Obama!

Personally, I think they did it this time just so Hills fact check site would put up the same release they did before that also had the kindergarten bit in it -  but maybe team obama didnt think of it before - but now they had developed a response and they had a brand new "hillaary attacks" website to launch!

And they had a compliant and willing media that just loves to blame all things on those nasty -nasty clintons!

Oh the rewards for kissing up to Russert and Matthews and the media village do pay off nicely dont they?

look - they started out this campaign by using the "sold out the lincoln bedroom" line.

you knew from day one that team obama was gonna use right wing smears and be the media darling.

too bad for Obama - they dont decide our nominee.

{though they think they do}

by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Indeed, Krugman has become down right hysterical in his condemnation of Obama.

Let him keep chirping.

by General Sherman 2007-12-07 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Yeah! His relatives will put your *ss on the water-boarding board. Be really scared! You give American a bad name, you fear-mongering bigot. I can't wait to see you crawl into a hole and stay there the day Barack will be inaugurated.

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-12-07 07:22PM | 0 recs
Paul Krugman was for it before he was against it.

I don't care if you are Jesus or a Liberal, if you were for it before you were against it, then you are not credible. After all, that's how John Kerry lost the election. Krugman was for it and now he's criticizing it. His credibility is fair game. Who cares if he's a Liberal Hero. We don't owe him anything. Barack is a Progressive. Look at his voting record. Barack doesn't need to pander to Liberals. He's running to be President of the United States of America, not the Liberal State of America. We are not ashamed to have moderate Republicans in our tent. Look how car insurance mandate has worked? Does everyone have car insurance? Apparently a good 20% of us don't. Is it really "universal"? Here's what MSNBC said about Krugman and his health care rant:

Krugman on Obama -- then and now Posted: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:29 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Obama

From NBC's Mark Murray
No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it. "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that 'my plan begins by covering every American,' it didn't -- and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true."

But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate.

The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not.

Below is the second half of his June 4 column, which discusses Obama's health plan.

"First, the good news. The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing.

"It also passes one basic test of courage. You can't be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts.

"Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won't be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness.

"Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government.

"Since Medicare has much lower overhead costs than private insurers, this competition would force the insurance industry to cut costs -- making our health-care system more efficient. And if private insurers couldn't or wouldn't cut costs enough, the system would evolve into Medicare for all, which is actually the best solution.

"So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan. In fact, it would have been considered daring if it had been announced last year.

"Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

"I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope.

"On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn't quell my worries that Mr. Obama's dislike of 'bitter and partisan' politics makes him too cautious. But at least he's come out with a plan.

"Senator Clinton, we're waiting to hear from you." [Clinton unveiled her plan a few months later.]

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-12-07 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Paul Krugman

the operatives have been dispatched, and they have memorized all the talking points.  

save it for the low information voters oprah plans to dupe.

and review your candidate's record: was was absent for kyl-lieberman before he was present to use that nonvote against the candidates who were actually there to read and vote on that legislation.  

by truthteller2007 2007-12-07 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Paul Krugman

I'm shocked that you don't realize the irony of your own statements.

The "low information" voters have been with Hillary all along. Of course, this late in the game previously low-information types are now starting to pay attention---and the more they do, the better Obama does. It's Hillary Clinton that relies on mass ignorance to get the nomination.

And Oprah can't dupe anyone. All she's doing is capturing an audience for Obama---he has to make the sale himself.  

by General Sherman 2007-12-07 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re:K/L

Why was it that every other candidate was informed that that vote was taking place except Obama who was told by Reid it would not be occurring that morning? The same Mr. Reid from Nevada whose son controlled the distribution of tickets to the CNN Nevada pagaent to ensure fiercly committed Clinton supporters received the majority of the seats?

by boatsie 2007-12-07 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re:K/L

Why was it that every other candidate was informed that that vote was taking place except Obama who was told by Reid it would not be occurring that morning? The same Mr. Reid from Nevada whose son controlled the distribution of tickets to the CNN Nevada pagaent to ensure fiercely committed Clinton supporters received the majority of the seats? Obama had nothing to loose by showing up for that vote. His failure to make that vote was a huge success for the Clinton campaign.

by boatsie 2007-12-07 07:36PM | 0 recs
St. Paul he is not

Right. For all the whining we hear about the so-called Obama cult-of-personality, it's interesting to see those same gripers recoil in disgust when Obama responds to Krugman.

What is Obama supposed to sit back and become Krugman's whipping boy? What, Krugman can attack Obama unchallenged because he's Paul Krugman?

If you take issue with Obama on the merits--which you do--than just leave it there. But don't attempt to carve out some rule whereby Krugman can't be attacked (or responded to) just because of his little perch at the NY Times.

Krugman is hardly the only credible authority on this issue. His perch at the NY Times simply gives him a unique platform, but it does not make him the be and end all.

by General Sherman 2007-12-07 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Paul Krugman was for it before he was against

Thank you for posting the complete Krugman piece. Can you explain to me the inconsistency between this:

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that 'my plan begins by covering every American,' it didn't -- and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

and what you quote Krugman writing in June:

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope.

On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn't quell my worries that Mr. Obama's dislike of 'bitter and partisan' politics makes him too cautious.

By my reading of the English language those two passages are nearly identical. Where does Obama see Krugman being inconsistent, exactly?

by souvarine 2007-12-07 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Paul Krugman was for it before he was against

You left out the answer to your question my friend:

"The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not."

If Krugman simply disagrees with Obama's plan and touts his rivals' plans, it's one thing. Here he goes out of his way as a journalist and attacks Obama, sometimes personally. Obama's camp has to hit back. It doesn't matter what he thinks. He's not the health care expert and he is neither an Iowa Caucus-goer or a NH Primary voter. This article should put the end to the nonsensical Krugman's attack:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs. dll/article?AID=/20071207/OPINION/712070 340/1270/NEWS97

"The great health care mandate debate is a sideshow. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards insist that forcing individuals to buy a policy is crucial to providing universal health care or something close to it. Rival Barack Obama disagrees. A mandate may be necessary to force those who refuse to sign up once affordable options are available, he says, but that step should come at the end of the march to universal care, not at the beginning.

The debate has degenerated into arguments over who is or isn't being honest with voters. The question voters should focus on is which candidate, if elected, can convince enough Republicans - who will use words like "confiscation" to describe any mandate - to go along with a plan. The next question should be: Is this plan the best and most affordable path to universal coverage?

On the honesty question, when it comes to health care mandates, the edge goes to Obama. He rightly says they force people to buy something before they know what it will cost and how good it will be, and many won't comply.

..."

by Barackulikahurricane 2007-12-07 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Paul Krugman was for it before he was against

Thank you for admitting that your claim (and Obama's) against Krugman: "if you were for it before you were against it, then you are not credible" is a fabrication.

As for "tone", you missed the sequence of events. Obama changed his "tone" and started attacking the idea of mandates. Krugman pointed out that Obama is attacking Edwards and Clinton from the right, since Obama's plan is weaker. Now Obama is attacking Krugman with a false flip-flopping smear.

The Concord opinion piece is mostly dissembling, read Ezra Klein for a thorough debunking of their arguments.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Paul Krugman was

"He's running to be President of the United States of America, not the Liberal State of America. We are not ashamed to have moderate Republicans in our tent."

But I guess you are ashamed to have liberals in your tent. This is exactly the kind of mindset that really worries me about the Obama campaign.

by who threw da cat 2007-12-07 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility
well, i just read the entire Krugman article however I still take issue with Mr. Krugman's declaring the Senator's decision NOT to impose mandates as 'the timidity of hope."
And I don't see how the Obama response can be called an 'attack' on Krugman. It calls for clarification of very blatant differences.
by boatsie 2007-12-07 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Hey, this is primary season. I think the smart thing would be to play up the older article by Krugman instead of making a big deal about the change, but I think it shows that Obama is at least serious about defending his health care plan, instead of throwing it up there as a bookmark to appeal to people's interests.

For the record, while I think that most Democrats will be pleased with any of the top 4 or 5 nominees (unlike last time, when Gephardt and Kerry were waiting to bore Americans and progressives to death), I also think that Democrats have a similar problem to Republicans. In a better world, there would be a candidate who embodied ideals of all of us more clearly and forcefully. I would like to make an amalgam of Obama charisma and power, Edwards focus on poverty, Gravel's frankness, with a dash of Richardson's skill set and humor and some Clinton politician to smooth it all over.

Anyway, I don't blame Obama for defending himself.  And I think that it's more important to challenge our skilled, hard-working pundits than it is to spend time on the Worst People in the World problem.

by psychrofon 2007-12-07 07:39PM | 0 recs
what is weird is that


progressives have often been the sharpest critics of mandates while rethugs have been for mandates.

SImply put. questioning people's motives is not acceptable. Krugman crossed the line.

by pmb 2007-12-07 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: what is weird is that

If Krugman crossed the line by questioning Obama's motives then he did it in June, in his original review of Obama's plan. Now in this hit piece Obama is pretending that half of Krugman's column from June was never published.

So, who exactly is lying? Who is distorting? Who is cutting and pasting merely to smear? Then tell me who has crossed a line.

by souvarine 2007-12-07 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Just a passerby writing in support of Armstrong.  This is twice recently that Obama has distinguished himself by attacking from the right: first on social security, now on healthcare.  The differences in actual position are small, as Krugman goes to pains in his most recent column to point out.  The point is, the few glimmers of boldness we see in Obama (and the other two have shown precious few as well) recently are about highlighting these relatively mild differences from the right.  Their attack on Krugman was pretty darn mild (just a post on a web-page), but speaking only for myself as a lefty, I don't want a candidate who attacks the foremost pundit on the left (particularly when it gets the point of the column wrong: it wasn't so much about the substance of Obama's plan as it was about how he was emphasizing right-wing criticisms of the other two plans).

If you're not a Krugman fan and are more centrist than me, then you probably won't mind.  But the progressives out there like me, that I've talked to, side with Krugman (and Armstrong) over Obama on this one, probably because we're pinko lefties.  Many of us were going to vote for Edwards anyway, but some (younger) were leaning towards Obama, and all this pushes them away somewhat.

by brackdurf 2007-12-07 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Krugman attacked Obama in his 11/30 column.

Obama has every right to respond.

They fact the the response was in the form of simply pointing out the differences in Krugman's June vs. Novmber columns hardly constituets an "attack" on Krugman.

The real question is why did Krugman so significantly change his tone between June and November.  Obama's health care plan is the same.  

The only thing that has changed is that Obama is now surging into the early primary states.  

by Sam I Am 2007-12-08 03:27AM | 0 recs
this is no attack.


so obama should just sit there 4weeks before the big there as krugman pens his weekly personal attacks?

when you question a candidates motives you have crossed the line. especially if you're contradicting yourself.

by pmb 2007-12-07 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: This is because Iraq isn't enough for

he seems to be doing just fine now but thanks for  your concern.

by nevadadem 2007-12-07 08:38PM | 0 recs
ANYBODY
BUT
OBAMA
by Seymour Glass 2007-12-07 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: ANYBODY

Need to do a little Christmas shopping?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-07 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: This is because Iraq isn't enough for

obama simply laying krugmans changing tune out is no attack. just the quotes.. everyone can draw their own conclusions.. that as the voting nears, krugman is carrying water for another candidate just like any surrogate.

when he writes four columns on the same topic roasting obama.. now that is panic.

Look, for you ''true liberals'' Iraq may just be an academic exercise to toss around like a football but for some of us with children in bagdad... no, obama being openly against the invasion of Iraq while edwards was co-sponsoring it and hillary was voting for it ,both without bothering to take time out of their busy schedules to read the NIE.. while.. tell the parents of the 4000 dead that that vote was unfortunate.. I apologize... we're ok...right?

yea, the real courage is not sending them to their deaths.. not in denying them armor once they get there.. so dont be telling me that this goddamn mandate crap is life and death.. it will change a hundred times before it gets done but those young americans and iraqis.. their fate is permanant and sealed with the help of HRC and John Edwards.

by hawkjt 2007-12-07 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

For me, health care is the issue this election. I'm on record supporting Clinton, but I have to say that in light of all this, Edwards has passed Obama into second place on my list.

I'm not sure what's going on with the Obama campaign  right now. My guess is that campaign professionals have no setting between "off" and "pulverize". It ends up leading to things like the "D-Punjab" and kindergarten press releases. I do hope that the Obama folks rein it in a little--people like Bill Clinton and Paul Krugman are actually quite popular among Democrats.

by OrangeFur 2007-12-07 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

Obama is Sister Souljahing Paul Krugman. He is signalling to the conservative establishment that he is willing to take on liberals.

Obama supporters are starting to resemble followers of a personality cult. Their hero can do no wrong.

by DonB11 2007-12-08 06:24PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads