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.

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.

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.

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.

i've stated where i think Krugman is misrepresenting obama's approach to mandates.

do you have something to say?

jerome is really immature; it's amazing. i have lost all respect for the guy.

i mean it is completely beneath a front page blogger like him to be inserting stupid snarks into issue blog posts without even making a substantive contribution.

that the next president must move early to build alliances in congress before they even get going.

so it seems that'd be a good priority.

UPDATE: KRUGMAN'S READERS RESPOND TO HIM ON MANDATES:

Re "Mandates and Mudslinging" (column, Nov. 30):
Paul Krugman dismisses Senator Barack Obama's points about health insurance mandates as "echoing right-wing talking points" on health care. Really?
It was two pragmatic Republican governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, who proposed mandates as cornerstones of their respective health reform plans.
In California, resistance to that approach has come primarily from unions and Democrats. Although I have favored the mandate component of Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan, Mr. Obama raises valid points about the practicality of immediate mandates as the path to universality.
In California, there are real questions about whether the insurance that people would be required to buy and able to afford, even with subsidies, would be worth having. Massachusetts has already had to grant waivers to many.
In addressing this issue, carrots may prove more effective than heavy-handed sticks.
John Walkmeyer
San Ramon, Calif., Nov. 30, 2007

To the Editor:
How can Paul Krugman limit his discussion of health care reform to the competing Obama-Clinton-Edwards "universal coverage" plans with nary a mention of a single-payer system? As Mr. Krugman has noted in previous columns, having insurance does not always equate to being "covered" when needed care is prescribed.
Where all three "universal coverage" plans amount to subsidy schemes for the insurance industry, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich's single-payer plan would eliminate the unnecessary middlemen -- for-profit insurers and H.M.O.'s with their high profits and huge administrative costs.
Ernest A. Canning
Thousand Oaks, Calif., Nov. 30, 2007

To the Editor:
It is inconsistent for anyone to oppose an individual health insurance mandate and simultaneously support our current laws that require that emergency rooms provide care whether or not a patient is able to pay. Mandated emergency room care is ultimately what relieves individuals from having to buy insurance.
I doubt that Senator Barack Obama or any Republican candidate is prepared to advocate the repeal of these mandates.
We will never make progress on solving our health care crisis until Democrats accept the notion of a market-based solution and Republicans accept the notion that mandates will be required to optimize how the market operates.
Kim Davis
New York, Nov. 30, 2007

To the Editor:
As a devoted reader who agrees with Paul Krugman 99 percent of the time, I urge him to rethink his stand on health insurance mandates.
Consider:
We mandate car insurance because of the damage a half-ton of hurtling steel can do to others, but we don't mandate that a car owner insure himself or herself.
If health insurance coverage were mandated, it would be like setting up a parallel taxation. While a single-payer system would be far more efficient, it now seems even more unattainable.
If Senator Barack Obama points out why Republicans will defeat the plans of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Edwards, he's not "echoing right-wing talking points" but rather anticipating Republican criticisms.
We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, particularly when perfect will be defeated. Good policy is useless if it's also bad politics.
Mr. Krugman's policy recommendations may have some merit, but his political advice, in this case, is flawed.
Peter Quince
Ashland, Ore., Nov. 30, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinio n/lweb04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogi n

he is doing a dishonest job parsing obama's plan and sounding off with deceptive conclusions; obama not serious about health insurance. i am so mad.

me thinks obama should pen an open -editorial in the nytimes.

what do you think?

i'm not liking the way the obama campaign is allowing him to keep shooting at them without engaging him on his selective parsing.

once she goes there she should be prepared to be ridiculed for experience by spousal osmosis.

why is hillary clinton comfortable parotting he unearned experience? is she suggesting that being in elected office for 8yrs is experience compared to obama's 12yrs?

joe biden has never even mentioned the word experience.

the clinton people have a disingenious critique of obama's experience that must be questioned.

gene doesn't do a perfect job but it's a good start.

the bully pulpit was for a republican governor and a republican majority.

the president is pundit in chief.

big difference.

st.

Obama tried to make health insurance a constitutional right of every Illinois citizen a young state senator; he was TOO aggressive about and it didn't work.

He did the hard work of forming a group to study it and that groups recommendation formed the basis of the current illinois plan by Governor blagovevich(geez, this name is hard).

Obama must pen and open-editorial in teh new york times to answer this dude.