Payback

Barack Obama reaps the harvest of his campaign's idiotic decision to start releasing oppo research on Paul Krugman as the latter unloads on Obama, slamming him as "the anti-change candidate" who's such a prisoner of his desire for good press coverage that he's ignoring a vast populist tide sweeping the country.

Krugman's spot-on in his argument that what the Des Moines Register sees as the problem with John Edwards is, in fact, what's good about Edwards. But I think he's let his taste for revenge (understandable! I'd be really pissed if I were in his position, too) undermine his perspective on the objective realities. As John Edwards himself has said the most dramatic contrast between his vision of sweeping change comes from Hillary Clinton, not Obama. As Krugman is usually at pains to point out, there's more to life than campaign rhetoric; people have records and so forth that can be subjected to scrutiny. Nobody would appoint Mark Penn to run their political team if what they really wanted to do was lead a bold populist revival. Similarly, it's objectively true that the next president's ability to bring about big-picture change in American domestic policy will be limited by his or her ability to secure Republican votes for his or her agenda. I wish that this wasn't the way that American political institutions work, but it is. I like Edwards' rhetoric about taking down a corrupt power structure a lot more than I like Obama's kumbaya talk, but any president will face the same institutional set-up and the real limits it imposes.

All of which is to re-enforce what I said previously about voting tactically -- I share a lot of these concerns about Obama, while over time Edwards has dispelled most of my concerns about his foreign policy (and it's on these issues where the candidates views seem to contrast most sharply) -- but I think either would be clearly preferable to Clinton from a progressive point of view and the Obama campaign's poor handling of its relationship with the country's highest-profile liberal columnist shouldn't obscure that.

Comments

How WOULD you like it to work?

Posted by Daniel | December 17, 2007 10:15 AM

More importantly, Krugman is showing Clinton the right way to attack Obama. IMHO, outside of nice Iowa Democratic primary voters want to find the someone who will put a stake through the heart of the Republican party. The "why can't we all get along candidate" is probably not the one for that.

Posted by Carl | December 17, 2007 10:24 AM

Good post.

One thing that I think progressives in the blogosphere overlook is that polls show a majority of independents are basically democrats. But they don't think of themselves as democrats and don't connect the issues to the party in the way they should. Obama has clear appeal to them though, and I think electing him would really move some of them towards the democratic party--but in any case they would be in his coalition for change.

I agree that some of this syrupy hopemongering isn't a good or as "true" as some of the bashing of corporations that Edwards does, but I think it could be more effective. By making liberalism SEEM moderate, Obama is doing all of us a favor.

Posted by d | December 17, 2007 10:25 AM

Good post.

One thing that I think progressives in the blogosphere overlook is that polls show a majority of independents are basically democrats. But they don't think of themselves as democrats and don't connect the issues to the party in the way they should. Obama has clear appeal to them though, and I think electing him would really move some of them towards the democratic party--but in any case they would be in his coalition for change.

I agree that some of this syrupy hope-mongering isn't as good or as "true" as some of the bashing of corporations that Edwards does, but I think it could be more effective. By making liberalism SEEM moderate, Obama is doing all of us a favor.

Posted by d | December 17, 2007 10:25 AM

This is the next Clinton adminstration: fighting the politics of personal destruction. There will be no room for honest error; forget anything else. Every proposal will be demonized. And half the country will feel about this adminstration as half the country has felt about the Bush adminstration. That is not an atmosphere to accomplish ANY goals progressive or not.

That's what I emailed Krugman and it's something I wish more people would consider. Hillary Clinton is not in a position to effectivly change this country. Obama and Edwards actually are; and that is why they would make better nominees.

Posted by Rhoda | December 17, 2007 10:26 AM

Go Krug-Man!

Posted by RKU | December 17, 2007 10:28 AM

What is Obama's appeal? His GOP language on SS? His absurd attacks on Krugman? His effect on down-ticket? His policy proposals -- all of which are less progressive than Edwards'?

Oprah?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 10:41 AM

Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”

I like Edwards but I hope he keeps in mind that the above is true in the international arena as well. And yes it cuts both ways (how US sees others, and how others see us)

As for Obama, I'm not swayed by his "I am the light" rhetoric but face it, as an African-American he would pay a much higher political price than a white person if he took an angrier more confrontational stance. That may suck, but it's reality. And it also holds to alesser extent for a woman candidate (e.g. HRC)

Posted by Gene | December 17, 2007 10:45 AM

I love Krugman, but I think he picked this fight, not the other way around. (Btw, is it confirmed that Obama did oppo research on Krugman? Last I heard it was not much more than rank speculation by one guy.)

On the bigger point, I like and appreciate Obama's tone as well as his substance. His policies are genuinely progressive and he defends and discusses them like an adult. I'm not sure what is wrong with that.

Posted by Chunche | December 17, 2007 10:51 AM

Can you point out the "oppo" that Obama released on Krugman? I saw the fact check stuff, and that is most certainly not "oppo" in the pejorative sense.

Posted by Anonymous | December 17, 2007 10:52 AM

On the bigger point, I like and appreciate Obama's tone as well as his substance. His policies are genuinely progressive and he defends and discusses them like an adult. I'm not sure what is wrong with that.

The problem (see this thread) is that most voters are not adults.

Posted by goethean | December 17, 2007 10:53 AM

Also, Krugman's column is very reasonable. I expected something a lot more unfair.

Posted by Anonymous | December 17, 2007 10:55 AM

Clearly, none of you know anything about opposition research. Showing that Krugman changed positions on Obama's health care plan isn't mean or nasty, it's a fair assessment of all his writing. If PK accuses a politician of fli-flopping, is he performing opposition research on that candidate?

Please. Krugman has shown a thin skin and an even thinner understanding of politics.

Posted by DC Wolverine | December 17, 2007 10:55 AM

The problem (see this thread) is that most voters are not adults.

Nor are, I might add, political rivals.

You don't try to "reason" with pigs. If anyone thinks that Obama's "adult" defense of his policies is going to help him win elections when the other side is talking about how he's a jihadist sleeper agent, they're dumber than I thought.

Clinton's appeal to me is that she's vindictive enough to root out the damage done by the Bush administration and leave her oppponents too afraid to try to strike back at her. I can't picture anyone being afraid of Obama, and that will prove a huge problem for him.

Posted by Tyro | December 17, 2007 10:59 AM

Ahh yes, the "oppo research" that accurately quotes and describes Krugman's public statements. Krugman's criticisms of Obama's defense of his health care plan were offsides. The whole "right wing talking points" and "attacking from the right" stuff is stalinist (and Cheney-ist) crap. Democrats usually agree that disagreements over policy are not proper grounds for accusations of disloyalty or lack of principle. That said, responding to Krugman in the way that they did was a dumb thing for the Obama campaign to do in the middle of the primary campaign, but it's been massively overblown.

I don't think Krugman's column is a terrible thing for Obama. Krugman all but endorses John Edwards, which is ok. Obviously, it would be better for Obama to have Krugman's support, but the people most likely to be influenced by Krugman would probably be in the Edwards' camp already. What Krugman's column does is highlight the different approach to politics between Edwards and Obama in a very clear way. Primary voters looking for an alternative to Clinton (who is still the default candidate in most of the country) will have to make a decision and Krugman's column will help them do it.

I don't dislike Edwards, but I happen to think Obama is more right than wrong and that you'll be more likely to effect progressive change by convincing moderates than by rallying your base. The pro-Edwards argument is that he'll pick up more swing voters through charm and southern authenticity even though his rhetoric is more strident. Despite what low information voters are saying in national head to head polls, I don't really buy this. But I could be wrong. Are there any head to head polls in Iowa or NH? They would test Edwards' ability to pick up swing voters that are familiar with the 2007 vintage Edwards.

Posted by Led | December 17, 2007 11:03 AM

While I agree that we would better off with Obama than Clinton, you STILL do not understand the critique Krugman offers of Obama and indeed you never have. Many of us have explained since 2005.

You are certainly a bright fellow but your understanding of politics is poor.

And you ascribing Krugman's critique to pique for being attacked is simply contemptible. Still drinking from Sully's cup is my take on your views. Hey, it's fun to offer an ad hominem attack to an argument. I see why you did it.

Posted by Armando | December 17, 2007 11:06 AM

I think Matthew is wrong in suggesting that Obama "attacked" or picked a fight with Krugman. Krugman's language was immature and inappropriate, period. While there are many people who still hold Krugman in high regard, his idiotic rhetoric damages his credibility. He isn't about objectivity, he talks like he is working for the Clinton campaign. I wish ppl would stop whining on his behalf. This oppo research claim is over blown. What I don't get about Krugman is that he NAIVELY is not considering who is most likely to get any legislation passed. Sure as hell isn't Clinton. Republicans will try their hardest to ruin any opportunity she has. Edwards' silly rhetoric (I'll take away Congress' healthcare...) isn't going to get ppl in his side. I like Edwards, but he is a joke. He had one term in the Senate and it was a mess. He has voted along with the "Corporate Republicans" on many occasions. What did he accomplish in his term that he didn't turn around and call a mistake?? Not much. No doubt, he can fight his way into winning millions in court cases (let's not pretend he did it for free or out of his desire to do good, cuz I aint buyin it), but where was his judgment when the time came? How many pieces of legislation did he vote for that effectively made life harder for the middle class people he claims to be fighting for? Doing your stump speech in jeans doesn't negate the fact that this man is worth dozens of millions of dollars. Law firms are full of crooks too, let's be real. He has been fighting to fatten his own pockets, not those of the middle class. I mean this is ridiculous.

Posted by Wake up people!!! | December 17, 2007 11:08 AM

See Obama is the new kind of leader! When he lies about what Krugman said that isn't oppo research, its the new leadership!

Posted by Rob | December 17, 2007 11:12 AM

"Can you point out the "oppo" that Obama released on Krugman?"

The Obama campaign claimed Krugman was in favor of sensible entitlement and healthcare policy back when he was in kindergarten.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 11:12 AM

Krugman didn't change his position on Obama's health care plan. He wrote from the beginning that it had good aspects, but it was incomplete. He hasn't changed that at all.

Posted by Clark | December 17, 2007 11:14 AM

When it first came out, Krug said some nice things about Obama's health care plan. Then, after Edward's and Clinton's came out, he compared them. As Clark said, that is all. He didn't pick a fight -- he pointed out the relative failures in Obama's plan.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 11:22 AM

PS -- I don't know how anyone justifies Obama's talk of a "social security crisis," in the face of a nine-trillion dollar debt and a true crisis in medicare. Krugman or anyone else pointing out that Obama is parroting BS GOP lines is not 'immature' or 'out of line.'

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 11:26 AM

Of course, what isn't discussed is the likelihood that, absent some huge add-on of really liberal House (and maybe a couple Senate) members in 2008, that if *any* of these candidates (Edwards especially) actually attempted to begin revising the Executive Branch to start standing more for citizens' interests than concentrated corporate and warmonger interests, they would face strong opposition from Democrats -- especially the leadership, who would run around to every pundit and radio and TV show and bitch and moan about how 'divisive' and unhelpful the President was being.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 11:31 AM

I actually think Krugman is completely off base here (as well as Edwards). The reality is that you will need to have all parties with a vested interest at the table. For far too long, the people have not had a seat at the table. Insinuating that insurance and pharmaceutical companies, who have a serious dog in this fight, will just sit on the sidelines while Edwards dictates a responsible drug//insurance policy is completely naive. It's essentially the tactic that Hillary Clinton took when she rolled out her healthcare plan (to a Democratic congress no-less) and it was a monumental failure (not because of the purity of the plan, but because of the lack of buy-in from those tasked with implementing it).

For someone who has never had to negotiate with an interested party, I think he should stick to what he's good at (written economics op-eds) and stay away from giving advice regarding political negotiations.

On a related, but different note, what major legislation has Edwards and Clinton co-authored/sponsored during the Senate tenures? I know Obama is the named co-sponsor on a hand full of bills, but I'm in the dark about Clinton and Edwards (It's not an off-handed slam, I'm actually curious). If anyone has any readily available info (even from Edwards or Clinton) I would appreciate it.

Posted by Keith | December 17, 2007 11:33 AM

As usual, Krugmn is spot on. The last thing we need is for a "progressive" candidate to lead us donw the primrose path of comity and bipartisanship. Which, as we have vividly seen this year in the "Democratic controlled" Congress, is another way to get rolled by the Republicans. This language from Obama, aw well as his use of RNC talking pointss on multiple issues, is clearly a calculated strategy. Obama may think this plays with independent voters, but I think he is wrong overall. He knows that it plays with the likes of Broder and Joe Klein (and now we are probably getting closer to Obama's real motivation), and here he is certainly right. But that he appears to be starving for cookies and pats on the head from some of the leading Republican enablers should be troubling to progressive Democrats. It is to me.

Posted by Marlowe | December 17, 2007 11:36 AM

"if *any* of these candidates (Edwards especially) actually attempted to begin revising the Executive Branch to start standing more for citizens' interests than concentrated corporate and warmonger interests, they would face strong opposition from Democrats -- especially the leadership"

You dismiss how running on an outside-the-mainstream platform and winning big with coattails can change the Congressional calculus.

The GOP delegation in Congress during the 70's was pretty similar to the current Democratic delegation in their lack of a backbone.

Then Reagan ran on an outside-the-mainstream platform, won big with coattails, and suddenly the GOP delegation of Congress became Reagan Republicans.

Folks in Washington follow the election results. Democrats have been on the defense for 40 years, so we've forgotten about how this works.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 11:36 AM

I fail to understand the continuous villification of Clinton and glorification of Edwards on liberal blogs. I'm a progressive democrat, leaning towards Obama, although I find Richardson and Dodd appealing as well. No democratic candidate frightens me more than John Edwards, whose protectionist, anti-trade economic proposals would send this country tailspinning into a depression and whose populism comes dangerously close to nativism. We cannot limit trade at a time when our economy is on the brink. The US is not going to strengethen its economy by fighting to get back the manufacturing jobs that have gone overseas. Gone are the days when the US boasted, for instance, huge sewing factories. What will bolster the US economy is innovation. Every new breakthrough, say, in medical or energy technology brings with it a demand for new equipment manufactured here. John Edwards is too smart to think that what will jumpstart the economy is reclaiming 'old-sector' jobs--a move which would send prices for basic goods spiralling through the roof. This leads me to believe that his anti-corporate, popoulist rhetoric is a campaign ploy. I fail to see, Matt, why progressives like you are so enchanted with Edward's dangerous economic proposals.

Posted by Tobie | December 17, 2007 11:37 AM

Tobie is absolutely right.

Before particular agreements like NAFTA were signed, there was no trade, anywhere, the U.S. was an island, and no goods from Mexico came here.

After NAFTA, finally Ford could transfer the manufacture of its own products from the U.S. to Mexico, and ship them into the U.S. with no tariffs and no significant regulations, and economists could claim this as "trade".

I think John Edwards' dangerous vow to pour concrete into our deep water ports and to ban incoming and outgoing cargo flights is the wrong approach to take right now.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 11:42 AM

Though many are automatically siding with Krugman on the web because of his progressive ties, no one has thought about 2 very striking things.
One: When you become a darling of something like the media or blogs, ect., it tends to go to your head sometimes. I think some of this has happen with Krugman who has become a bit ego driven.

Two: Krugman was very much approving of Obama's health care until recently. About the time HRC started attacking Obama on this very issue. Doesn't it strike some as odd as to the timing. Especially concidering how the Clintons are known to manipulate media in order to use as a way to take down their rival, Obama.

I just find it odd that no one bothers to think something happened to start krugman to attacking suddenly to begin with. And because he is progressive should not be a reason to give this strange turn a pass.

Posted by vwcat | December 17, 2007 11:48 AM

What is Obama's appeal?

For me, it's simply that he doesn't have the fatal flaws (Clinton's administrative competence & political savvy without principle, with Edwards being just the opposite in that his ideas are great but he has probably zero chance of implementing them) of the other two, although he could certainly display either's weaknesses once in office. His foreign-policy team is also, as Matt has noted, much more impressive than Clinton's from a progressive standpoint. I don't like the deficiencies in his healthcare plan (note: Clinton's is really just a starting point & I'd expect to see much less than Obama's ultimately enacted) and hate the SS framing... but it would pain me much more to see Clinton give away the policy store, or for Edwards to be beaten down to irrelevance by a Dem Congress because he has so little political capital.

I really wanted Gore-Obama, because it would have been the best possible experience for Obama, but unfortunately that ain't happening.

Posted by latts | December 17, 2007 11:49 AM

Is anyone going to work with Edwards in Washington after he spends two years saying that they are all corrupt, that they need to change, that they are the problem? No one can be Kobe Bryant loose in washington and win all by themselves. People in washington took down Jimmy Carter when he came to town and almost did as much to Clinton before he righted the ship and learned the very tough elbows game there. Sam nunn and colin Powell thought that promises about gays in the military would finish him for good. Instead it was Nunn who left town.

People must be able to work with others and edwards is like Mc Cain and doesn't know how to respect anyone. He won't be able to find a litch switch there.

Posted by Michael | December 17, 2007 11:54 AM

Is anyone going to work with Edwards in Washington after he spends two years saying that they are all corrupt, that they need to change, that they are the problem? No one can be Kobe Bryant loose in washington and win all by themselves. People in washington took down Jimmy Carter when he came to town and almost did as much to Clinton before he righted the ship and learned the very tough elbows game there. Sam nunn and colin Powell thought that promises about gays in the military would finish him for good. Instead it was Nunn who left town.

People must be able to work with others and edwards is like Mc Cain and doesn't know how to respect anyone. He won't be able to find a light switch there.

Posted by Michael | December 17, 2007 11:54 AM

"People in washington took down Jimmy Carter when he came to town"

Carter didn't run on anything other than personality.

There is immense value in running on a definite platform outside the mainstream and winning big with coattails. Suddenly, your ideas start to seem mainstream to those inside Washington.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 12:00 PM

First, as some have already commented, I fail to see how comparing one op-ed to another constitutes "oppo-research."

The Obama campaign felt that Dr. Krugman's tone (again, NOT substance) of his criticism of Obama (and his health care policy) had changed; so they wrote up an on-line document highlighting and comparing those portions of his op-eds that best demonstrated this change in tone.

And remember, this was not long after Dr. Krugman wrote an op-ed ripping into Obama (unfairly in my opinion) for his statements on social security, in which Dr. Krugman referred to Obama as a "sucker."

Can you really blame Obama and his people from wanting to point out that Dr. Krugman's op-eds were changing in tone, reflecting less objective analysis and more personal-type attacks (and condensation)?

And finally, I think what Dr. Krugman's column today indicates more than anything is his extremely thin skin and fragile (though large) ego. (And I say this as someone who has greatly admired Dr. Krugman's writing in the past.)

To say that Obama is the anti-change candidate is just silly and not supported by any evidence; especially if one looks at Obama's policy proposals and (even more importantly) his history of actually getting progressive health care legislation past in Illinois, something that Mr. Edwards, for whom I have respect, cannot also claim.

Again, Dr. Krugman writes this column today completely ignoring Obama commitment to and history of furthering progressive causes throughout his life, including his accomplishments as a legislator.

It is clear that Dr. Krugman has written an op-ed based on, what Matthew rightly refers to, a desire for payback, rather than on reason or best-available evidence.

And as one of the most influential columnists in the country, I am having trouble thinking what could be more irresponsible (and immature).

Posted by Aaron M | December 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Wow, Keith, I don't know what country you are living in. Negotiating with all interested parties? Yeah, negotiating with the Republicans works really well. "Can't we all just get along" has allowed them to destroy the country.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 12:02 PM

My friend Aaron writes:

"It is clear that Dr. Krugman has written an op-ed based on, what Matthew rightly refers to, a desire for payback, rather than on reason or best-available evidence."

It is clear to those who have not been reading him, have no familiarity with his most recent book and are intent on believing that.

Matt Yglesias joins Aaron in this description. As for the rest of us who have written similar things, the ad hom attack will have to be directed at something else, as none of us captured Obama's notice.

Posted by Armando | December 17, 2007 12:04 PM

Instead of taking Krugman's words as the honest truth, why don't some of you do a bit of research on your own??? Too much to ask for?? Damn...

1) Obama does not consider SS to be in crisis. He has said as much MANY times. He does think that it would be best served by dealing with the issue now, so that benefits aren't negatively affected.

2) Clark, Obama does address medicare, which he has said is in crisis. And what about the nine-trillion dollar debt?? Its the war that throwing our debt into the gutter. He addresses this as well, but does that mean we can't also address SS? Your logic confuses me.

3) Marlowe and Clark, what Republican talking points are you talking about? Just the ones claimed by Krugman?? Honestly? What about Clinton's attempt to attack Barack's proposed solution to SS by calling it a "trillion dollar tax increase"? What about Clinton's hawkish voting record? What about her camp's attempt to smear Obama in the manner one would expect from a Republican?

4) Though I didn't agree with the Obama camp's response to Krugman, we need to note that indeed his tone did change. At one point he called it smart, but incomplete, now he just about likens it to dog poo. I mean... really? He's missing the point. Neither Edwards or Clinton will get that mandated nonsense to pass in the Senate. And that is clear to everyone but Krugman. I think Krugman's the bigger fool for expecting Obama to bow down to him.

And is health care policy even his specialty? I suggest he get back to the things he really knows.

Posted by Uzoma | December 17, 2007 12:13 PM

I think Krugman forgot the inevitable epitaph on Bob Shrum's tombstone:

Populism: It's just never been given a fair chance!

Posted by Philly | December 17, 2007 12:27 PM

i don't get it.
krugman writes a column that is very straight-forward and, i think, logical and all of a sudden he is letting a need for revenge to irrationally skew his work?
yes, he continues to criticize obama, but i've seen nothing in his criticism of obama - over the last few months - that is anything but grounded in fact.
i think what the negative reader responses reveal is that many have bought into the obama camp's spin that he is a "change" candidate.
on the contrary, i think every indication is that he is going to, as krugman writes, essentially and ultimately capitulate to the kind of interests that hold so much power now.
the delicious irony of the entire primary race is that obama is more bill clinton than hillary. obama is truly clinton's heir, in terms of policy and approach and temperament. if obama wins, and assumes the presidency, i think you can expect to see the same type of withering compromises of the progressive agenda that infuriated progressives during clinton's years.
obama is essentially acknowledging that he will take that approach even now.
and to go maureen dowd on bambi and put him on the couch, i think that obama has much in him that is similar to clinton: that need to get along and make everyone feel good by finding that safe spot in the middle. just like clinton, as the son an alcoholic parent, tended to crave the affirmation of everyone, even his enemies, obama, as a biracial kid, always needed to placate both spheres he traveled in. he had to fit in with the white kids and he had to be true enough to his black heritage and skin to fit in with the bros and make certain they didnt beat him up.
i always thought that obvious tendency was an act; now i think that he is, as clinton was, simply made that way.
its a huge plus to have as a politician, but as an executive actually running the country, i think it will impact very negatively on the kind of agenda most progressives would prefer.
if you, as a progressive, thought that clinton often gave away the house - nafta, the telecommunications act, welfare reform, etc - wait till you see how obama reacts when faced with the kind of steel walls the opposition will throw up there.
again, the irony is that hillary is probably much less likely to follow in her husband's footsteps, in that sense.
while i have huge concerns about her policies, i do think that, temperamentally, she is much more inclined to pick and win a fight - as edwards is - than obama.
in a way, i think krugman is getting at that point. and i think he is absolutely correct.

Posted by frankie d | December 17, 2007 12:38 PM

I'm with Chunche (12/17, 10:51) on this one. For one who's been a huge fan of Krugman for a long time, the past several months have been trying. Krugman has been sounding a little burned out and yes, I think he picked this fight, without question. But in terms of substance, Krugman has tended (as have most of us) to see the health care dilemma as largely rotten at the top. But increasing acquaintance with the issue (we all get old,more reliant on the system eventually!)has shown me that it's riddled with problems all the way through, right down to the patients/consumers themselves. The FDA, Merck and Humana are only tips of the iceberg.

A supporter of Obama and a fan and supporter of Edwards, too, my vote still goes to Obama because of his wider experience, his great intelligence, the respect felt for him across the political spectrum, and his ability to lead without giving in to slash-and-burn frustration. Unlike so many of us, darn it, Barack Obama is a grown-up!

Posted by PW | December 17, 2007 12:42 PM

Wow, Keith, I don't know what country you are living in. Negotiating with all interested parties? Yeah, negotiating with the Republicans works really well. "Can't we all just get along" has allowed them to destroy the country.

Contrasting the success of Hillary's my-way-or-the-highway approach to health care a decade ago with Obama's track record of successfully bringing moderate Republicans on board strong progressive bills, I'll take the negotiating table any day.

The reality is that most of the voting public tends to favor liberal policies on many issues. The reason none of those preferences get transformed into policy is that the public dialog has been so thoroughly poisoned and Republicans have simply proven to be more effective a bitterly divisive politics than Democrats. I don't see John Edwards changing that. To the extent that Democrats can move past that sort of politics to substantive dialog, that's a win for our side. Piercing the veil of bullshit to get to substantive policy has been the strength of Barack Obama's political career, and its the strength of his current candidacy. Sitting down at the negotiating table does not mean conceding ground, it means taking the game to a playing field where liberals hold a home field advantage.

Posted by J.B. | December 17, 2007 12:56 PM

I don't really understand the hyperventilating over Obama's very mild response to repeated criticisms by Krugman. At least he didn't suggest he was a drug dealer.

Obama's health care plan is the weakest of the three, but really, do we elect presidents to write legislation now? I thought we elected them to run the executive branch, and act as the leader of the party.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 12:58 PM

Krugman is politically naive.

I respect his economics expertise. But his increasingly desperate and petty ad-hominem attacks on Obama begin to reek of a fragile ego damaged by the audacity (uppitiness?) of Obama’s pointed response (which he falsely characterized as a "personal attack") to his earlier criticism of his health care policy. Evidently, his sense of his own popularity has gone to his head. ("They really like me!" Egotistically, that's how he put it in his blog.)

Writing from his comfortable academic armchair, the all-seeing and all-knowing Krugman now accuses Obama of being "naïve", "unrealistic", "living in a fantasy world" for thinking that, as president, he "can achieve real change without bitter confrontation." Worse, Krugman claims, "he has in effect become the anti-change candidate." And then, with his powerful mind-reading skills, Krugman is able to discover that Obama fails to "appreciate the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president."

In response to this bilious attack, I would venture to say simply that, with all his years of fighting in the political arena for progressive causes and winning, Obama has a much deeper and wiser understanding of the political environment than Krugman could ever have in the cloisters of academia. And it has certainly taken him very far so far and may yet take him into the White House.

In the meantime, perhaps Krugman in his wisdom can begin to tell us exactly how he proposes to "achieve real change with bitter confrontation."

Posted by zebra001 | December 17, 2007 1:05 PM

It is so obvious that Krugman is doing nothing but knocking Obama in support of HRClinton. Does anyone think it is a coincident that Krugman frames the issues and uses the same talking points as HRClinton? C'mon people. When Hillary's poll numbers began to drop Krugmans entire tone of op-ed's towards her Obama became much more aggressive and attacking in tone.

Bill goes on the Rose show calls Hillary the agent of change and now today Krugman is talking about how Obama is the 'anti-change' agent? How much more obvious can that be. Bill's switched the strategy to Hillary wresting the mantle of change from Obama and Krugman is firmly in their camp and all to happy to jump on that bandwagon.

Krugman's path to this point is very clear. He was low key as long as HRClinton poll numbers were high. He may have had points of disagreement with Obama's health plan but as long as Hill was up in the poll. He felt no need to attack Obama. Same goes with his SS attack, it was at that point that Obama's numbers were beginning to rise. So Krugman sought to stop that rise by making an issue out of the word 'crisis'. Despite everyone agreeing there is a shortfall in SS and the only point of disagreement is when? Not if. But Krugman started in on Obama. Then Hill's numbers continued to drop and her pathetic attacks on Obama were not working, and so Krugman comes out attacking harder with the same talking points as Hillary on the Healthcare plan, claiming it was not universal if it did not have mandates.

Then when Obama writes in response, Krugman ratchets up the animus towards Obama only now, just like Bill Clinton he is attacking Obma's character.

Folks, this is about Obama's poll numbers and the very real possibility, that despite Hillary being the 'one to beat' and touted as the one with the 'strenght and toughness' to beat the GOP and the one who is so well 'vetted/tested' ...Hill is being beat by a rookie who is brand new on the national scene despite the power and money of the Clinton machine.

Krugman needs to shut his trap because for all his economic expertise he is totally lacking when it comes to what is political the best way to achieve affordable coverage for the majority of Americans. One of the key things that should tell him this is that he is agreeing with HRClinton who has no clue how to do anything politically!! She is a failure when it comes to passing or enacting legislation as she lacks the leadership and political skills to actually accomplish anything. Bill is the politican not Hillary. Hillary is nothing but a brawler and fighter who is so uncompromising that she let's the perfect destroy real change as it is not going her way. Hillary may be an 'agent' for change but she has not ever actually produced changed. She is a failure at everything she touches political. Even campaigning. She has had all the advantages yet instill Barack is kicking her butt.

Krugman needs to stick to economics and leave the politics to those who know it.

If Obama is 'anti-change' Hillary is unequivocably Change for the sake of change, just like her new campaign message...change is a slogan for Hillary...she represents NO CHANGE EVER.

Posted by vicissitude | December 17, 2007 1:09 PM

Well, the commentary to this post is really, really, depressing. Are there still people out there too stupid to recognize how blatantly Obama lied about 1) the effects of health insurance mandates and 2) what Krugman had to say about Obama's health care policies? Is there a single honest and nonretarded Obama supporter out there, a supporter willing to admit that Obama plainly and obviously lied?

The spiteful denial of reality coming out of Obama and everyone even vaguely associated with him these past couple of weeks is immensely discouraging. Pandering to the idiot vote with mind-numbingly obvious lies that insult the intelligence of every American is a very Republican thing to do.

Obama royally fucked up and can't admit it. He lies about it. His supporters lie about it. He and they claim any disagreement with him is in bad faith despite the fact that he's lying more obviously than Alberto Gonzales did when testifying in front of Congress. If he's the Democratic nominee I'll vote third party or perhaps even Republican for the first time in my life--presuming Giuliani's long gone by then--because this country does not need four more years of George W. Bush, and if we're going to get it it may as well be from a real Republican, not a fake Democrat.

Whatever policies Obama might support, he talks and reasons like the Shrub, and he treats the press and the public like the Shrub, and that's unforgivable and completely unpalatable in an American President.

Posted by R Johnston | December 17, 2007 1:10 PM

how to achieve real change with bitter confrontation?
i think george bush has provided a pretty good lesson on how to achieve that end.
he's achieved, as anyone would admit, real change. there has been bitter opposition.
he's still gotten his agenda through.
now, while i would certainly NOT recommend that a democratic president follow the bush playbook entirely, i do think that he has shown that discipline, resolve and the willingness to pick a fight - and the will to win it - will go a long way.
like krugman, i doubt that obama has that ability. or willingness.

Posted by frankie d | December 17, 2007 1:13 PM

Then Reagan ran on an outside-the-mainstream platform, won big with coattails, and suddenly the GOP delegation of Congress became Reagan Republicans.

Running on an outside-the-mainstream platform is neither necessary nor sufficient. The point is to win big with coattails. Edwards' populist rhetoric turns off some people within the Democratic party. How is it going to get him a landslide general election victory? I want to see something other than national head to head polls of people many of whom haven't yet paid attention to what Edwards is now saying.

Posted by Led | December 17, 2007 1:16 PM

"Well, the commentary to this post is really, really, depressing. Are there still people out there too stupid to recognize how blatantly Obama lied about 1) the effects of health insurance mandates and 2) what Krugman had to say about Obama's health care policies? Is there a single honest and nonretarded Obama supporter out there, a supporter willing to admit that Obama plainly and obviously lied?"

Y'know, I agree with this entirely, and I'd still vote for Obama over Clinton.

But Edwards is the obvious choice, of course. Let's hope the good Democrats of Iowa do the right thing.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 1:18 PM

"Edwards' populist rhetoric turns off some people within the Democratic party. How is it going to get him a landslide general election victory? I want to see something other than national head to head polls of people many of whom haven't yet paid attention to what Edwards is now saying."

Edwards is tapping into some of the same populist energy that Huckabee is tapping into on the other side of the aisle.

Add some Perot voters to the Democratic coalition, and you get to a big win pretty damn easily.

If you don't see this, and don't want to accept what the polling has been saying all year, you'll just have to wait 10 months to watch it play out.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 1:22 PM

I think there's a tendency in the blogosphere to forget that lots of Democrats and independents really don't like calling Republicans and conservatives raving lunatics, evil, etc. They may want change, but a large number of people don't want someone who will call Republicans (and by extension, their neighbors and family members) evil. They want someone who will bring about policy change without offending conservatives overly. Obama seems to be able to do that.

Posted by Joe | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

R Johnston wrote:

"Well, the commentary to this post is really, really, depressing. Are there still people out there too stupid to recognize how blatantly Obama lied about 1) the effects of health insurance mandates and 2) what Krugman had to say about Obama's health care policies? Is there a single honest and nonretarded Obama supporter out there, a supporter willing to admit that Obama plainly and obviously lied?"

I have from time to time (over the past couple of years) joined in on the often spirited debates that have unfolded in the comment thread's on Matt's blog (and others'); however, I've never felt the need to lash out at those with whom I disagree by calling them names or attacking their intelligence (or character). Number one, because I find such behavior to be childish, and two, because it does nothing to support or further the point (or points) I am trying to make.

Having said that, I'd like to point out that I quite sure that I'm not "too stupid" or "retarded," nor do I (or would I ever) make what I believed to be a dishonest point in order to simply support or defend the candidate of my choice.

First I'd like to point out that there does exist a real debate among health policy experts and economists regarding the true impact that mandates would have when implemented on a national level- i.e. how many people would be able to afford them, how it would be enforced, how many people really would be left uninsured. The only true way to make sure every single American has insurance is to implement a single payer system. These points do not represent lies, rather simply a different point of view- even if there are those (including those who have commented above) who vehemently disagree with this point of view.

Finally, and I have made this point on several different occasions in different comment threads on this blog, I understand Dr. Krugman's position on mandates and that he supports them and has been disappointed that Obama's plan does not. However, what changed between his first op-ed and his second on Obama's health care plan was his TONE, NOT the substance of his criticisms.

Dr. Krugman has clearly made up his mind that Obama's decision to not be as RHETORICALLY progressive as Edwards, or his decision to even raise the issue of Social Security, or defend his own health care policy proposal- indicates that Obama is either insufficiently progressive or willing to adopt Right-wing talking points. I believe that these conclusions are both inaccurate and misguided.

Obama has demonstrated throughout his legislative history that he can get progressive legislation past, and promote and further those who do not share his interests or objectives; however, when the time comes, Obama has demonstrated that he does not compromise his core progressive values (or key progressive policy objectives). Krugman either refuses to acknowledge this or simply does not see or understand this.

It is fine if a person prefers to hear the more aggressive attacks on insurance companies and other big corporations and choose to support the person that SOUNDS like the more progressive candidate (though it should be noted that Obama HAS been very critical of them as well, just not as frequently or perhaps as ferociously as Edwards has); however to label Obama as the "anti-change" candidate based on his less aggressive campaign rhetoric, I believe is both short-sighted and irresponsible (again, particularly given what Obama has accomplished for progressive causes throughout his life).

Posted by Aaron M | December 17, 2007 2:30 PM

If, as Yglesias argues, Krugman’s latest vitriolic attack against Obama is to be properly viewed as “payback”, then the important question that must be asked is: what does this say about the credibility of Krugman himself as a supposedly serious political analyst? That he would stoop to this level of pettiness speaking from the high chair of a column in the venerable NYT, all in search of “revenge”? A behavior that Yglesias finds to be “understandable”?

Think about it, folks!

And, then, consider how all of this personal animus and vengefulness plays out later when Krugman has to deal, as he undoubtedly will, with Obama as President of the United States? Is Krugman now setting the stage for another eight years of columns in the NYT that will win him kudos and popularity for what will then become his “right wing talking points” (the stock phrase that he’s been throwing at Obama)?

I’ve worked in academia long enough to recognize how these little skirmishes, initiated as they did in this case by Krugman’s own stone-throwing, can result in bruised egos and personal animus that carry over into a personal vendetta waged over an entire lifetime. It is a sight to behold, how high the stakes can become in these petty turf battles. And Krugman has proved himself a learned hand in this environment. It’s a pity he couldn’t have brought with him a greater sense of balance and maturity to the political arena.

Posted by Justin X | December 17, 2007 3:06 PM

Krugman is arrogant and thin-skinned blowhard whose fame is driven by the illiteracy and innumeracy of shrieking narcissistic bloggers on the left who need some credentialted validation. Obama never went against Krugman; all his campaign did was to point out (to the nubskulls who worship Krugman) that Krugman was not strongly against Obama's health-plan although the one op-ed piece he wrote may suggest that to a Krugman-worshipper with no indepedent judgment.
About what populist wave is Krugman talking? That the Democrats won 51% of the vote, beating such strong GOP candidates as the married man who tried to strangle his mistress aand the woman who replaced DeLay but whose name was not on the ballot, and have done precisely nothing (yes yes, minimum wage) since taking power?
Notice that Obama is not saying he will do whatever the insurance companies tell him to do. He only means that insurance companies know quite a bit about insurance and that their input is necessary to design and enact the best plan. Paul Krugman thinks Paul Krugman has figured out all problems with the American health care system and does not need to talk to anybody about it once his party has won the election.
Edwards' plan is probably better than Obama's, but it is shrill (That's right. I went there) to attack O's approach because it suggests that a large number of constituencies have something productive to add and that practical knowledge and political progress are best when they come from many sources.

Posted by Moral Panicker | December 17, 2007 3:14 PM

My apologies for all of the grammatical mistakes made in my previous post (".....that he can get legislation PASSED." Not “PAST” - ugh).

I clearly should have taken more time to edit what I was writing before clicking Post.

Posted by Aaron M | December 17, 2007 3:24 PM

Edwards is tapping into some of the same populist energy that Huckabee is tapping into on the other side of the aisle.

Edwards is tapping into nothing. There's not one poll that shows him winning in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Unless he totally turns his campaign around and scores a huge upset in Iowa, he's not even in this conversation.

And that's just as well. We don't need another white Southerner, we don't need a blame-the-victim individual health care mandate, and we certainly do not under ANY circumstances need a person who was evil enough to send 3,800 brave American servicemembers to their deaths in Iraq.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 17, 2007 3:40 PM

Here's the good news for Obama. The general populace doesn't give a rat's bee-hind what Krugman thinks. Period.

Posted by krugo | December 17, 2007 4:06 PM

Krugman has revealed himself to be incredibly thin-skinned. The "oppo" that Obama released was entirely composed of Krugman's old writings repeated back to him with dates, juxtaposed with his current line of argument. A writer getting his writing quoted back to him - that's the attack? Suck it up Krugman.

Posted by joejoejoe | December 17, 2007 4:30 PM

In doing the Clinton's bidding by attacking Obama, Krugman has, perhaps inadvertently, identified the essential question in deciding between Mamma and Obama: Is it more important (in this election at least) to be able to fight or to able to inspire?

Having been saddled with two candidates in a row who seemed incapable of (or, more infuriatingly, unwilling to) fight back while being insulted and bitch-slapped (by the cowardly bully types who, if confronted, would no doubt go running home crying for mommy, no less), it's a real concern. Tyro, above, summed it up well.

It is unsurprising that Krugman champions the Clinton machine's ability to give as good as it gets (or, in the words of a Carville-Penn op-ed awhile back, "no Clinton campaign will get swift-boated"), since Krugman himself is about the weakest, most mealy-mouthed pundit any of us has ever seen, anywhere. The first time I saw him on whatever show it was, I was eager to see him debate whomever they had paired him with. When talking time came, however, it was painful to watch Krugman stammering and getting his ass handed to him, rhetorically speaking, kinda like seeing the man behind the curtain in the "Wizard of Oz" turn out to be Peter Pettigrew. I could not believe that the man whose fighting words in the NYT inspired me to stand up to the meanies was the same nebbishy guy I saw on TV unable to look his opposition in the eye, and whose verbal retorts never got far beyond the "i know you are but what am i" variety. No doubt Krugman values the ability to stand toe to toe and verbally spar, getting close, pointing fingers and spewing spittle if necessary.

Perhaps Krug sees himself in Obama, and doesn't like it. Perhaps he's just been offered a job by the Clintons. And he's right, it's important to wear a cup when fighting republics (or not to need one, as the case may be).

But the bottom line for most if not all Obama supporters, whether consciously or not, is that they prefer hope over fear.

Whoever the dem candidate is, he or she will be slimed by the republics. That much is for certain. If it's Hillary, she'll fight back, no doubt, but as we've seen in Iowa, she just becomes more unlikeable when she gets nasty. Bill, she ain't.

If it's Obama, he may fight back, and he may not.
My impression of the guy is that he's got a mean streak that could serve him well, if need be, but that he's got a very long fuse. On more than one occasion during this campaign I've thought, "okay, now is the time to spank (whomever)," but after watching things play out, his patience turned out to be the better move. Indeed, the very fact that he is peaking j u s t . . . a b o u t . . . N O W ! tells you that his timing is better than yours, and that his campaign has chosen its battles wisely and well. In other words, his instincts to favor hope over fear and reconciliation over conflict have led him from behind to ahead.

Number two, we don't know that the dirty tricks such as those perfected by the thugs (and the Clintons) over the past 12 or 20 years will still work. Indeed, given the backlash to the remarks of the latest Clinton plant, Shaheen, it would appear that democrats, at least, aren't buying that crap anymore, at least when it's as transparently, clumsily underhanded as the Shaheen remark was.

After 8 years of sliming the clintons and 8 years of sliming anybody else who disagrees with the current administration, it should surprise no one that the american people have become sophisticated consumers of slimeball tactics, such that we're just not biting at the amateurish stuff anymore. If Star Wars were released today, the special effects would wow no one. Same goes for political sliming -- if you want to slime somebody effectively, you're going to have to do better than digging up stuff from the man's own book.

And who knows, it's entirely possible that the electorate won't tolerate the stuff anymore, even in the general, having been inoculated against the slimings of the past sixteen (or 33 ) years. Even on the republic side, ole Huck's ascent can be traced directly to his non-mean response to an immigration question (not that he hasn't repented since). Either way, for some of us, the hope of something better trumps the promise of more of the same. Hillary and Bill(and Rahm and Harry and Nancy) just aren't different enough from what we have now. So we push for something more different, which in turn means we aren't buying Paul's crap, cuz we know where it's from and we've tasted it already, and it's not good enough. Sorry, Paul.

Posted by ched | December 17, 2007 4:51 PM

"Neither Edwards or Clinton will get that mandated nonsense to pass in the Senate. And that is clear to everyone but Krugman."

Speak for yourself. If Edwards is elected, he will have a political mandate to pass his health care plan, and I think the odds are good that he will succeed. The same goes for Clinton, although she would be in a slightly weaker position because she has specified her plan in less detail. You are free to express a different opinion, but please don't pretend that everyone except Krugman agrees with you.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 17, 2007 5:56 PM

"I think the odds are good that he will succeed"

I'll leave you to believe that. But I think it's clearly a pipe dream. I don't know that all Democrats want comprehensive health care mandates and we know Repubs aren't buying it. His presidency will be just as messy as his Senate days. I'm over him. He wasn't about universal health care, or fair trade deals, or saving the middle class when he was in the Senate. Now he is?? Right.

Posted by Uzoma | December 17, 2007 8:06 PM

I think we may be overestimating the importance of "Paul Krugman" to this election. Some of the candidates actually dedicate their lives to public service and get into the arena where they have to take their knocks. "Paul Krugman," "David Brooks," (of the act "Shields & Brooks"), "Keith Olbermann" (of "O'Reilly v. Olbermann") et al are a different kind of actor, the kind in the entertainment business. Commentary is how they make their living, and they have to have a brand (Paul Krugman was a legitimate academic, but "Paul Krugman" is a "tough progressive"). If any of them gets to taking themselves too seriously (e.g.,giving or taking offense as a combatant) they should probably move on from infotainment organizations like the NYT and Time, and join the unacknowledged legislators of mankind at The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, those incubators of ideas that have shown us what can happen when our journalistic intellegentsia really get a chance to formulate policy.

Posted by Lyle Sparks | December 17, 2007 9:49 PM

I tend to agree with the pro-mandate crowd on the policy merits. But all this moaning and groaning about Obama's supposedly picking a fight with Krugman strikes me as pretty absurd.

The reality is that Krugman picked a fight by accusing a genuinely progressive politician with a genuinely progressive health care plan of adopting right wing talking points, talking like Rudy Giuliani, and taking "cheap shots" just because he had a disagreement on the merits. Obama's plan is somewhere around Bill Bradley's 2000 plan, which was the *bold* alternative (to the proposals of current netroots darling Al Gore). Krugman's dialing up the Republican Lite demagoguery by accusing Obama of "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform" is just idiotic.

It's also worth noting that every single one of Krugman's rebuttals to Obama's argument was terribly weak on the merits. (And I'm actually pro-mandates!).

Consider Krugman's three response points:

(1) First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.

Obama's claim is comparative - that he does *more* to control costs than his opponents. Krugman doesn't even pretend to respond, stating simply that they all contain impressive cost control measures.

(2) Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?

Huh?? His point, quite obviously, is that a mandate doesn't result in universal coverage, which is what Clinton and Edwards are claiming. And that's what Krugman is implying when he says that Obama doesn't have a universal health care plan, but the others do. Was Krugman even paying attention to the debate that he was responding to?

(3) Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.” . . .
Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.

But the critique is not that you're penalized for not having insurance, it's that you're penalized for not *paying* for it. (After all, if people aren't paying for it, then the "free rider" problem that Krugman says mandates are meant to avoid persists.) Edwards may auto-enroll people, but if they don't pay their premiums, he absolutely would penalize them through wage garnishment.

In short, Krugman offered a weak substantive critique of a single flaw in an otherwise strong and progressive health care reform plan and lavished it up with the kind of rhetorical attacks that one evidently needs to specialize in to get a job pretending writing 500-word opinion columns on every topic under the sun. And yet he's the victim. Go figure.

Posted by RS | December 18, 2007 1:04 AM

You can argue about the Obama campaign`s response to Krugman on their website, but there`s no doubt that someone is doing serious oppo on the man, which Krugman directly addressed
here. I don't know the origins of this, but I somehow doubt that "drstrangelove" is a disinterested member of the general public.

Posted by phensley | December 18, 2007 5:10 AM

Repeating Republican talking points about Social Security makes me think Krugman is spot on. I would be able to dismiss Obama's words in an election campaign as mere talking to the center if he hadn't screwed up on Soc. Sec. Also, the "research", whether oppo or not, was profoundly dishonest in lifting a quote out of context. I want to see some evidence that Obama understands the mess he would inherit and how he would have to fight, not meet people halfway, to undo part of the damage of the last seven years.

Posted by Lee Hartmann | December 18, 2007 3:08 PM