blatham wrote:During this extended pause in our conversation...
Krugman's column today brings up some points I think we have to be honest regarding. I'll post the whole thing...
Quote:Big Table Fantasies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2007
<snipped>
Thoughts?
OK, here I am, belatedly. But I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, since my response is pretty predictable.
My first, superficial reaction is, "oh oh, now they did it". The
blatantly misleading hack job the Obama campaign did on Krugman because he was getting too critical for its liking has predictably backfired.
Personally, I'd guess that Krugman was insulted even just by the transparent, amateuristic character of the attempt to cut him down to size a bit; the supposed side-by-side was so lame that he must have felt that if they were to attack him, fer chrissakes couldnt they have done a
little bit more credible a job than that? Isnt he worth that much at least? Anyways, I'm sure I'm projecting here, but it's pretty obvious Krugman must be pissed off a bit, and he's a imposing opponent to have.
That's all just the tactics though. Far more important is the substantive case Krugman is making here. He articulates the doubts about Obama's strategy as clearly, concisely and forcefully as it's been done yet. The predictable part about my response is that I wholeheartedly agree with him. He pretty much speaks my mind.
These parts resound with me especially:
Quote:Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."
At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. ?- a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.
Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.
Quote:it's actually Mr. Obama who's being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries ?- which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems ?- will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there's no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.
As a result, drug and insurance companies ?- backed by the conservative movement as a whole ?- will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I'll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I'm sure the lobbyists are terrified.
As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. [..]
[N]othing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.
Yep.
Exactly.
This is the reason why Obama or Hillary... to me it doesnt make any difference anymore. On the issues, I agree with Obama more, he's the more progressive - but for the reasons Krugman describes I dont think he would get anything more done than her, probably actually
less. The only way to get something more thorough than either of them would achieve is if Edwards gets to be president.
I also liked Krugman's take on the media coverage, by the way - he hits on a point that I can
get particularly vexed about:
Quote:There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."
And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. [..] But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on the grounds that his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
[T]he prime beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama, with his message of reconciliation. [..] Mr. Obama's coverage has been far more favorable than that of any other candidate. [But] let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.
