Obama and the Economy

It's not really much of a surprise at this point that Paul Krugman deemed Barack Obama's economy speech inadequate, but it is worth pointing out that Krugman's take on this is a little idiosyncratic within the larger world of liberal economics specialists. The speech I read was definitely a critique-from-the-left of the Clinton administration record, accusing them of going too far in joining with the GOP to gut the regulatory apparatus that's necessary to make American capitalism work.

Which is all by way of throat-clearing to introduce Bob Kuttner's column on the subject; Bob was a populist before it was cool, and hasn't been hesitant to slam Obama in the past, but he loved the speech.

UPDATE: Jared Bernstein also stepsto Obama's defense.

Comments

There was a time- a very recent time- when no well-known pundit had more credibility with progressives than Krugman. Too bad he pissed it all away for the totally unworthy sake of Hillary Clinton. What a waste.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 28, 2008 2:55 PM

I was a bit puzzled by that Krugman column as well, although one could separate it into two different sections, one establishing that electoral campaign policy promises heavily predicts actions once in office, and a second establishing Krugman's view of the 3 speeches / approaches. I didn't find Krugman too strongly convincing either on the positives of Clinton's approach nor on the negatives of Obama's approach -- I found them both mildly positive given the typical genuflections made by Democrats toward market fundamentalism; but then, I'd do much more than either of them.

Posted by El Cid | March 28, 2008 2:55 PM

Yeah. Neither speech was that great, but they were both better than Bill Clinton.

They made me miss John Edwards.

Posted by DivGuy | March 28, 2008 2:58 PM

Krugman should simply cease talking about the primary. Or he should disclose how much money, exactly, Clinton gave him to go around making himself look 5 kinds of silly defending her indefensible campaign. He is fine writing about other things, but as soon as the name 'Obama' comes up, he loses all objectivity and acts like an angry kid.

Posted by onceler | March 28, 2008 2:59 PM

Kuttner and Krugman seem to be talking past each other. Kuttner is right that Obama's diagnosis of the causes of the crisis are much better and more progressive, in a reform progressive kinda way. But, his prescription for the current crisis is, in fact, much more timid.

Krugman seems to be very concerned with the possibilities of this crunch turning into a once in forty year type of recession. So it's legitimate for him to focus on the immediate crisis aspects of the speeches. Then again, Clinton isn't going to win, so comparing Obama and McCain only is probably the most useful comparison.

Posted by AJ | March 28, 2008 3:01 PM

Hey Matt -- how 'bout Obama and Wright again. How 'bout Wright's assertion that Israel created an "ethnic bomb" to kill Arabs...http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2185/2361640904_f78427e96d.jpg

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:08 PM

Krugman: "True, Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion that she might convene a high-level commission, including Alan Greenspan — who bears a lot of responsibility for this crisis — had echoes of the excessively comfortable relationship her husband’s administration developed with the investment industry."

---------
Krugman's not a REAL liberal -- he merely plays one for the New York Times. Like many other Times reporters/columnists.

I recall Krugman making a lot of sound and fury on Bush's tax cuts --but sound and fury devoid of much substance. Krugman was strangly reluctant to tell US voters that Bush would be stealing $Trillions from Social Security and Medicare to pay for the tax cuts -- although the tables in the back of Bush's budget made that clear even in 2001.

Similarly, Krugman tiptoes around mentioning here that "Progressive" Bill Clinton's "excessively
comfortable relationship" with the investment industry including signing ..er..under cover of darkness .. Republican Phil Gramm's "deregulation" bill of December 2000. Which bill caused much of the opaque derivatives mess that is dragging our economy into the abyss.

And, of course, Krugman doesn't mention that the REAL WINDOW we need -- into just how "excessively comfortable" the Clintons' were with Wall Street -- is for Hillary to release their tax returns for 2000-2007. Something Hillary has been stonewalling on for almost a year.

Maybe she's uncomfortable revealing the source of that $5 Million she had to dump into her campaign.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 3:09 PM

"... Israel created an "ethnic bomb" to kill Arabs..."

BA,

If those words didn't fall from the mouth of Obama, then who cares.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 3:15 PM

Krugman seems to have hung his hat on the "Clinton's health care proposals are better than Obama's" hook, which appears to be influencing all of his decisions wrt the Dem primary.

I realize everyone is subject to bias, but he's just getting weird.

Posted by Monty | March 28, 2008 3:16 PM

Obama's camp needs to offer an olive branch to Krugman. Heck, Obama should meet personally with him to try and assuage the Shrill One. We need this to end now.

My muddy memory is that this sniping started a few months back when somebody from the Obama camp dared to rebut or criticize something that Krugman said. Is that true. Does anyone have a more accurate account of how this feud began?

Posted by Bragan | March 28, 2008 3:19 PM

Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in Sunday Times (London) November 15, 1998, Sunday

HEADLINE: Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in

BYLINE: Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin

BODY:
ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks.

...

In developing their "ethno-bomb", Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying genes carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus.

The intention is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside their host's living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.

The programme is based at the biological institute in Nes Tziyona, the main research facility for Israel's clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

A scientist there said the task was hugely complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." The disease could be spread by spraying the organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies.

The research mirrors biological studies conducted by South African scientists during the apartheid era and revealed in testimony before the truth commission.

The idea of a Jewish state conducting such research has provoked outrage in some quarters because of parallels with the genetic experiments of Dr Josef Mengele, the Nazi scientist at Auschwitz.

Dedi Zucker, a member of knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research yesterday. "Morally, based on our history and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied," he said.

Some experts said that although the concept of an ethnically targeted weapon was feasible, the practical aspects were enormous.

Dr Daan Goosen, head of a South African chemical and biological warfare plant, said his team was ordered in the 1980s to develop a "pigmenta tion weapon" to target only black people. He said the team discussed spreading a disease in beer, maize or even vaccinations but never managed to develop one.

However, a confidential Pentagon report warned last year that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce new lethal weapons. William Cohen, the American defence secretary, revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create "certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific". A senior western intelligence source confirmed last week that Israel was one of the countries Cohen had in mind.

The "ethno-bomb" claims have been given further credence in Foreign Report, a Jane's publication that monitors security and defence. It reports unnamed South African sources as saying Israeli scientists have used some of the South African research in trying to develop an "ethnic bullet" against Arabs.

It also says Israelis discovered aspects of the Arab genetic make-up by researching on "Jews of Arab origin, especially Iraqis".

The British Medical Association has become so concerned about the lethal potential of genetically based biological weapons that it has opened an investigation which is due to report in January.

Posted by The Truth | March 28, 2008 3:22 PM

This column's not so bad, really.

If Krugman thinks Obama's plan is too timid and wants to push him on it, I have no problem with that. I think it's fine for progressive pundits to push politicians to offer more progressive policies.

This reminds me more of Krugman's early, rather than late, criticism of Obama's health plan. He noted that the lack of a mandate was a deficiency (arguable, but not unreasonable) and left it at that. Where he went off the rails was when he got carried away criticizing the politics of it. His overall point (that Obama shouldn't be campaigning *against* universality) was sound, but he just lost his head over it and became obnoxious and counterproductive.

A lot of it is just sound and fury though. Who knows what things will look like 10 months from now? Unlike Bush, I'm sure neither Obama or Clinton will keep pushing the same plans regardless of reality. So it comes down to who you think will make the best decisions when they actually are faced with the crisis.

I am disappointed, though, that he just glances at the one issue here that most clearly distinguishes the two -- that Clinton's first reaction in approaching a problem is to get the people who fucked things up in the first place (Greenspan in this case) back in charge to "fix" things, while Obama wants to bring new people and fresh ideas in.

THAT to me is the defining difference, and I was hopeful earlier in the week that Krugman was starting to get it. Guess not.

Posted by ResumeMan | March 28, 2008 3:23 PM

The Truth,

Yea right. You're an incredible idiot. If you cared to do the most basic bit of research you would find out that jews -- even those of European stock -- are more closely linked genetically with Arabs than they are with europeans. And I doubt the clever Israelis are ignorant about this. Not to mention the historical issues with that line of work. But if you fall for Arab propoganda then you fall for Arab propoganda. In NYC we'd call you a moron.

Michilene -- if my clergyman made comments about the inferiority of black people I wouldn't sit in his church/syangouge/mosque; have him baptize, bar mitvah, etc. my children; marry me off, etc. for TWENTY YEARS!!! I would leave.

I hope the Democrats nominate Obama. McCain and the right wing will destroy him. And it'll be your fault.

Love,

A Hillary supporter

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:30 PM

Krugman knows that Hillary would have his back if they ever came under sniper fire.

Posted by blah | March 28, 2008 3:34 PM

Well, BA, I guess I'll see you at Trinity this Sunday because Wright never made comments about the inferiority of white people.

Posted by Alexis | March 28, 2008 3:37 PM

BA-

That image you link to is from a TUCC newsletter. It's NOT the comments of Wright at all. Instead, The claims in question are by a guest columnist, one Ali Baghdadi, who is *not* a member of Obama's church (Trinity C of C). Baghdadi is not even a Christian; he is a Muslim. The article is of course of interest to the black community, being addressed to Oprah from an author who has in the past worked with African-American groups on civil rights issues.

Baghdadi does not in this article claim that Israel has developed an ethnic bomb, rather he says "Both [Israel and South Africa] worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs." Given how many crazy things the US gov (CIA, Army), KGB, Nazis, etc. have considered as potential weapons in the past, I would not be surprised in the least if some nation has actually worked on developing an ethnic bomb. Quite the contrary. Our government has in fact publicly expressed concern over the possible threat (William Cohen, former Secretary of Defense).

Baghdadi apparently got this idea from a 1998 Sunday Times article which reported that Israel was working on an "ethno-bomb" targeting Arabs. The authors of the article have never declared a source nor commented publicly on the article.

Baghdadi is something of an anti-Semitic radical, with a long history of crazy, inflammatory claims: http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/black_bigots.asp

It's hard to see the connection Baghdadi has to Obama. Better trolls please.

Posted by afferent input | March 28, 2008 3:43 PM

BA:

"I hope the Democrats nominate Obama. McCain and the right wing will destroy him. And it'll be your fault."

They said Hillary would easily beat Obama, and he handled her. She's done. Slate now has a "Deathwatch" section on her. When will Hillary realize it's over?

Obama will beat McCain. Hillary's tawdry attempts to get all "Tonya Harding" on Obama will help McCain, but it won't be enough.

Hillary wants Greenspan to lead the way out of the "Shadow banking" system mess and Krugman still thinks she's more progressive than Obama. I just think some young Obamabots e-mailed Krugman nasty notes and he took it personally.

Posted by Peter K. | March 28, 2008 3:44 PM

Why has Krugman become such a putz? Is a high cabinet position worth your reputation?

Posted by Jimm | March 28, 2008 3:47 PM

Alexis -- right. "Damn America" isn't targeted against whitey? US Govt invented Aids, isn't targeted against whitey? And all the tropes he engages in aren't targeted against jews.

F-Obama. He's full of sh*t.

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:50 PM

whatever other "BA" is using my handle spouting nonsense, just let it be known it's not the sane one.

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:51 PM

BA,

Did you know that guilt by association is considered to be a logical fallacy? Because if you did, then you wouldn't be making that ridiculous comment about Obama.

What Alexis said.

Did you also know that there are whites who attend that same church? Because if you knew that then you wouldn't make the baseless accusation that Reverend Wright is anti-white.

And finally, enough with this church business, which doesn't have anything to do with the economy or anything else that truly affects people.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 3:52 PM

BA, thanks for opening my eyes to Obama's white-hating tendencies. Hillary has now won my vote forever and ever, and I will be sure to tell all my friends and family this information. I wouldn't want a President to declare war on white people, no sir.

Now can we fucking talk about the economy please?

Posted by Barbar | March 28, 2008 3:54 PM

to clarify further;

it seems as though one "BA" is a conspiracy-theorizing, low-functioning Clinton troll.

and the other is a handsome, articulate, (modest) Obama supporting progressive. i'd say myself, the latter, has the greater claim to legitimacy.

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:56 PM

I'd just like for Krugman to call it fair: if he's going to hit Obama on how he plans to pay for this (completely valid), the same should be looked at with Clinton. He compares Clinton's plan (Dem) to McCain's (GOP) and Obama's plan (Dem) to the Krugman ideal (NYT Liberal). Not only is that a B.S. comparison, but he then goes on to criticize Obama for things that he overlooks in Clinton. Its all very bizarre. Part of me wonders if he's blasting Obama because he has the higher hope for him (force him left), but that doesn't hold with me. It just seems like: 1) he (like many Dems) believe the Clintons are sacred to our party and 2) the backlash he's gotten from Obama supporters has hardened him and pushed him further and further into the "Anti" category.

Posted by Enough | March 28, 2008 3:56 PM

Its very strange, considering Krugman's last column from 3/24 in which he writes:

"...she, like Mr. Obama, has been disappointingly quiet about the key issue: the need to reform our out-of-control financial system."

Today, his casual nod to Obama's plans for regulation immediately give way to more criticism. C'mon Paul, is it a key issue or ain't it?

Posted by MTK | March 28, 2008 3:58 PM

I'd just like for Krugman to call it fair: if he's going to hit Obama on how he plans to pay for this (completely valid), the same should be looked at with Clinton. He compares Clinton's plan (Dem) to McCain's (GOP) and Obama's plan (Dem) to the Krugman ideal (NYT Liberal). Not only is that a B.S. comparison, but he then goes on to criticize Obama for things that he overlooks in Clinton. Its all very bizarre. Part of me wonders if he's blasting Obama because he has the higher hope for him (force him left), but that doesn't hold with me. It just seems like: 1) he (like many Dems) believe the Clintons are sacred to our party and 2) the backlash he's gotten from Obama supporters has hardened him and pushed him further and further into the "Anti" category.

Posted by Enough | March 28, 2008 3:58 PM

Dear a input - cold comfort that Wright didn't actually Isreal-bash in this instance; he just published the rantings of, by your admission, an anti-semitic radical? (and as to the original article, don't any of you press-watching geniuses think that maybe, just maybe it's an Israeli planted story to scare the sh*t out of the Iraqis? I mean, no one with the most limited knowledge of Iraq would think that there is an "iraqi" genetic code since the country is a made up one in the first place; but I digress...)

A little thought experiment for you ms input -- what if Hillary's long-time pastor -- the one who baptized chelsea, married her and bill, counseled her in tough times, prayed with her after her election to the senate, prayed with her before she took on a presidential run -- what if that pastor started publishing David Duke's bigoted claims? Hmmm, do you think we'd give her the free pass we're giving Barack Obama?

come now -- better Osama defenders please

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:59 PM

Quit that jibba jabba!

Posted by BA Baracus | March 28, 2008 4:01 PM

So Krugman has lost his credentials because of his columns supporting Hillary on her health care proposals v. Obama, and according to Don Williams is not a REAL liberal. Please. Krugman was the first columnist who is read by the right and the left to take on the Bush administration on everything from the Iraq war to the tax cuts, and early too; he was the first columnist to report on the REAL cause of the California energy crisis and was speaking about Bush and his administration as being radical rather than conservative. He has more credibility and courage than anyone this side of Scott Ritter but he has a much wider audience. But he has reservations about your favorite candidate so he must be weird, and gosh, he writes for the New York Times so like Obama and Wright, he is guilty by association.
Knowing the power and influence of those opposing universal health care which he deems necessary for social justice reasons (people whose wages are being cut and who are losing their jobs to outsourcing and globilization deserve for this reason alone nothing less than universal health care) he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that Obama would be too accomodating to the corporate health care lobbyists who battle like Cheney, who only want to take and give no ground. Alot is a stake.
Oh, and Krugman is smart too.
I wish and anticipate his prodding Hillary and Barack on reforming tax breaks for Hedge Fund managers and other reforms for Wall Street. Both HRC and BO have taken millions in campaign contributions from Wall Street heavies like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup as well as Hedge Funds.

Posted by Jim | March 28, 2008 4:06 PM

BA,
Those sermons were edited so they ware taken out of their context, so at this moment I am little skeptical.

I see you're one of those who whine about black people using the n-word so why can't non-blacks use it too.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 4:10 PM

Micheline,

Sweetie, I got news for you.

You can't say what Rev Wright said and not be anti-white, anti-semitic, etc.. You cannot embrace black liberation theology and not be anti-white.

That's called logic honey. Look it up.

And if whites are in his church, well then, there are lot of stupid liberals who embrace those who hate them -- ie, Matt Yglesias' daily columns.

Love Ya baby. I love ya anyway.

BA

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

Paul Wellstone's estate should sue Krugman over his book title - the other progressive Paul used it first. He's not the "conscience" of liberalism - he's a come-lately technocrat who got freaked out by Bush. Also has shown zero political smarts in this primary season with his bizarre assertions that Hillary is a more credible progressive than Obama. I'll take Kuttner over Krugman any day - and when Kuttner criticizes Obama, I know which direction the fire's coming from. Sad to see Krugman descend into hackery. I understood where he was coming from with his wonkish caveats on mandates - even the use of the term "crisis", although Obama was clearly pushing a more progressive response to long-term SS shortfalls than Clinton. But his parsing of these speeches is his worst since the "personality cult" crap. There's a personality cult all right - and it's around all things "Clinton." Obviously Krugman has no interest in rescuing the Democratic party from DLC hacks. So screw him.

Posted by brucds | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

(and as to the original article, don't any of you press-watching geniuses think that maybe, just maybe it's an Israeli planted story to scare the sh*t out of the Iraqis? I mean, no one with the most limited knowledge of Iraq would think that there is an "iraqi" genetic code since the country is a made up one in the first place; but I digress...)

My take is that was also a planted story by Israeli intelligence to scare the Iraqis. But the fact that it was published in the Sunday Times a reputable newspaper (and one with a pro-Israel stance, BTW), shows that you don't have to be a Jew-hating paranoid to believe these kinds of rumors, just somebody who doesn't know a whole lot about genetics.

Anyway, let's go back to talking about the economy.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 4:15 PM

(and as to the original article, don't any of you press-watching geniuses think that maybe, just maybe it's an Israeli planted story to scare the sh*t out of the Iraqis? I mean, no one with the most limited knowledge of Iraq would think that there is an "iraqi" genetic code since the country is a made up one in the first place; but I digress...)

Like BA, my take is that it was a planted story by Israeli intelligence to scare the Iraqis. But the fact that it was published in the Sunday Times a reputable newspaper (and one with a pro-Israel stance, BTW), shows that you don't have to be a Jew-hating paranoid to believe these kinds of rumors, just somebody who doesn't know a whole lot about genetics.

Let's go back to talking about the economy.

Posted by Peter H | March 28, 2008 4:17 PM

Latest troll just called Barack "Osama." Not even Petey or Tim K. are that ignorant.

Great, looking for ANY connection to hurt the guy who's pretty much got it wrapped up. It's just a shame that your candidate listens to people like you for strategy advice.

You do realize that Hillary Clinton's pastor has defended Jeremiah Wright much more strongly and forcefully than Obama has, right?

Posted by Monster | March 28, 2008 4:18 PM

Micheline -- you stated "I see you're one of those who whine about black people using the n-word so why can't non-blacks use it too."

What? can you produce, ya know, some e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e that I actually ever said anything like that?

typical obama supporter. He can't do anything wrong. everyone who opposes him is a racist.

You're not so much political activists as you are cult members.

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 4:18 PM

Actually, this time, I didn't find Krugman's column unreasonable.

His bottom lines: Hillary's proposals, he says, are "surprisingly bold and progressive"; Obama's proposals, he says, "though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox".

Something I have been puzzling about to myself is how the good stuff we're hearing from the stump will get through Mitch McConnell's Senate (and it likely will still be his unless there's a Democratic tsunami). "Surprisingly bold and progressive" proposals--particularly with no 'community organizing' behind them--will never weather 60-vote thresholds, much less all the other crap that Senate rules allow to frustrate majority will. "Cautious and relatively orthodox" proposals, methinks, have a better chance of peeling off a Spector or a Lugar or a Collins or even a Coburn here or there. It wouldn't be small ball; it wouldn't be 50-yard, revolutionary gains; but it MIGHT be progressive change that would actually get done.

(Likewise, I've often wondered whether his no-mandate stance was based on just being different from Edwards' and Clinton's plans (since they all really had the same source) or whether it was based on a calculus of what actually could be passed in a still-significantly Republican Senate--and that he hasn't wanted to advertise that assessment.)

Posted by Wendell | March 28, 2008 4:20 PM

BA, Even assuming Wright hates "whitey" (which I do not believe), it does not immediately follow that he believes "whitey" to be inferior. Hatred can be premised on many bases. Even people with inferiority complexes can hate those they percieve as better than them.

If you want to give lectures on logic, it helps to provide evidence to back up your claims.

Posted by Alexis | March 28, 2008 4:29 PM

What would Obama do? He wouldn't feed the troll. At this point, nothing can convince him/her.

Posted by 55 | March 28, 2008 4:33 PM

Alexis -- Although I doubt that logic is your strong suit, you are particularly good at obfuscation.

If Obama's supporters are explaining away Rev Wright's sick ideas as the manifestation of his inferiority complex, well then, the right wing attack machine won't have to do very much for John McCain to win the election.

With supporters like you Alexis, I doubt Obama needs many enemies.

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM

OBAMA == power hungry lunatic with no track record who will do anything to get elected == OSAMA

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 4:42 PM

I'm sure that if you keep repeating the old and busted Wright stuff, that you'll eventually show that uppity negro Obama his place, SA.

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | March 28, 2008 4:46 PM

Fausto -- Obama ain't an uppity negra -- he's white. whiter than white. He is not "real" at all.

Posted by Keepin' it real | March 28, 2008 4:50 PM

Krugman, whom I've long admired as an economist and op-ed writer, has quite simply gone bat shit when it comes to Obama. This op-ed is actually one of the least offensive examples.

Krugman's taken a single, important but not all-important issue on which he disagrees with Obama (mandates) and blown it into a belief that Obama is a closet conservative. Krugman further believes that to accomplish progressive reform you must beat the crap out of anyone standing in your way and Obama's approach, which seeks to listen, persuade and then ultimately pursue a progressive policy with greater support, is doomed to fail. Perhaps Krugman is right (though I don't think so), but the disagreement over tactics has come to color his every thought about Obama. It shows a remarkable lack of perspective.

It is a shame really.

Posted by Chunche | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM

There is an exceptionally nasty troll here that requires fumigation. The Wright stuff isn't working, troll-boy. And your 4:42 comment is proof positive that you have zero to say or add here. Shoo fly.

Posted by Marc | March 28, 2008 4:56 PM

What is about Presidential candidates who have lived in the Arkansas Governor's mansion that keeps them going after they have all but mathematically lost? Weird.

BA, why are you not going to support the Democratic nominee? -- seems odd -- the argument appears to be that you will not support him because he cannot win. Is there something about him you do not like? The Wright stuff, I agree is potential ammo for faux outrage on the right wing talk show circuit, but I cannot believe anyone seriously believes this reflects on Obama (not that people unwilling to vote for him will not hang their hat on it).

Posted by theCoach | March 28, 2008 5:10 PM

Some of the reflexive kurgman haters/slash obamaphiles get a little carried away with krugman's columns. While the case certainly can be made against his praise for Hillary, that does not mean his arguments against Obama are not sound. What Krugman, at this point rightly sees, is a politician that has strongly neoliberal economic advisers and moves cautiously on policy. You can argue the politics of caution, but that is not krugman's point.

Furthermore, do you all realize that Krugman was first and foremost an Edwards supporter, so he is coming from the left of the Obama/Goolsbee/Cutler/Liebman crowd--a group to which Obama is probably the most level-headed.

It seems Matt is so smitten with Mr. Obama that he is constantly seeking some sort of rejoinder to Krugman's articles, even lacing his comments with ever so thinly veiled shots: "Bob was a populist before it was cool." Boom.

Well, some of us--much like 'ole Bob--have been on the left and will stay there. That said, even if I think Obama is better than Hillary, Im not going to pretend that he is not a mushy, third-way candidate.

And, does anyone seriously believe that his economic advisory trio is progressive? Hillary is no better, but that doesnt negate the glaring ideological current of his posse, now does it?

Posted by jeff | March 28, 2008 5:33 PM

BA said:

How 'bout Wright's assertion that Israel created an "ethnic bomb" to kill Arabs

He pointed to an assertion made by a guy named Baghdadi instead. In addition, BA says that the claim is that Israel "created" an ethnic bomb. Instead, the actual claim is that Israel and S. Africa "worked on" such a bomb. There is a difference.

What this has to do with Obama's stance on finance regulation in particular, or Obama in general, completely escapes me. I mean, this isn't even guilt by association. BA is claiming guilt by association by association.

Better trolls please.

Posted by afferent input | March 28, 2008 5:35 PM

I can understand sentiment that when it comes to Obama Krugman is a hack and an influential one at that. Many people swear by this man. I think that he is doing progressives a disservice when he writes columns and blog entries that are one-sided . I remember when Krugman attacked Obama for his emergency stimulus package and called it a disgrace for not including alternative energy. I took Krugman's criticism seriously until I read Brad Delong explanation that an economic stimulus package needs to be simple so that it can pass Congress quickly. Delong’s point is that policy-making must take into account of how government works. Delong also pointed out that Obama does have a plan for the promotion of alternative energy but it was not part of the emergency economic stimulus package because undermines the goal passing an emergency bill quickly.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 5:53 PM

I still very much respect Krugman, and I think it is rather refreshing that he looks at Obama with skepticism but at times he seems to judge Obama rather harshly.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 6:01 PM

It seems Matt is so smitten with Mr. Obama that he is constantly seeking some sort of rejoinder to Krugman's articles

Jeff, did you even read Krugman's op-ed? Particularly this part:

Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

First, this caricaturing is a waste of valuable NYT op-ed real estate space. In particular, Obama does not portray himself as someone who will bring forward radical policy positions never before imagined, but as someone who can help change the political landscape so that it will become easier to implement liberal technocratic solutions. Given that Krugman is himself a liberal technocrat (do we not remember him sneering at the WTO protesters for wanting to keep the third world poor?), Matt's dig at him is entirely appropriate.

Second, Krugman's main contribution in this piece is to note that Clinton has a more liberal plan regarding restructuring mortgages. Of course because space is limited we have to take Krugman's word on whether or not Clinton's plan is truly better. A pundit can build credibility by indicating that he took into account the pros and cons of each position before arriving at his verdict. A pundit can lessen credibility by indicating that he's mainly concerned with advocating for one candidate over another.

Given that Krugman wrote an op-ed last week suggesting that financial regulation was the most important issue that had to be addressed (note how quickly it is brushed aside in this op-ed), and given that Krugman in the past has been concerned with such important issues as the "backlash against Obamamania," I'd say that Krugman has worked hard this primary season to reduce his credibility.

Posted by Barbar | March 28, 2008 6:08 PM

My argument -- that Paul Krugman is not a real liberal -- is not due to my support for Obama. I recall making the same argument with an elderly woman back in 2002 on election night at Dan Wofford's election party.
(I worked as a volunteer in Wofford's Congressional campaign against Republican Jim Gerlach -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Wofford.)

I recall talking about how the news media was covering up a great deal re Bush --and she mentioned Krugman's columns. I noted at the time that --while they had a lot of sound and fury - Krugmans' columns were very short on convincing substance.

That Krugman was not pointing out to the American people the Major FACTS about the damage that Bush's tax cuts would cause them. The facts that convince people to oppose a policy.

Of course, Krugman's employers --the owners of the Times --stood to make out like bandits from Bush's tax cuts.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Bernstein brings up a point I have wondered about. How come Krugman has not commented on Clinton's ridiculous assertion that we should freeze subprime rates for 5 years?

To me this idea shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation and the markets that got us into this mess.

Posted by djslippyb | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Once again white people, including Jews (I am both), have trouble facing the truth. Gee, if a Knesset member protested this diabolical -- and yes, Nazi-like research -- don't you think it might have really happened?

It would be comforting to think it was just an Israeli disinformation campaign to feed on Arab paranoia, but don't be so sure. At the height of the intifada in 2002, IDF commanders openly talked about studying the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Not, alas, the tactics of the Jewish heroes, but the tactics of the SS.

Jeremiah Wright never said whites were inferior. He said we had been oppressors. Wanna argue with that?

Posted by Eric | March 28, 2008 8:20 PM

There was a time when I looked forward to reading Paul Krugman and I've enjoyed one of his books. I had a great deal of respect for him. But this campaign season has changed a lot for me. From the get go, I've never been impressed with HRC's arguments for us to elect her president. Her whole campaign seems to boil down to the arguments that she is some how worthy, deserving of and entitled to the nomination, that she's been tried, tested and vetted and that she's had a 100 some years of governing and leading experience. She likes to tell us that she's tried and tested and overwhelmingly more experienced than the senator from Illinois. But it amazes me that self-described liberals and progressives, including those among the gay civil rights movement, who are seemingly eating up the Clintons' lines and willing to stay behind them, even though their campaign is faltering and has been for a longtime. That's what's disappointing about Krugman. He's coming off as a shill for the Clintons, with his sly digs at Obama and his constant trumpeting HRC as some kind of tribune for the poor. Release the tax returns HRC, and let's look at just how wealthy your family has become on its obsessive quest for more and more power. Wasn't eight years in the White House for the two of you seriously sufficient? I voted for the Clintons twice last century. The family won't get my vote a third time. It's that simple. The Clintons are of and saddled with the past. They were a remarkably self-consumed couple who sacrificed too often the heart of the Democratic Party solely for their own gain. They are not progressives and it's amazing Krugman is blind to that. He's been utterly disappointing of late. Conversely, thank you Frank Rich.

Posted by J Kirk Leaming | March 28, 2008 9:12 PM

In response to somebody's question above, the Krugman hissy-fit began when the Obama camp responded to an early Krugman criticism of the Obama healthcare plan (failure to include mandates) by quoting an earlier column of Krugman's that seemed to support the Obama position. The Clinton and Krugman loyalists complained that the Obama camp had sunk to doing "oppo" research against a respected progressive cult figure and it has been personal with Krugman ever since.

Posted by JackD | March 28, 2008 9:45 PM

J Kirk, excellent post. Pretty much completely sums up my attitude towards HRC. I too voted twice for the Clintons last Century and hope not to have to do it again, although if by some miracle she becomes the nominee I will hold my nose and vote for her. As much as I admire John McCain I will probably never again in my life vote Republican at the national level. (I enthusiastically voted for Bloomberg here in the Big Apple, but that does not count:) As the New Republic put it, the Clintons with their triangulations and their cooption of many Republican and right leaning ideas did what they had to do when a majority of the country was still leaning very heavily center right to stay in power and institute meaningful change. But after 8 years of perhaps the worst presidency in our history, certainly our modern history, I believe that the US is (FINALLY) ready for a major political realignment along far more progressive lines both economically and socially. As such, Obama represents the future and this new reality, the Clintons are understandably still stuck in the bunker mentality of the 20th century. He truly is the 21st Century and the best change this country has of starting to wipe away the stain of Bush Cheney.

Posted by Guy | March 28, 2008 10:25 PM

J Kirk Leaming:
People don't want to seem to grasp that Hillary was once a Goldwater Girl. Or that they are DLC(which means Republican-lite). They see "D" after their names and get all light headed. Is she better than McCain? Of course. Can we do better? Yes!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 28, 2008 10:26 PM

Who the heck cares what Krugman thinks? Tell us one thing he has done to improve our country. Princeton is a nice clean place for him to live and pontificate.

Posted by Obama/Webb 08 | March 28, 2008 10:29 PM

Krugman'sj problem with Obama is that Volcker endorsed him.

Posted by Tom J | March 28, 2008 10:29 PM

Paul Wellstone's estate should sue Krugman over his book title - the other progressive Paul used it first.

Actually, Chester Bowles, a prominent figure in the Eleanor Roosevelt/Adlai Stevenson wing of the Democratic Party, was the first politician to use Conscience of a Liberal as a book title back in 1957.

Posted by Another Chris | March 29, 2008 12:34 AM

Hey BA, -- how 'bout your bizarre fixation on Wright again. How 'bout the fact that he's not running for Dog Catcher, much less President? How 'bout you fondle those strawmen of yours in the privacy of your own home and wash your hands when your done? How 'bout it?

Posted by Joe Lisboa | March 29, 2008 4:47 AM

Obama better appear to be to the right of Krugman economically come November, otherwise he won't carry more than a couple states. I suspect Bloomberg is trying to help him in this department.

Posted by Tom in CT | March 29, 2008 8:15 AM

Obama better appear to be to the right of Krugman economically come November, otherwise he won't carry more than a couple states. I suspect Bloomberg is trying to help him in this department.

Posted by Tom in CT | March 29, 2008 8:15 AM

When writing a column the worst thing you have to worry about is getting fired. When running for president the worst thing you have to worry about is starting another war.

Posted by bago | March 29, 2008 9:20 AM

Re: Gee, if a Knesset member protested this diabolical -- and yes, Nazi-like research -- don't you think it might have really happened?

No, because it's flat out impossible. The genetic differences between even widely separated human populations are so minute there's no way you can have an infectious disease that would attack some people while leaving others completely untouched. Such a thing is completely unknown in history. And since Jews and Arabs are almost identical gentically the "research" suggested in this ludicrous claim is even less plausible. Besides which, since when are the claims of politicians anywhere automatically true? Iraqi WMDs anyone?

Posted by JonF | March 29, 2008 10:22 AM

"come now -- better Osama defenders please"

Not even worth the time.

Posted by Carrington Ward | March 29, 2008 1:08 PM

JonF:
"The genetic differences between even widely separated human populations are so minute there's no way you can have an infectious disease that would attack some people while leaving others completely untouched. Such a thing is completely unknown in history."

Ever heard of measles decimating American Indians?

Second, even if it's impossible to target Arabs alone, it remains understandable that an Arab believes this story if a member of the Knesset also does. Not everyone is a genetics expert.

In any case I don't see what this has to do with the article or with Obama.

Posted by Hans B | March 29, 2008 3:56 PM

To understand Krugman’s antipathy to Obama, you have to understand the megalomania that motivates the academic prima donna who feels that he has been slighted by some uppity newcomer who fails to acknowledge the oracular truths peddled by the prima donna. Its consequences can be devastating for those who unwittingly trespass on the turf ruled by the prima donna.

This malady, very familiar to those working in the cloistered halls of academia, has simply become accentuated, in this case, by access to the megaphone of the NYT.

From this standpoint, Obama must be punished, not just for failing to acknowledge the profound truth about insurance mandates revealed and propounded by prima donna Krugman, but also for making it appear that words written earlier by this great oracle had somehow approved of the policy position taken by Obama.

Worse, this “naïve” upstart did not even make the requisite trek to the oracle’s lair or call upon him for advice before stepping out and seeking to make policy pronouncements of his own.

And worst of all, the upstart pretended to be a “progressive” when everyone knows that the oracle is the self-appointed conscience of all that is progressive.

Posted by Justin X | March 29, 2008 11:06 PM

If Obama had made the screaming blunder that Clinton recently made--touting Greenspan to solve the present crisis--Krugman would have jumped all over him in a mocking column. As it is, he merely mentions Clinton's astoundingly ignorant gaffe on his blog, adding that 'those in the know' know that Greenspan is the problem's number one villain. As if she and Bill couldn't possibly be informed enough to realize the most basic facts about the current mess? I think Krugman is terrific, but he's clearly being dishonest here.

Posted by michael | March 30, 2008 3:08 AM