Paul Krugman: Self-Inflicted Confusion

Why is the Democratic race dragging on for so long?:

Self-Inflicted Confusion, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”

He may well be right — but what a comedown. ... This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out. Mr. Obama ... still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain. What’s gone wrong?

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks...— if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? ... The attacks ... have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild ... Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s ... talk of a new politics ... would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race ... largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Yes,... there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than ... into promoting ... universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

The question Democrats ... should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.

Comments

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton....

[No wonder at all....]

[Winslow R.]

Pk wrote: "As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain. What’s gone wrong?"

The economy hasn't fallen off a cliff and it may not. Weird to think 'its the economy stupid' is the only thing that seems to work for Dems. Pass any more stimulus and the presidency may just pass them by.

[anne]

What I find is a candidate who has a universal health care plan, and another who has had no such plan and rather than developing such a plan has been attacking the idea of moving to universal health care for months and distorting the idea.

Similarly, a candidate pledged to protect Social Security and another who is not. A candidate who has had concrete economic development and assistance plans for months and another whose plan make no sense.

A candidate pledged to leave Iraq and another whose closest foreign policy advisers have questioned whether we will be leaving Iraq.

Raise such questions and there are never reasonable answers, let alone a willingness to show that the questions matter.

[anne]

"The economy hasn't fallen off a cliff and it may not."

The economy never properly recovered from the 2001 recession and has been seriously faltering for 16 months, as corporate profits are sustained but domestic investment and employment and wages and benefits have faltered. Sectors of the economy are in most difficult condition. Month on month passes and rather than the 225,000 jobs created a month through the Clinton Presidency, we have been creating tens of thousands of fewer jobs and making excuses.

[turquoise]

Hillary Clinton (1) voted for the Iraq war and (2) has recently threatened to “obliterate” Iran.

PK is obsessed with healthcare policy.

Get over it, Paul.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25heating.html

April 25, 2008

Cutoffs and Pleas for Aid Rise With Heat Costs
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Millions of Americans are behind on electric and gas bills, and record numbers could soon face energy shut-offs.

[The economy has fellen off a cliff for millions.]

[anne]

Hillary Clinton has pledged to leave Iraq completely and quickly, and that is what matters. The ceaseless criticism of the vote in 2002 is fine, but correcting for the vote means leaving Iraq. Colin Kahl and Samantha Power have told us respectively that Barack Obama will be keeping some 80,000 troops in Iraq through 2010 or leaving Iraq only under a best care scenario. Then, there is the addition of 100,000 soldiers to our forces and using pay-as-you-go policy to afford the forces while paying for needed domestic social programs.

Me, I am obsessed with healthcare policy.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/health/research/22life.html

April 22, 2008

Life Expectancy Is Declining in Some Pockets of the Country
By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

Life expectancy has long been growing steadily for most Americans. But it has not for a significant minority, according to a new study, which finds a growing disparity in mortality depending on race, income and geography.

The study, published Monday in the online journal PLoS, analyzed life expectancy in all 3,141 counties in the United States from 1961 to 1999, the latest year for which complete data have been released by the National Center for Health Statistics. Although life span has generally increased since 1961, the authors reported, it began to level off or even decline in the 1980s for 4 percent of men and 19 percent of women.

"It's very troubling that there are parts of the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest health spending in the world, where health is getting worse," said Majid Ezzati, the lead author and an associate professor of international health at Harvard. It is a phenomenon, he added, "unheard of in any other developed country." ...

[The sort of reason I am obsessed with healthcare policy.]

[turquoise]

Anne,
Do you want to obliterate Iran as well?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford.

[The Obama campaign has been falsely and fearsomely attacking the Clinton-Edwards universal health care plan since December, and doing so in a way that will make universal health care ever more difficult to gain even though tens of millions of Americans are in terrible need of secure health care.]

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/obama-goes-harry-and-louise/

December 24, 2007

Obama Goes Harry and Louise
By Paul Krugman

A friend sends me this:

"Have you seen or heard about the radio ad that Obama is running in Iowa about health care?

"It has a man and a woman talking, with the man leading off saying that health care mandates 'force those who cannot afford health care insurance to buy it, punishing those who don't fall in line.' "

This is what I've been complaining about. I was willing to cut Obama slack on the lack of mandates in his plan, even though the economics says they're necessary; I figured that in practice, if elected, he'd end up doing the right thing.*

I started ramping up the criticism when he started attacking his opponents from the right, making the lack of mandates a principle rather than a compromise — because that was poisoning the well, making it much harder for any future Democratic president to implement a plan that will work.

And whaddya know, now he's running an ad that bears a striking resemblance to the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads, run by the insurance industry, that helped block health care reform in 1993.

Call it the audacity of cynicism.

* Let me repeat the argument: "The point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives — it's to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy." **

** http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

[anne]

"Do you want to obliterate ---- as well?"

There we begin the bullying, because the way to gain support of course is by bullying. The problem with bullying, however, is when the vote secret it will not work. And, bullying will not work with me.

[Charles]

"New politics" means having important decisions being made on the basis of sound consideration, rather co-opted by short term calculated political gain or influenced by political donors.

The old version is the poisoned national political dialogue and media coverage that resulted in the presidency of George W. Bush. If the Democratic candidate is selected as the result of who plays these games better, or who is better suited to fight off Republicans playing these games, then this will forever be the basis of how we select our leaders. If this happens, be prepared for GWB II (McCain), III, IV, V, VI, and VII.

Krugman is also purposely forgetting what the Hillary's central theme has been for the last four months. It hasn't been about the "wonkish details of policy" but rather, "you can't trust this guy, so go with the wife of the ex president that you know."

[Mario]

Whenever I see or read about how Hillary is really doing okay and Obama is the one out of step I smell racism lurking about. I fear a lot of Democrats, and maybe Krugman, still have some residual racism in them that Obama's candidacy brings out. Sad.

[anne]

"Krugman is also purposely forgetting what the Hillary's central theme has been for the last four months. It hasn't been about the 'wonkish details of policy' but rather, 'you can't trust this guy, so go with the ---- of the ex-president that you know.' "

This is of course sexist and untrue, but why bother about such niceties? Me, I have been finding all sorts of policy details I can agree with for months and asking the same from the other candidate which seems fair.

[turquoise]

Anne: "There we begin the bullying...bullying will not work with me."

Sorry, Anne. I did not mean to bully anyone.

I just do not find comments such as “bomb bomb bomb Iran” (McCain) and “obliterate Iran” (Hillary) funny.

Not funny at all.

These words are much more offensive than saying that some people are “bitter” or running an ad that, according to some, “unfairly” attacks Hillary’s healthcare position.

[anne]

"Whenever I see or read about how Hillary is really doing okay and Obama is the one out of step I smell racism lurking about."

Worrying about the desperate need of tens of millions of Americans for secure health care is worrying about Americans of all races, worrying about women and men, worrying about the older and younger. Me, I worry about gaining universal health care. What race am I? There we have the bullying again, though.

[anne]

Turquoise, that is a completely fair criticism and does bother me; and I have been worrying about the constant barrage of accusations against Iran. I completely sympathize with your worry.

[anne]

After the nominations the campaigns seemingly will reflect continually fierce statements about the Middle East, and this disturbs me but I have settled on looking for a repeatedly stated determination to leave Iraq as an answer. I may be quite disappointed.

There is war and occupation in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and violence in and threats to Pakistan, and military accusations against Iran. I think leaving Iraq the critical policy in resolving the accompanying problems.

[turquoise]

Anne, I think Hillary has a better healthcare policy than Barack, but Barack has a better foreign policy than Hillary. I happen to care more about foreign policy than healthcare policy. That’s all.

[anne]

Turquoise:

"I think Hillary has a better healthcare policy than Barack, but Barack has a better foreign policy than Hillary. I happen to care more about foreign policy than healthcare policy."

Agreed; and I can completely understand foreign policy being the deciding factor in voting. Obama has, for me, the most diplomatic policy positions of the 3 candidates.

[Lafayette]

Article: Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race ... largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Never, never take a body politic for fools. The media hype promotes them like clothes washing powder -- they ALL clean whiter than white.

Hillary's acknowledged mastery of complex policy details (the level at which a PotUS must shake hands with the devil in order to get things done) is superior to that of the suave Mr. Obama -- and that her advantage is sensed perhaps by the electorate.

Hillary learned her policy-making at the right school -- in the political cauldron during her husband's administration. And, frankly, she would make likely an even better PotUS. Why?

Because as a lawyer, she must have an instinctive sense of the "deal", that is, the manner of negotiating a win-win situation in order to go forward and not remain captive of immobility. Of course, what a Hillary presidency would need is a helping hand from a Dem congress, which is possible but not presently a preordained outcome.

In any debate against McCain, she will hold her own certainly and perhaps prevail -- whilst Obama waxes eloquently.

The latter's policy statement regarding Health Care is a mistake. You don't make a Public Service elective and do it right. Were that the case, our neighborhoods would be full of garbage that was never collected.

Is collecting garbage, a Public Service, really analogous to Health Care? Yes, it is; because both are societal necessities and not discretionary expenditures at the whimsy of consumers. Ditto Tertiary Education, as America is realizing lamentably late.

But, let us beware. The Idiot Right is going to link such Social Expenditures with "socialist devilry". A taste of socialism in today's American Plutocracy might be a welcomed beginning.

Certainly in an advanced country that has never had the courage to acknowledge Basic Human Rights by ratifying the treaty that stipulates them (now sixty years since its inception at the UN).

[anne]

We have influential general officers and foreign policy specialists who are largely decided on remaining in Iraq indefinitely in projecting power through the Middle East. I think this sort of domino idea with Iraq being the critical domino is morally wrong, destructive and strategically self-destructive. Will there then be a President who will reverse our Middle East policy beginning with leaving Iraq? I ask this question repeatedly.

[hari]

I've gone on record here asserting BO time is NOT yet come!
It is he who should step down - for the good of the party.
May be he'll get some more down-to-earth experience under his belt in the Senate by 2012 or so. At the moment, I'm afraid he is likely to ensure the lose of next general elections to GOP.

There's no question, in my mind, RACE is an issue with the white-working class and non-college graduates. He simply can't seem to find a handle to deal with ingrained social system. *Bitterness* was his archilles heel...and more is forecast to come...if HRC gets nasty.

[reason]

The American idea of picking the right (wo)man and all will be well is stupid. You need to have the right policies and carry them out well. America needs to grow up and get over hero worship.

[Bruce Wilder]

I really don't understand the passionate support for Clinton or the hostility to Obama, expressed in Krugman's piece.

Before I had to vote, I was fine with either of them. When Obama became the odds-on favorite to win the nomination, my psychology led me to think of him more and more favorably.

At this point, I don't see any path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton, which is not extremely ugly. And, it is for that reason that I cannot support her.

The policy differences seem mostly small and ambiguous, but I cannot see how Clinton takes this away, without discrediting herself.

If there's a logical and plausible scenario, I'd like to hear it.

[ndd]

Let me state up front that I favor Obama over Clinton, partly because he is more likely (imo of course) to put together a 50%+ coalition of voters in November, and partly because of his stance on Iraq, which is in a category all by itself. And yet I suspect there is a very big chance that a lot of people will stare in shock and disbelief to see John McCain take the oath of office on January 20, 2009. And here, Krugman nails it:
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s ... talk of a new politics ... would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much....

Yes,... there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.

Bingo.

[dissent]

Why I lean Obama:

I didn't like it when Hillary said that she and McCain were more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama.

McCain! of Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

I think Hillary's vote authorizing the Iraq war is important. I see some militarism in her and less willingness to talk to our adversaries.

I look at the Clinton record and see the EITC (progressive) and NAFTA and End Welfare As we know it (NOT progressive). I see the consolidation of the media industry permitted under Clinton. I see, in Bill Clinton, a sort of neo-liberal who seemed great for working folks mostly because the economy was good - but many of his policies were not particularly good. In fact, they were corporatist. I don't want more of those policies.

Hillary has not run a skillful campaign. The back biting and rivalries do not bode well for a productive Hillary administration. Her fiasco of health care reform in the 90's does not reflect well on her abilities to deliver good legislation.

A campaign is a petri dish for leadership. Obama has run a much better campaign, strategically, tactically, and in terms of unity and morale among staffers.

I didn't like it when Hillary said, Obama is not a Muslim, "as far as I know." Hello?

Lastly, I think Obama could lead the country as a whole towards a more progressive agenda.

One more thing: if this country chooses McCain over Obama on the basis of racism, we deserve to decline. And we will. A vote for McCain is a vote for the next Great Depression.

[paine]

"maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for"

if one see this vague but catchy line
as the apex of the column
who 'll disagree

the jobbled masses want
hard specific
--edwards like---
class revenge speak

so paul's on the beam here

but then he trips himself up badly

". Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race ... largely because
her no-nonsense style,,,"
fine i suspect there are folks into
her college of hard knock
lady wrestler gig
besides "do for u " lists
are not a waste of time entirely
but this ???

"her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy.."

"resonate with many voters" ????

please

btw
even those lower order white women
of the stain glass persuasion
looking to rationalizing their preference
can pull the experience cover

when what really
resonates out there in
the mind shadows of
free white
" also ran " land
is this ....

whoever the hell she is
and stands for
at least she's not a high toned ...in a clean shirt
why an uppity ...of a wife

[paine]

laff

"Hillary's acknowledged mastery of complex policy details .."

"fools " ?? indeed ...

in a pinch u never let me down

i ought to go right to your comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

"The economy hasn't fallen off a cliff and it may not."

Maybe not, but energy and food prices are really rearranging family budgets in one hot hurry.

[save_the_rustbelt]

It may not be politically correct, but obliterating the Iranian military may well become a good idea.

And at that point we cannot let our mistakes in Iraq confuse our decision.

So points for Hillary.

(For you youngsters, JFK did not lock up the nominations until, I think, the third day of the convention.)

[paine]

"it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it. '

pure elite nurse ratchet state ghoulspeak dishonesty

face it
the plan is
extract more collectively
from them
---the now non-pay-inner youngers----
then the
st hill program
plans to
pay out
for them

a net garner gainer

losers
healthy young folks

[Cyrille]

I'm not going to vote, on the spurious grounds that I am French, but I am tired of reading about votes "authorizing the Iraq war".

The war NOT put to a vote. What was was the possibility to resort to force unless certain conditions were met.

Such conditions WERE met, yet Bush attacked anyway.

Now, I'm not saying the vote was the good one (again, I'm French, would you expect me to say that?). But a vote authorizing the war it was not. That's rewriting history, and was done by the Bushies so as to wash their hands of any accountability. "Oh, we are the decider but on that you can't complain cos' we merely stood by Congress' order, without having lied to anyone in the process by the way".

[save_the_rustbelt]

"pure elite nurse ratchet state ghoulspeak dishonesty"

Paine:

maybe your best line ever

attaboy

[anne]

"It may not be politically correct, but obliterating the Iranian military may well become a good idea."

Political correctness is not involved, rather an uncomprehending madness, simple madness.

What Hillary Clinton was indicating was that a nuclear attack by Iran would be self-destructive. Nothing more. Iran has no nuclear weapons as the International Atomic Energy Agency has assured and will assure. The question asked Clinton was simply a reporter's baiting and was answered in a Cold War response.

[anne]

"It may not be politically correct, but obliterating the Iranian military may well become a good idea."

This is a sense how morally mad Americans have become; this after a war and occupation that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands more casualties, millions driven from homes, and trillions of dollars wasted. Every candidate however has been, and will be, driven to continually assure us that we will deal with Iran destructively if necessary.

Barack Obama has continually spoken of increasing military operations in Afghanistan and has spoken of attacking Pakistan. John McCain repeately has spoken of Iran as responsible for war in Iraq. Clinton has spoken of responding to a impossible attack by Iran.

All this shows is how much opposition, how difficult a time, the coming President will have in leaving Iraq.

[anonymous]

Krugman is a whore and a hack. Any credibility he once had is long gone... I am sure you parrot his postings which are on the far more visible NYTimes website because either you agree with him or you have some other connection... but it is time to realize - THE NOMINATION PROCESS IF OVER AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.

Hillary has no choice but to make Obama as dirty as possible, to drag him through the sleaze, because that is the only way she can possibly run in 2012.

CLINTON = NADER = Democratic spoiler.

[anne]

Cyrille:

"I'm not going to vote, on the spurious grounds that I am French, but I am tired of reading about votes 'authorizing the Iraq war'.

"The war NOT put to a vote. What was was the possibility to resort to force unless certain conditions were met.

"Such conditions WERE met, yet Bush attacked anyway."

Precisely; but war had been intended by the President for months before the vote and was intended when the vote was taken, and the vote was a tragic mistake as has been the failure of first the Republican and second the Democratic Congress to meaningfully confront the President ever since.

[anne]

"During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It...was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it."

Precisely so; the repeatedly run ad is a lie and the idea of not having fine health insurance should be and is terrifying. Health care is a basic human right, and we in America have just gone so far as to deny health care insurance to 3.8 million needy children for a mere pittance.

[anne]

"Krugman is a ----- and a ----."

Notice not just the slander, but the choice of turning the attack against women since the way even to slander a person is to slander women.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/23health.html

March 23, 2008

Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — New government research has found "large and growing" disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.

Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and this, in turn, has caused a widening gap.

One of the researchers, Gopal K. Singh, a demographer at the Department of Health and Human Services, said "the growing inequalities in life expectancy" mirrored trends in infant mortality and in death from heart disease and certain cancers.

The gaps have been increasing despite efforts by the federal government to reduce them. One of the top goals of "Healthy People 2010," an official statement of national health objectives issued in 2000, is to "eliminate health disparities among different segments of the population," including higher- and lower-income groups and people of different racial and ethnic background.

Dr. Singh said last week that federal officials had found "widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy" at birth and at every age level.

He and another researcher, Mohammad Siahpush, a professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, developed an index to measure social and economic conditions in every county, using census data on education, income, poverty, housing and other factors. Counties were then classified into 10 groups of equal population size.

In 1980-82, Dr. Singh said, people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years), and it continues to grow, he said.

After 20 years, the lowest socioeconomic group lagged further behind the most affluent, Dr. Singh said, noting that "life expectancy was higher for the most affluent in 1980 than for the most deprived group in 2000."

"If you look at the extremes in 2000," Dr. Singh said, "men in the most deprived counties had 10 years' shorter life expectancy than women in the most affluent counties (71.5 years versus 81.3 years)." The difference between poor black men and affluent white women was more than 14 years (66.9 years vs. 81.1 years)....

[Universal health care insurance is a fundamental human right and is desperately needed.]

[linusk]

You are giving us the Kool-Aid from the Clintonian jug, Mr. Krugman. These may be relatively minor issues in the overall picture.

On the other hand, I have not heard an informed debate on the alpha vs. beta workings during the 1990s. I suspect that some (lot?) of the so called Clinton-era prosperity was a result of a few real earlier mega-trends including explosion in the number of women at Work-place, widespread use of Information Technology and indeed the Internet revolution. Let us have some discussion on Clinton's specific contribution to the prosperity and how, what Mrs. Clinton says will contribute to American and possibly global well-being during her potential incumbency and beyond.

Do not let us talk about 'electability' or 'big state wins' because these reflect to me, more than anything else, a surge for Democratic Party rather than an internecine choice of one candidate over the other. Let us talk of Economics of what the Clintons have done for us to bring them back into power for another eight years.

[hari]

Look! From sample of opinion (so far), it's clear you guys are getting *nutty* like hell - trying to choose between the devil and the deep blue water! Recall politics is a contact sport...BO is not (yet) capable of the game, in my view.

Atleast Bruce Wilder wants to be convinced before he changes his mind, since he can't see anything but a nutty path for HRC (shld she get it). And since Bruce and I are separated by a decade or so, at the most his rendition of history is not far off from mine (since Ike/Adlai Stevensonm days).

So, let me try his soapbox:-

*Barack will self-destruct NOT because he can't face HRC when she gets nasty, but I suspect his self-confidence will relentlessly downside him because of her agressive march to nomination.

*BO is a split-personality (as I see it) due to his mixed-race origin. I understand this trait a bit because my own children are of mixed-race and I've had to inculcate a lot of self-confidence in them in light of racial slurs and whatnots in schools.

*Having now won ALL the big states, HRC has nothing more to prove...except to lead the superdelegates by their nose - which she will do in her usual way, I suspect.

*There will be reckowning with Florida and Michigan primaries and BO is going to falter on his arguments against the State Secretaries report of the turnout. One way or another, NDC will have to resolve this amicably....

*OB is principally NOT yet ready for WH...and if NOT HRC... GOP will make sure of that outcome.

[linusk]

You are giving us the Kool-Aid from the Clintonian jug, Mr. Krugman. These may be relatively minor issues in the overall picture.

On the other hand, I have not heard an informed debate on the alpha vs. beta workings during the 1990s. I suspect that some (lot?) of the so called Clinton-era prosperity was a result of a few real earlier mega-trends including explosion in the number of women at Work-place, widespread use of Information Technology and indeed the Internet revolution. Let us have some discussion on Clinton's specific contribution to the prosperity and how, what Mrs. Clinton says will contribute to American and possibly global well-being during her potential incumbency and beyond.

Do not let us talk about 'electability' or 'big state wins' because these reflect to me, more than anything else, a surge for Democratic Party rather than an internecine choice of one candidate over the other. Let us talk of Economics of what the Clintons have done for us to bring them back into power for another eight years.

[kharris]

In the general election, there will (I hope) be large distinctions between the canadiates' positions. In the primary, distinctions are smaller. The problem that results is that the candidates have to emphasize those smaller distinctions, and in doing so may be locked into positions that they (and we) regret curing the general election. Now, history suggests they won't necessarily be locked in once they take office. Meanwhile, we are left to make our decisions based on distinctions that may not matter.

There may be some substance to Krugman's view that voters are splitting according to age because of differing interest in health insurance. However, I keep hearing from older people who are uncomfortable with Obama because of his age and lack of experience. I realize what I hear is not fair sample of the electorate, and the notion that people are lining up behind somebody who represents their age cadre doesn't exclude Krugman's view that they are lining up based on health care plans. Even so, given the tendence of voters to vote contrary to their own interest, I think we want to hold off attributing too much of voter preference to health insurance policy specifics.

I think that Clinton has made a choice not to allow herself to be painted as a dove - a Hotelling choice - and as a result has been bad on foreign policy. If, just for the sake of argument, we assume that is true, can anybody see a way in which she would be free to turn away from bellicosity and begin to undo the harm that Bush and the neo-cons have done to the US place in the world?

[anne]

"You are giving us the -------- from the ---------- jug, Mr. Krugman."

What is important evidently is to use the language and imagery of the gutter in pretending to argue.

[ken melvin]

Barack's campaign strategy is one for the books. Because of the southern strategy, it will rewrite politics forever. He is neither a great campaigner, nor debater. Unless they can rework him for the general, he will lose; lose big. The only polls that count are in those in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and, in these states, all the red states, the border states, ... all McCain needs do is be the white man and not let everyone know that he is incompetent.

[anne]

Though the 96 months of the Clinton Presidency there were 225,000 jobs created each month on average. Through the finest 52 months of the Bush Presidency an average of only 160,000 jobs were created each month. We are passing through what seems to be the weakest economic expansion since the World War. General growth has been relatively weak, non-residential investment has been weak, growth of wages and benefits has been very weak, corporate profits have been very strong, income and wealth have become as concentrate as in the 1920s.

The differences between the economy of the Clinton years and Bush years are stark, including even the declining budget eficit and the actual budget surplus of the Clinton years.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Ken:

I'm a Republican and I could formulate a winning strategy for Senator Obama, based first on the economy and second on Iraq.

Problem is, the candidates exist in a vast web of advisors, strategists, media advisors, spin doctors, counter spin doctors and who knows what, which militates against a straigthforward message, not to mention the need to bow to each and every special interest.

In this atmosphere McCain couldn't win but the Dems could lose it.

Obama has potential, but may be ground up in the political machinery. Too bad.

[hari]

@kharris -

On the q' of obliterating Iran (ABC interview) don't take it literally - it was a bite for Barack to counter-attack. He didn't. His belly is not hot for bellycose arguments - he ain't made that way. That's it...HRC has succeeded in slowing down The Messaih and his self-confidence. He has made a 90/180 degree turnabout and his ads in Phil were not his usual elite stuff!

I agree, HRC carries a lot of baggage compared to his clean-cut imagery and whatnot. However politics being a serious contact sport - *will to power* - BO is not able to counterpunch because he's coming from a very different sociological imagination (if I can put it that way!). Blacks will have their turn at WH...Barack is the best I've come across - but too inexperienced.

GOP will have field day with him...but not with HRC.

[ECONOMISATA NON GRATA]

"Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for."

Paul is absolutely correct on this. Many of the older "working class" voters want to turn back the hands of time. They want their factory jobs back, they want affordable healthcare, they want to be less unhappy, just the way they used to be, but not as unhappy as they are now. how nostalgic...

Best regards,

Econolicious

[Ben Stein the Hack]

turquoise:

you can certainly disagree with the Hillary position of nuclear deterrence (which has been the general tack of every Dem President since WWII), as well as her vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. However, it seems particularly disingenuous (a disingenuity that has been propagated by St. Obama himself) to use those two to imply that Hillary would have invaded Iraq in 2002 (with the full information and power of the Executive branch, rather than rigged briefings to Congress), or that she would invade Iran in 2009. That's really just silly, esp. when a quick look at St. Obama's record since he took office doesn't reveal any particularly strong opposition to the Iraqi occupation, nor does his actual policy, as Anne points out, reveal any particular dovishness on his part.

On a metalevel, by the way, your comment indicates precisely what is wrong with the Obama campaign. If Obama wins the Dem nomination, the campaign becomes about Iraq and national security and who you'd rather have a beer with. Obama may very well win on these issues, but on the other hand, they're very clearly the issues that the GOP wants to feature.

An Obama candidacy basically pisses away the best issue we have: the economy. While Iraq may be your most important issue, it is not for vast majority of Americans at this point, a trend that should be more pronounced as the macroeconomy continues to plummet.

And, incidentally, this is why people call the Obama campaign elitist. While most people in this country are obsessing about the economy, health care, and the basic fact that they're worried about paying the bills, people like you deride Krugman for having a "health care obsession".

It really is the economy, stupid, and if you don't get that, because your own circumstances are comfortable enough that you haven't felt the non-existent household income growth of the Bush years or the household income drop that is occurring now, then you need to get out of your Obama bubble, and step into the real world for a moment.

[anne]

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly promised to begin steadily removing troops from Iraq and to end the occupation of Iraq. This is the promise, this is what is needed to change American foreign policy decisively.

Barack Obama's closest foreign policy advisers have respectively claimed that Obama will leave some 80,000 soldiers in Iraq through 2010, and will leave Iraq only under a best case scenario. I would like Obama to directly contradict these positions.

The pressure on each of the candidates to appear tough will be immense, but an often expressed determination to leave Iraq quickly no matter such pressure will be reassuring to me and I would demand such reassurance. Will a Democratic President be leaving Iraq, no matter a David Petraeus who would remain in Iraq indefinitely but is not President?

[Ben Stein the Hack]

What I find remarkable about Obama supporters is the fact they're totally and blithely ignorant of reality. Were I an Obama supporter (I'm obviously not, but I will be if he is the Dem nominee), I would be extremely worried about the exit poll findings indicating that not only are white and Latino working class voters voting Hillary, but that a high percentage of them claim that they'll vote for McCain or stay home if Obama wins the nomination.

That is a HUGE problem, and the fact that this became MORE pronounced in PA, a state where Obama spent thousands of hours of face time allowing the voters to get to know him better, indicates that it's not an aberration.

As a Democrat first, and a Hillary partisan second, I recognize that Obama is more likely than not our nominee. But blaming Hillary for the problems that Obama has connecting with economically struggling voters (who will increase in number between now and November, and who have made up part of every winning Dem coalition in modern politics) is retarded. Instead of doing that, maybe you guys should put down your brie, and figure out why it is that working class voters don't like Obama. My own belief is that Krugman hits on something in this column. Obama is about "change" and secondarily about post-partisanship and electability. He doesn't talk substance to the voters, and the substance he does talk tends to come from a right-center economic frame as far as I've seen.

[Andrew]

For what it's worth, Edmund Phelps and Joe Stiglitz were on CNBC this morning discussing the economy. Both said they supported Obama and thought he was the best candidate to turn this economy around. Stiglitz specifically referred to this speech.

[jamzo]

i agree with mr krugman on many things

i do not agree with his views of the prospects of the leadership we can expect from another "clinton" presidency

i was satisfied with either candidate at the start

the clinton campaign style reminded me that i did not think much of bill clinton as a "democratic president" and aligned with him favorably because of the intensity of republican opposition and despite his tendency to abandon the fight for democratic goals

[jamzo]

i agree with mr krugman on many things

i do not agree with his views of the prospects of the leadership we can expect from another "clinton" presidency

i was satisfied with either candidate at the start

the clinton campaign style reminded me that i did not think much of bill clinton as a "democratic president" and aligned with him favorably because of the intensity of republican opposition and despite his tendency to abandon the fight for democratic goals

[James]

The problem with the Democratic party are the ideoloques like Mr. Krugman who are willing to excuse any sort of behaviour from their candidates in order to support one or two positions they hold dear.

This is how Bush duped the broad group of Christian fundamentalists. Mr. Krugman and his ilk are just the flip side of the coin in my view.

[piglet]

"It may not be politically correct, but obliterating the Iranian military [wrong, she did not refer to the "military", and anyway, when you are using weapons of mass destruction, there is no distinction between civilians and military] may well become a good idea.

And at that point we cannot let our mistakes in Iraq confuse our decision.

So points for Hillary."

You mean, we should not make the mistake of learning of mistakes? This is so disgusting there are no words for it. You are a genocidal racist, rustbelt. Just disgusting.

It's time to stop this hypocrisy. Are you (anne, hari, ...) really willing to support a candidate who threatens the obliteration of another country with weapons of mass destruction, just because you believe that sort of candidate has a better chance of winning? You guys are totally, unredeemably, crazy. You have lost not only human decency but also any rational judgement. And you must have lost your self-respect if you, after all those years opposing Bush, his lies, and his wars of aggression, close ranks behind a candidate who promises genocide.

This isn't about "policy wonk details" any more. I was willing to defend PK's position up to a point but no more. This has become a question of principle now. Supporting HRC 2008 is no different than supporting GWB 2004.

[ECONOMISATA NON GRATA]

Bush, McCain and Clinton are the problem, not the solution.

I personally don't care who wins the nomination or who is elected president. The only thing that I'm stating is that a heathy percentage of the demographic that voted for Bush is now voting for Clinton. If that makes me a Brie loving elitist so be it. We are going to get the president that we deserve no more, no less. I'm good either way. However, if you think that the state of the union is bad now, just wait until McCain or Clinton get into office.

It's not that Obama is not worthy of governing America, it's that American is not worthy of being governed by Obama. I hope that you get your Clinton or McCain, just don't whine.

Econolicious

[Winslow R.]

Expect to see a lot more stories like these......

Western Kansas Rides Wave of Prosperity

Morning Edition, April 25, 2008 · While bad economic trends sweep most of the nation, there's one place where things are booming: western Kansas.

Home values are up, foreclosures and unemployment are down, and gas guzzlers are flying off the lot.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89917902

[ken melvin]

Yes, all things in context, please.

Politics is about the possible. First, you must win.

[James Kroeger]

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? ... The answer is: very, very negative.

Because you have invested yourself in Hillary's candidacy, Paul, you are not able to see that she has used loathsome Karl Rovian tactics to try to destroy Barack Obama's character in the eyes of the electorate. I assume this is because you have not had a very clear understanding of how the character assassination game is played. The key is not in the words you use to criticize your political opponent, it's the emotion you show when you criticize.

Remember the phony outrage that Dick Cheney's wife expressed re: John Kerry's reference to their daughter's lesbianism? Remember the outrage that Karen Hughes would express to reporters regarding Al Gore's incredibly thoughtless and mean spirited attacks on George Bush? Remember the scorn and contempt that Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, et al., would express whenever they uttered the word 'Liberal?' It was the scorn they expressed when they used the word that turned it into a pejorative term.

That is the magic ingredient that makes character assassination work. There is no better example of this method of character assassination than Hillary Clinton's now famous, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never initiated any negative attacks on Clinton, although he has responded to the negative attacks that her campaign has launched on him, with criticism that most certainly is negative. Even you would have to agree that a Democrat needs to defend herself when she's been unfairly attacked, yes?

I used to be an Obama cynic, myself, back when I was a die-hard John Edwards fan, just like you, Paul. I started immediately leaning toward Obama as the default choice because (1) I have long blamed the DLC for the decline of the Democratic Party during the past 15 years or so, and (2) I am convinced that Hillary Clinton would not hesitate to launch a new war with some identified enemy, just to take away the Soft-On-America's-Enemies attack that the Republicans dearly love to use in elections to defeat Democrats.

The first thing I had to admit to myself about Obama after I became more familiar with his speeches on economic issues is that he has the right sympathies. It really doen't matter that his current proposals may have some flaws---Hillary's most certainly do---but that is not really the important point. Another big thing you notice after a while is that Barack Obama places a great deal of importance on the practice of listening. If you were to give it a try, Paul, I'm sure that you would find that he'd be quite happy to listen to your constructive advice on how to put together an ideal health care plan. I'm convinced that he could be persuaded to embrace a single payer health care plan if he felt that he had the policical support that would be required to advance it.The attacks ... have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild ... Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?What you are not acknowledging, here, is that Barack Obama could have savaged Hillary Clinton for her Bosnia 'exaggerations' and ripped her character apart---something the Republicans would most certainly do---but he chose not to as a matter of principle. He's an idealist, and I like that a lot.

The only reason why he didn't come across as 'tough' in the face of Hillary's insinuations/innuendo is because he thinks it is a bad thing for one Democrat to do to another. The guy she has been trying to destroy, politically, has been treating her with kid gloves. She takes advantage of this---as any good student of Karl Rove would---by 'pushing him around' and daring him to attack her back. That ain't going to happen against the Republicans. If Barack had wanted to, he could easily have destroyed her candidacy by simply portraying her has a lying phony.

In many ways I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. She had always impressed me as someone who has the intellectual capacity to serve as President. But her willingness to destroy the Democratic Party---and yes, that is what she would do if she were to actually pull off her plan---has destroyed my image of her. I now see her as a great threat to the immediate future of the Democratic Party and to the welfare of the people who desperately need a good Democrat in charge of the government.

So sad, so sad...

[anne]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/23/hillaryclinton.iran

April 23, 2008

In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

She replied: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."

[david]

When did Obama get knocked off his pedestal? The whole thing is so stupid -- Krugman morphing into Dowd. He lost a state he was supposed to lose, by less than he was supposed to lose it -- Clinton has retreated from another last ditch stand that was going to transform the race but hasn't. And in any case, the primary vote against Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with the general vote against McCain -- Krugman knows this, but runs with Mark Penn like spin.

No, Anne, I'm not bullying or lying in the gutter, so don't. I don't want Clinton as the nominees because past experience suggests she'll ditch anything to the left -- unlike Krugman, I don't think she's more progressive than Obama, I don't think campaign rhetoric will match up to what happens in office, and I'll be pleased to have that argument.

Finally, a point that should be repeated everytime this comes up -- lots of black people are in the working class. It's weird how that gets lost in these discussions.

[anne]

"I am convinced that ------- ------- would not hesitate to launch a new war with some identified enemy, just to take away the Soft-On-America's-Enemies attack that the Republicans dearly love to use in elections to defeat Democrats."

I am convinced this is slandering rubbish, as the rest of the comment. So sad, so sad, so sad. Do I have enough "sos?"

[piglet]

anne, we know what Clinton said. What I want to know is, do you support that kind of foreign policy? Do you really?

[save_the_rustbelt]

From my vantage point:

McCain could win by not making any major mistakes.

The Democrats can only win by taking the affirmative with some major policy, well sold.

says...

In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

A small nuclear bomb detonated by "Iranian terrorists" in say disposable Bethlehem and the U.S. wipes out Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

[anne]

David:

"I don't want Clinton as the nominee because past experience suggests she'll ditch anything to the left -- unlike Krugman, I don't think she's more progressive than Obama, I don't think campaign rhetoric will match up to what happens in office, and I'll be pleased to have that argument."

This is a helpful and important criticism, but I find nothing Clinton's Senate record to suggest that would be the case. Similarly for Obama. I would think she and Obama will proceed with trying to develop the policies they describe, which is why I wish continued policy definition. There will likely be continued Democratic Congressional majorities to work with.

[anne]

What I find is a foreign policy statement that makes clear, as we have for decades, that a nuclear war has to be unthinkable. What I would of course prefer would be international work towards an end to the development of and storing of nuclear weapons.

[david]

There's nothing in Clinton's Senate record to suggest it wouldn't be the case that she'd knock those to her left, really -- that's my real worry, she is perched in a safe New York seat, has enormous power within the party thanks to her and her husband's past within it, and hasn't carved out a particularly progressive platform, one suspects because the presidency is the target. My old boss used to write her letters, telling her to become Teddy Kennedy, but she hasn't.

I'm sure I'll be let down by Obama -- I'm way to the left of all these people -- but I see a bit more hope there.

On policy -- I want them all to admit they'd start raising taxes for massive public infrastructure investment, and soak the rich in particular to do it. It's good economics and better social policy. But it's probably lousy politics, so I'm not sure how much policy definition I want in anticipation of running against a bogus Republican hit machine.

[ScentOfViolets]

I suppose that there are two distinct questions - that of electability, and that of governing. Stipulated that either candidate is infinitely preferable to McCain, who has the best chance of winning, and afterwards, who has the best chance of implementing policy?

If one was better than the other on just one of these, this might be a different debate. But imho, Clinton has the edge both ways - precisely because she is willing to be nasty. As someone above as mentioned, McCain is going to campaign on the fact that he is white. Expect lots of 'independent' advocacy groups to bring this fact up in a thousand and one subtle and not so subtle ways. This puts Obama in a spot, because he has to take the high road, but do it in a way that neutralizes this sort of advantage.

It gets worse after the election. Expect the GOP to revert to the 'Loyal Opposition' and vote as a block against _any_ legislation initiated by a Democrat, again _precisely_ because it is initiated by a Democrat. Don't expect them to be nice just because "We're all in this together", or to vote their constituencies interests (unless, as we all know, it is a certain type of constituency.) As such, any Democratic president, even working with large majorities in the House and Senate, are going to be consistently stymied by the intransigence of 1/3 of the members of Congress. Nothing is going to be done unless someone takes a big stick and _punishes_ these people.

That's what makes the Republicans so effective, and the Democrats of late so ineffective. Don't expect Obama to aggressively or expertly apply that stick.

Otoh, in a match-up between McCain and Clinton, he can't resort to campaigning on the fact that he's a man (though I'd like to see him try), ditto for campaigning against a Clinton (after eight years of Bush and 16 years of witch-hunts, I suspect the public has had quite enough of that.) It's also quite clear that on physicality alone, Hillary could easily kick John's ass, if I may be so crude. _And_ I don't think she would hesitate for an instant to go for his supposed 'strengths' (isn't that supposed to be the new winning strategy), and would be quite effective at that.

Contrariwise, after the election, I think she'd positively be itching for some payback, over and above any arm-twisting to get what she wants. Iow, she would be much more effective at forcing her will on Congress - Democrats as well as Republicans. Expect her to use Lieberman effectively, and, once he is drained, made into an object lesson.

_That's_ what we need. Not just good policy ideas, but some actual policy implementation as well.

[James Kroeger]

"I am convinced that ------- ------- would not hesitate to launch a new war with some identified enemy, just to take away the Soft-On-America's-Enemies attack that the Republicans dearly love to use in elections to defeat Democrats."

I am convinced this is slandering rubbish, as the rest of the comment. So sad, so sad, so sad. Do I have enough "sos?"Getting pretty pumped up about the whole drama, eh Anne? :)

I'm not sure why you are claiming that this is slander. I know that one of the central tenets of the DLC since its inception is to never give the Republicans a chance to portray you as Soft-O-A-E's. It is a dictum that Bill Clinton followed assiduously. Now, Hillary knows that she has an even tougher challenge than Bill had, as a woman seeking the office of the Presidency in the USA.

It's like this, Anne... Even if I believed that she would within herself be reluctant to go to war with some enemy that the Republicans are describing as a tremendous threat to America, I believe that she would feel as though she had to talk tough, rattle sabers, and send carriers out to...oh say Taiwan (something Bill did, as I recall), where maybe we could accidently ignite a nuclear war with China in order to guarantee re-election to a second term.

I think there's just too much pressure on her to act/be tough and that means more than talk the talk. I get the impression that she was rather easily persuaded by a bunch of male advisors (Mark Penn, Bill, etc.) to go negative. I wouldn't have had any problem at all with her staying in the race right up to the convention if only she had remained the Nice Hillary, had stuck to discussions of the issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

She could even have defended her Tough-O-A-E's in a gracious manner. She would then have ended up making history as the first female Vice President and the Dems could have walked arm-in-arm toward a glorious November. Unfortunately, she made some very poor judgments at a crucial time.

[Jay]

Anne:

"Hillary Clinton has PLEDGED to leave Iraq completely and quickly, and that is what matters."

Not much of a poker player are we? You should take it up some time. There are plenty of valuable life lessons to be learned.

[Joe]

First, it's astounding that so many supposedly intelligent people fall for the obvious fallacy that demographic voting patterns between democratic primary candidates predicts or determines demographic voting patterns between republicans and democrats. It's not hard to understand. If anyone has one shred of empirical evidence then show it. The people voting for Hillary in Pennsylvania are not "Reagan democrats" they are democrats. the Reagan democrats are gone; they are republicans now. Neither Obama nor Clinton are competing for them. Yo do know that PA was a closed primary right?

Second, the underestimation of Obama's intelligence and understanding of policy detail is remarkable. That he chooses to campaign with inspiration over elucidation is a tactic.

Third, character does matter. I suspect much more so than policy details, at least once you have determined where the candidate falls on the ideological spectrum. For many democrats watching Mrs. Clinton attack Obama's character using guilt by association, innuendo, and false insinuation is heartbreaking and disgusting. It is not "just politics as usual" to insinuate that your fellow democrat is un-american and un-patriotic, which is exactly what Mrs. Clinton is doing by exploiting the Rev. Wright caricature, the Ayers bs, and pushing the Rezko ... The whole point is not just to question, but to make him unacceptable to certain groups. Does anyone have a one single doubt what the point if mentioning Farrakhan's name is over and over, even though Obama has nothing to do with him. She had a choice to denounced such tactics as the the politics of personal destruction. But as Obama has said she learned the wrong lesson. Apparently the while Ken Starr thing wasn't bad for America it was just a test to see if the Clinton's were tough enough. Uggggghhh.

Oh and last, Anne, you are truly the only bully on this site. Anyone who dares make a contrary post gets 6 replies in short order along with several post of the entire text of articles. Why is it you have some much free time. Not to mention the rampant name calling (or should I call it the vicious viciousness). Face it, you are incredibly rude.

[anne]

James Kroeger:

"I know that one of the central tenets of the DLC since its inception is to never give the Republicans a chance to portray you as Soft-O-A-E's. It is a dictum that Bill Clinton followed assiduously. Now, Hillary knows that she has an even tougher challenge than Bill had, as a woman seeking the office of the Presidency in the USA."

This is a fair and important worry that could easily extend back to John Kennedy. I am worried about a penchant for a bullying * foreign policy stance that will surely be reflected from significant foreign policy specialists and general officers who will be in place in the coming Presidency.

* Or worse.

[James Kroeger]

But imho, Clinton has the edge both ways - precisely because she is willing to be nasty.I'm afraid you've drawn the wrong conclusion about the approach Barack Obama has taken in responding to Hillary's attacks on his character. He has been willing to risk paying a price for staying on the high road in the face of her attacks because he really would like to be able to work with her to bring about a victory for the Dems in November. Oh yeah, and he has this idealistic faith thing in lofty moral principles. She's been kicking him in the nuts and he has been saying, "Hillary, you know better than that" because he is trying to communicate something to her.

It is a mistake to extrapolate from his reluctance to 'fully engage' Hillary that Barack is reluctant to 'fully engage' John McCain. He has explicitly stated that he has been holding back because she is a fellow Democrat, but he did give a hint as to what he is capable of when he responded to her "bitter" accusations by mocking her and ridiculing her actions and statements. At times, he was like a stand-up comic, working the crowd. When he does this throughout September to John McCain, the result will be devastating [for McCain]. Because he ridiculed Hillary in his gentle [Reaganesque] style, he was able to effectively neutralize her attacks and even win some converts (his polling numbers in PA continued to improve after a few days).

Hillary, on the other hand, demonstrated nothing re: her ability to withstand a negative assault, since she was largely spared one by the opponent she was trying to destroy. Showing that you can dish it out does not mean that you can take it when you are the one being targeted. Can you imagine what they would have done with her Bosnian memories?

[anne]

"Hillary Clinton has PLEDGED to leave Iraq completely and quickly, and that is what matters."

This is not my comment, which is:

Hillary Clinton has pledged to leave Iraq completely and quickly, and that is what matters. What matters are the precise policy positions taken by the candidates, and the hope that the positions are meant and for those we favor will be trie for in the coming Presidency.

The war and occupation of Iraq may continue indefinitely no matter the coming President, much to my dismay, but I chose to believe policy positions will be tried for and find cynicism self-defeating. Clinton has pledged to leave Iraq quickly. I want the same pledge from Obama, and know there will be none from McCain.

[anne]

"It is not 'just politics as usual' to insinuate that your fellow Democrat is un-American and un-patriotic...."

Rubbish; duh.

[Jack Boot]

Obama and his team have made very, very smart decisions re: the narrative

Everyone who wants Obama to talk about "issues" just doesn't understand campaigns.

There is a difference between what you WANT a presidential campaign to be about, and what it takes to win a presidential campaign in the real world. Liberals are too often policy literalists, and they are the ones who fear Obama.

Obama is just in another league, that's all. That's why he is where he is...on the verge of winning a nomination against many odds. He's run a phenomenal primary campaign.

[ScentOfViolets]

Oh yeah, and he has this idealistic faith thing in lofty moral principles. She's been kicking him in the nuts and he has been saying, "Hillary, you know better than that" because he is trying to communicate something to her.

Do you think he would do any better against a Republican machine?

It is a mistake to extrapolate from his reluctance to 'fully engage' Hillary that Barack is reluctant to 'fully engage' John McCain. He has explicitly stated that he has been holding back because she is a fellow Democrat, but he did give a hint as to what he is capable of when he responded to her "bitter" accusations by mocking her and ridiculing her actions and statements.

He can _say_ that all he wants. Where has he _demonstrated_ any ability to meet force with force? Like it or not, that's what it is going to take for the next four years _at_least_.

Hillary, on the other hand, demonstrated nothing re: her ability to withstand a negative assault, since she was largely spared one by the opponent she was trying to destroy. Showing that you can dish it out does not mean that you can take it when you are the one being targeted.

In case you hadn't noticed, Clinton has been targeted for the last sixteen years - and that includes both her election to the senate _and_ the abuse she's had to endure this election cycle. And she has forged slowly but surely ahead.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you haven't noticed this at all?

[donna]

The Democrats have two very good candidates and are in a heck of a battle. It's a good thing. Obama got it right the other day when he said no matter who the Dem nominee is, by October all the negatives will be "old news".

We've seen nasty brutish Republican primaries for years and it didn't hurt them. Now we see the other side and oh, gee, the Dems are so awful.This is all just media spin.

[turquoise]

Dear Ben Stein the Hack,

You have said: “…. it seems particularly disingenuous… to imply that Hillary would have invaded Iraq in 2002 (with the full information and power of the Executive branch, rather than rigged briefings to Congress), or that she would invade Iran in 2009.”

I do not want to psychoanalyze her. I believe she did not read the full report at that time. She did not join the 21 Democrats and 1 Republican in the Senate who voted against the war. She voted for the resolution entitled “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” Barack was running for Senate at that time. He oppposed it. Case closed.

It cost the US and the rest of the world more than three trillion dollars and thousands of lives. Yes, Ben Stein the Hack, I do think she would have invaded Iraq in 2002. But what do I know? Maybe you have a Ph.D. in psychiatry.

I did not say that Hillary would invade Iran in 2009 on the basis of her “Obliterate Iran” remark. She did vote in the Senate to designate Iran’s “Revolutionary Guards” as a terrorist organization. Again, I do not want to psychoanalyze her. But I am extremely worried about her hawkish posture. And I think most Dems should be.

“If Obama wins the Dem nomination, the campaign becomes about Iraq and national security and who you'd rather have a beer with.” No, I do not want to have beer with Hillary at Bronko's. And certainly I will not mix it with Crown Royal. Bad taste.

“An Obama candidacy basically es away the best issue we have: the economy. While Iraq may be your most important issue, it is not for vast majority of Americans at this point.” I did not say that Iraq war was the "most important" ot the only issue.

“people like you deride Krugman for having a "health care obsession". It really is the economy, stupid, and … you don't get that.” There is not a whole lot of difference between the two candidates on economic issues (except health care) – so why bring this up? I do find it curious that Krugman is willing to overlook everything else just because he thinks HC’s health policy is better.

turquoise.

[NLS]

I don't like or appreciate HRC's jedi mind tricks.

Most recently,

HRC: I'm winning the popular vote.
Media: She's winning the popular vote.
(Despite the fact that BO wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, and all candidates said they weren't going to Florida to campaign (but HRC made an appearance just prior to the vote because they saw how BO amply won the "white, working class" vote in Iowa and started to panic.)

It's dirty dirty dirty. Remember that last ABC debate? How the focus on BS was at a high point, and how HRC didn't even try to tone it down? In anne's words, it's "slashing and bashing."

And Krugman has fallen for it too: "And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall." He's not really helping on the politics front today and I'm not confused.

In the interest of the U.S., the world, and humanity in general how bout HRC step aside and let's focus on McCain. She isn't going to win. Super delegates are moving towards BO everyday. A little thing called math is her roadblock.

C'mon people, be strong with the force, get it together.

[Jack Boot]

Scent of violets...Obama has figured out how to win. If you think he has no guts, remember, he's a black guy who grew up

This is a campaign, which most non campaign professionals and serious political observers don't understand.

Most people view politics and campaigns as what they want them to be, not what it is. Really, 95% of the Clinton supporters who dislike Obama's candidacy should be very happy he's so savvy about winning. I think they'll be happy with his Presidency, too. He's certainly made far fewer mistakes than his rival, that should tell you something.

And just because he's run one way so far in the primaries doesn't mean he'll run that way in the general. This is a logical error people are making all over the place.

[7382]

"In case you hadn't noticed, Clinton has been targeted for the last sixteen years"

And how often has Monica come up lately?

And when Hill mentions the 3 AM phone call, the Republicans will ask "where is Bill at 3 AM?"

And when Hill mentions the 3 AM phone call, the Republicans will say "Bill it's for you"

Face it, Krugman and people like Anne are bigots and don;t like Obama because he is black.

And Anne deea, where where you on the gun debate? How do you feel about Mark Thoma, gun enthusiast?

[NLS]

C'mon 7382, save that crap for the comments section on CNN's political ticker. Anne's cool.

[Jean]

So what are you guys going to do? Vote for McCain if 'your candidate' doesn't get the nomination?
I will vote for whoever gets the nod. And this time I DON'T have to hold my nose.
Thank God. It was getting pretty sore.

[James Kroeger]

Obama is just in another league, that's all. That's why he is where he is...on the verge of winning a nomination against many odds. He's run a phenomenal primary campaign.It's funny. Four months ago I was a die-hard John Edwards supporter and had been for a couple of years. When Edwards dropped out, I was depressed and felt that my reason for feeling optimistic this election year had just vaporized. But I turned to Obama by default. The war was the big thing and I wanted nothing more than to see the DLC suffer a massive defeat within the Democratic Party. With the sole exception of Bill Clinton, Mr. Charisma, the Democratic Party had experienced nothing but decline since the DLC gained legitimacy through Bill Clinton's Presidency. But it was just Bill, not the DLC 'centrist' agenda, that got Bill elected. Every other Democrat who tried to run as Republican Light got killed at the polls.

I first started to open up to Obama as THE candidate I wanted for President when it occurred to me---after listening to him speak on economic issues---that he has the right sympathies. It may be possible to point to other health care plans that are less flawed than his in some ways, but there is little doubt in my mind that he wants to solve the health care problem for the working class in the best way possible. He believes that significant gains can be made in making health care more affordable for The Little Guy. But he's focusing on the political power that must be amassed in order to bring about profound change. I can even see him being able to mobilize a 3 million person march on Washington to pressure Congress to give the people the 'free health care' (see Michael Moore's SICKO) they deserve.

I remember being very cynical about the Barack Obama that I had heard about through third parties and the MSM. It was really only after I listened to several of his speeches that I came to feel as though I know the guy and that he will be the wisest human being who has ever held the office of President. (I thought about W. Wilson, but he let the Republican opposition and Teddy R. pressure him into leading America to war. I don't think Obama would cave in like that. He didn't before.) He just really is that special. Key descriptor: His utter lack of guile.

[Bruce Wilder]

str:It may not be politically correct, but obliterating the Iranian military may well become a good idea.

And at that point we cannot let our mistakes in Iraq confuse our decision.

So points for Hillary.

[Scream]

[kharris]

hari,

Your response to my question was to tell me not to take my question seriously. That doesn't work for me.

The distinction between my question and your answer, I think, is that my question was about governance, yours answer about campaigning. I understand that the campaign is how one gets to govern, but I care far less about the horse race than I do about its policy results.

I agree that Clinton has adopted her foreign policy stance as a way to win elections. That was the point of my reference to Hotelling. The problem is that she will be under enormous pressure to be as good as her word and her adopted image.

So I repeat - Why should we think Clinton will be able to repair the damage to our national reputation as president, if she gets to the presidency party through this sort of bellicose flourish? Will she be Nixon in China, or Viet Nam?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Bruce:

Not to worry, the Isralis or the French may beat us to it.

We can do business with Hitler - Neville Chamberlain.

[Jay]

"Face it, Krugman and people like Anne are bigots and don;t like Obama because he is black."

7382: You should do a quick google search to find out how many black mayors there are in France.

[Charles]

"This is of course sexist and untrue, but why bother about such niceties? Me, I have been finding all sorts of policy details I can agree with for months and asking the same from the other candidate which seems fair." -anne

Getting my statement parsed and then twisted, and then being accused of sexism- why does that sound so familiar?

The reason I brought up the "wife of the ex-president" is because she is undeniably using her time as first lady as a central part of her "experience" argument. I wasn't using it to discredit her merits as a lawyer or senator. The point is, she making Bill's track record as president the major part of her resume. For many, if not most people who don't follow politics closely but support Clinton, the reason is that they think it will be Bill Clinton part II. Whether you feel that they are being sexist or not, it doesn't change the fact that it plays to her advantage, and that she is using that angle.

Number two, what is untrue about what I said? I never implied that she had no policy details (if anyone is mendaciously accusing a candidate of having no policy details, it's the Clinton supporters). The issue is the focus of her campaign. Don't deny that her strategy in recent months has been to get progressively more negative. Sowing doubts by piling on the Wright story, mentioning Farrakhan, creating a bogus "commander in chief" test with the 3am ads, and bringing up the ridiculous Ayers association are all ploys to sow uncertainties about Obama.

It's time for you to face reality on the direction that her campaign has taken, or at least be honest about it.

[Jim D]

Wow, lots of identity politics going on here.

It should be mentioned that outside of minor partisan blogs (or blog comments like this one), there's almost no sexism _or_ racism on display in the campaign, particularly compared to historic levels. Claiming that it's rampant is going to turn people away from your candidate. Ageism, on the other hand, is on display in a big way.

That said, I'd just like to say that if the person who doesn't have the most elected delegates gets picked as the nominee, I won't even vote for a Democratic dog catcher - not this election, and quite possibly not for many more as well. I'm sure I'm not alone. Hillary should get out, her only road to the White House is in the next election - not this one.

Smoke filled rooms are not the way to pick nominees, that's old school, and I don't think the American voter will stand for it.

[hari]

@kharris -

You raise fundamental issues of policy - and none of them are discussing policy - all they're upto now to June 3 is to lock in the nomination -ie. campaign!

You and I know (from long experience) policy and its legislation are very different process in Beltway.

HRC has earlier announced she'd talk to Iran (unlike GWB/Rice). She's projecting image of a hawk to assure the electorate that she can be a good commander-in-chief (first woman).

She knows very well that none of her social policy can be implemented if the external wars are not ended and asap.

[esb]

Jim D:

The "American people" will stand for whatever shyte the ruling elite decides to shovel over them,

and sleepwalk their way through the entire absurd process.

[Jim D]

ESB: You're right in that we'll still pick one of the two nearly identical parties that exist to enrich their backers while occasionally trying to do some good.

But "will not stand" refers to which of the two parties holds control.

If the democrats want to lose more than the Presidential race, all they need to do is pick the person in second place, instead of the person in first place.