It's a shame you guys can't handle nuance. Perhaps you should refrain from watching Obama's speeches from now on? It could hurt your brains.

Season 5 of LOST. It's a helluva ride.

To your first line: hell yeah, sir.

Writing off any who might agree with Obama's policies as "cheerleaders" is arrogant, dismissive, and beneath us as progressives. Let's leave that kind of behavior to the republicans please.

Not necessarily what we aspire to, but definitely an improvement.

Another worry I have about Krugman's plan is that if it failed to get the economy back on track (which it might even if it was a good plan, considering how deep a hole we are in), the GOP could use that to tie the failing economy to "liberal economic policies" in general, and with that cover could possibly even start to sever their own connections to the economic disaster. Obama's more moderate solutions, while frustrating to many, provide him with political cover for the rest of his progressive agenda, and keep him from having to blow all of his political capital in one giant gamble. Even if it takes longer to reboot the economy, at least he will be positioned to work on other things in the meantime.

The age-old question. Is the media making us stupid, or are we making the media stupid?

I agree with you that this is the intended impact and perhaps the short-term impact, but I believe the long-term impact will be to begin to define Obama as the centrist vs. the liberals, rather than the liberal vs. the conservatives, which considering how progressive Obama is could be very good news for us.

To paraphrase an episode of The West Wing, the problem with the American dream is that everyone thinks they might be a millionaire someday.

I do agree that articles like this one serve to highlight the fact that the GOP is hardly even credible opposition anymore. If our new dichotomy is Obama vs. Krugman, I have to believe that Obama has succeeded wildly in dragging the perceived "center" way more to the left than it used to be.

What can I say? You amuse me. Your replies amuse me to.

Oh, it definitely merits discussion. I don't even necessarily disagree with Krugman, nor with Jerome (it would be hard to disagree with Jerome since he seems here to have forgotten to make an argument of any sort). But he certainly seems to have no trouble ignoring many other newsworthy items. That's why I only look forward to his in-depth analysis whenever anyone says anything bad about Obama.

A major news magazine publishes a cover that says "Obama is Wrong"? It was only a matter of time before Jerome once again graced us with his analysis-free presence. At least put some effort into it, man.

My bad, just researched further and discovered that that is in fact the British spelling.

Also, I'm sure someone has pointed this out to you previously, but that's not how you spell skeptic.