Banner Archive

Marvel Comics Timeline
Godzilla Timeline



« Terry Pratchett News | Main | Parkway Decorator »

Obama attacks Krugman? What is he, an idiot?

Or is this a calculated move?


Krugman has mildly criticized Obama for two things. First he took issue with the idea that his health care plan can work without mandates. He mentioned it early on when the plan was first announced, but didn't make a big thing of it until Obama started running explicitly against the idea of mandates, which means at the very least he was preemptively taking a negotiating point off the table --- and handing the Republicans a weapon to tank all the Democratic health care proposals. That was, in Krugman's view, a bad political move as well as a wrongheaded policy position. That had followed Obama's decision to put social security on the menu this cycle, when it wasn't necessary or desirable. I agree with Krugman that that was a mistake.

Running to the right on health care and social security combined with the anti-gay gospel singer, taking Robert Novak smears at face value, repeating Jeff Gerth lies and now going after Paul Krugman, leads me to the niggling awareness that this is a conscious, if subtle, strategy. Any one of those things could be an accident, and perhaps some of them are. But taken as a whole, conscious or not, liberal fighters in the partisan wars are being sistah soljahed. Unlike the big issue of Iraq where being on the right side is being on the left side, these little digs and policy positioning are all sweet spots for the Village --- and sore spots for the base.

Perhaps that's the smart move. It has long been known by just about everyone who matters that the rank and file activists of the Democratic party are a huge liability. And anyway, where are we going to go? Mike Huckabee? Ron Paul? We have no choice. So, no harm no foul. Running to the right of even Hillary Clinton on health care and social security and using GOP talking points and symbolism is probably all upside. It may be the best way to insure a win in the fall. But I can't say that it looks like either a transformative inspirational politics or a willingness to fight the conservatives and win on the merits.

And here i was hoping Obama would beat Clinton in the primaries so i could vote for a Democrat in 2008. Maybe Nader will run again... ;-)


By fnord12 | December 12, 2007, 10:24 AM | Liberal Outrage


Well, if It's Clinton vs. Anyone in 2008, I'm writing in my vote for Stephen Colbert.

No, I'm not kidding.

I'm still undecided who I would write in for Vice President, but Adam West is a strong candidate.

No, I'm still not kidding.

If we're all doomed, lets have some fun while the ship goes down.

Back when Colbert first announced he was running, i had a secret hope that there would be some fluke and he would win the nomination.

The powers that be would never let that happen. That's why the write in vote is so awesome. You get to stick it to the man... with writing.

I don't understand why he doesn't run as an independent. He's got all the press coverage he'll ever need, and if he loses he still gets plenty of viewers on his show. It�s a win-win for Colbert even if he loses.

Speaking of his show, hopefully the WGA and the Studio execs will come to an agreement soon. Not only are we deprived of good Television, I hear that some writer's are actually going hungry. If this doesn't end quickly they may turn to cannibalism.

Funny, i always figured you'd be pro-cannibalism.

I'm for selective cannibalism. There's a difference. Selective cannibals only want to eat those who don't contribute to society.