Ezra Klein: Obama's Oppo on Paul Krugman!

[wyldwolf]

Something's really gone off the rails when the Obama campaign decides to release an oppo document on Paul Krugman. It's not only the actual attacks that are weak (most of them rely on misinterpreting one comment, then misinterpreting the next, then pretending there's a contradiction), but, seriously, it's Paul Krugman. Arguably the most progressive voice in American media. When I argued that the campaign should take the gloves off, I really didn't expect their target, in this document and in the health care fight more generally, would be progressivism. What in hell is going on over there?

Update: To say a bit more on this, the campaign's attack on Krugman raises the question they don't want to answer: What changed? When Obama's plan came out, Krugman, and me, and Jon Cohn, and all the usual suspects criticized it for lacking an individual mandate, but said that, on the overall, it was pretty good, and Obama had passed the bar. Suddenly, we're all up in arms. Why?

Well, it was one thing when Obama simply didn't have a mechanism to achieve universality. It became a whole other when he began criticizing mechanisms to achieve universality. Previously, he'd gotten some flack for buying into the conservative argument that Social Security was in crisis. Now he was constructing a conservative argument against far-reaching reform proposals. And he kept doing it. And now his campaign is misrepresenting Krugman's comments in order to imply contradiction. But Krugman hasn't contradicted himself. Where his original comments focused on Obama's plan, his newer arguments are attempting to beat back Obama's rhetoric. And Obama's rhetoric has become much, much worse than his plan. That it's ended with him having to go on the offensive against the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media is evidence of that fact.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/12/obama-v-krugman.html

[maximusveritas]

1. 3 of Krugman's last 4 articles have been attacks on Obama

He shouldn't be surprised that he gets a response from the Obama's campaign.

[Cameron27]

3. Krugman's attacking the holes in Obama's plan,

and criticizing the way Obama's been defending it.

[papau]

19. I agree - Obama is wrong on Soc Sec (as is R. Reich) and silly on health claims - he should

speak to any actuary in the business before he speaks (as should Reich).

[cuke]

4. Why is Obama lying about what Krugman said?

Typical Obama response that has no defense for Obama.

[cuke]

5. Didn't Obama the Uniter say he didn't want to fight the same old battles?

Is going after progressives like Krugman his idea of who we should fight in the future?

[Cameron27]

2. Taylor Marsh said he's going after Krugman

on his website. I don't know, Paul Krugman's a reputable source, maybe Obama should rethink his plan.

[BeyondGeography]

6. This isn't "oppo"...it's a simple juxtaposition of then-and-now

Obama started to do well in the polls and draw contrasts with his opponents, and Krugman got his knickers in a twist. A lot of people have been talking about it, even here:

==Fact Check: ''Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan''
December 07, 2007

"Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan." First Read reported, "No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it...But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not."

THE PLAN

KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan."

KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning."


COURAGE AND TOUGHNESS VS. WEAKNESS AND CAUTION
KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Plan Passes A "Basic Test of Courage" And Gets "Points For Toughness." Paul Krugman wrote, "It also passes one basic test of courage. You can't be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts. Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won't be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness. Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government."

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama's Caution...Led Him To Propose A Relatively Weak, Incomplete Health Care Plan." Paul Krugman wrote, "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan."

MANDATES AND ENFORCEMENT

KRUGMAN THEN: Krugman Talked To An Architect Of Obama's Plan Who Said "Obama Is Reluctant To Impose A Mandate That Might Not Be Enforceable." Paul Krugman wrote, "I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate."

KRUGMAN NOW: "Most Troubling, Mr. Obama Accuses His Rivals Of Not Explaining How They Would Enforce Mandates" And Said He Was Implying That The Plans Would Require "Nasty, Punitive Enforcement." Paul Krugman wrote, "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." ==

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama Is Storing Up Trouble For Health Reformers" By Criticizing Mandates. Paul Krugman wrote, "Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that 'force every American to buy health care.'"
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/07/fact_check_krugman_didnt_alway.php

[cuke]

8. Nope, it's selective editing. Krugman has been consistent

From the start Krugman has pointed out and criticized the lack of a universal mandate in Obama's plan. The reason why Krugman has changed his position with regards to Obama's plan is due to Obama's rightwing rhetoric which criticizes mandates for forcing people to buy insurance.

Obama supporters don't mind when a Clinton campaign chair changes her mind and joins the Obama campaign, but if Krugman changes his mind in response to Obama's shifting rhetoric, it's a sin

[hedgehog]

10. How does a mandate NOT force someone to buy insurance?

How is a mandate enforced without punishment, presumably some sort of fine? Would we all have to list our health insurance policy numbers on our 1040s? Who is going to pay for all the cross checking to enforce a mandate?

[cuke]

15. Can you translate that back into it's original English?

I don't speak Obamish

[hedgehog]

26. The post I responded to said

"Obama's rightwing rhetoric which criticizes mandates for forcing people to buy insurance."

The intent of my post was

1. Is it not true that a mandate forces people to buy insurance?

2. If so, is it really a right wing criticism to oppose a system which forces people to buy insurance? Unless I am impoverished, I will be paying a larger percentage of my income for a mandatory health insurance policy than a wealthier person. How progressive is that?

[cuke]

31. Yes, Yes. and Wrong

It is rightwing propoganda to oppose ANYTHING simply because it involves the govt forcing someone to do something.

And it's progressive because mandated or not, a middle class person will pay a larger portion of their income on health care than a wealthy man. Mandates will reduce the discrepancy so it is progressive

[Progress And Change]

41. more Obama double talk. he does not oppose mandates

He even has a mandate in his plan for millions of parents...

[provis99]

18. if I'm mandated to buy health insurance from a private corporation,

as far as I'm concerned, THAT is a right-wing tactic. Universal health care provided by a non-profit seeking government is one thing; mandating private insurance is nothing more than a government subsidy at the point of a gun in favor of an already corrupt and immoral private health industry lobbying group. Krugman lost me on this one.

[cuke]

21. But you DONT have to buy private insurance

Both Edwards and Clinton's plan offer govt insurance. Anybody can buy it.

[avrdream]

50. The point that gets lost over and over and over again.

The two of them have it covered, damnit. Obama doesn't. Enough said.

[cuke]

53. It's the propoganda

The "purists" have bought the slogan that these plans are "giveaways" to the insurance companies. They don't seem to realize that insurance companies don't want to insure everybody because everybody includes a lot of very sick people.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Another closet Clintonian's cover is blown... too bad for Hillaryworld!

It's Hillaryous hearing complaints about "tactics" and "selective editing" from the same dirty tricks campaign who pushed Kindergate and the Madrassa swift
boating email as well as defended Bill's Clintonian BS assertion that he was against the Iraq war "from the beginning".

More to the point...

Here's what Robert Reich had to say recently about the differences between the Obama and Clinton plans for SS and healthcare:

First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going -- it's in far better shape
than Medicare -- but everyone who's looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund 10 years ago,
and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes
me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it's indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security
obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn't have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent --
maybe to $115,00. That's a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue,
and it's irresponsible: a commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that's what Greenspan's Social Security commission
came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama's plan would "raise taxes" and
her plan wouldn't, she's simply not telling the truth.

I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I've compared the two plans
in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's.
That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including
all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated
auto insurance -- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated -- that mandates
still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so. HRC doesn't indicate
how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in HRC's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it. I'm also
impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O's plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of
catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no
grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html

:toast:

[BootinUp]

7. Obama's Healthcare tactics are f'd up. nt

[Cameron27]

9. The way he criticizes this and SS

is beginning to worry me. I think he may be either more ideologically conservative than he makes out, or he's just too reluctant to push hard for some things. I don't know, I'm going to re-read some of his statements before I make up my mind.

[BootinUp]

13. I'm hoping

some Obama supporters better explain how he is not more conservative than Hillary. :(

[cuke]

16. I think it's both

I'm beginning to understand how this guy came from nowhere

[hedgehog]

12. Hmmm, make insurance affordable, make sure all policies

provide similar coverage, make sure everyone can afford to buy a policy, offer everyone the option to buy into Medicare.

I guess assuming that most people have the sense to come in out of the rain is pretty f'd up!

[BootinUp]

14. How about a link

to his healthcare plan.

[frazzled]

25. Here, try this ...

It's an explanation of Obama's plan from his economic health advise. I found it surprisingly different from how it's been described:

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/advisor_describes_obama_health_plan

Here's how it works: If you don't have health insurance through your employer, you will be enrolled into a new, comprehensive public health insurance plan that emphasizes prevention, chronic care management and quality care. The benefits will be similar to those available today to every federal employee.

This plan will enjoy the great efficiencies we see in public plans like Medicare but, if you still cannot afford it, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. Of course, you can choose private insurance if you prefer but the private plans will have to compete on a level playing field with the public plan—without the extra payments that tip the scales in favor of private Medicare Advantage plans today.

Employers who do not offer meaningful coverage or a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to pay a percentage of payroll to the plan and their employees will be enrolled. Any employer can decide it no longer wishes to administer insurance and can offer insurance through the exchange. Self-employed Americans will find it easy to enroll as well at no disadvantage. Children will be covered and no one can be denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition or illness.

All Americans will be covered automatically under this plan. And the resources are set aside in the plan to do whatever is necessary to guarantee affordable coverage for every American.

But, as Senator Obama learned in a series of health care town hall meetings he held recently, in order to create a truly universal health care plan we cannot only focus on coverage.

[hedgehog]

27. Your wish is my command:

Obama:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/


Clinton:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

Edwards:

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/



I note that Obama and Edwards go past paying for the current system to addressing means of improving actual health care delivery systems.

[BootinUp]

33. So does Hillary

The 3 plans are very close with the exception of no mandate in Obamas plan for adults.

[cuke]

35. Hillary on improving quality and reducing costs

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3006

On coordination of care

I'll also support doctors by creating a Best Care Practices Institute, a public-private partnership to fund comparative effectiveness research and disseminate it across the country. Right now so much of the information on which drugs, devices, surgeries and treatments work best, either isn't researched, it isn't compared, it isn't published, and it isn't circulated. It takes years for an agreed upon treatment that a medical center like this one knows is the best practice to be disseminated across our country. So this Best Practices Institute will serve as a central national clearinghouse so no matter where you are, you and your doctor can access information on what the best treatments should be.

On malpractice reform

In addition to helping doctors provide the best care, I plan to finally implement medical malpractice reforms that work for doctors and patients alike. Many of the physicians that I meet say that high malpractice premiums force them to alter their practice-- and even consider leaving the profession altogether. I've also heard first hand from families who've experienced serious medical errors and have trouble getting the relief that they deserve. The current political stalemate on this issue leaves both patients and physicians in the lurch.

and more on coordination of care

So we wind up treating patients like walking collections of symptoms and diseases -- each to be treated discretely. But that is not how illness works, that's not how the body or the mind works. For example, if you are a diabetic with high blood pressure, your high blood pressure obviously affects your diabetes, and vice versa. So there's incredible value to coordinating care and in having doctors, nurses, social workers, nutritionists and other professionals working together as a team.

That's exactly how it's done at the Mayo Clinic, one of the most respected health care institutions in America, actually probably in the world. Under their integrated healthcare system, primary care physicians work together with specialists to develop a comprehensive approach to treat each patient. The result is better care, lower costs, and fewer hospitalizations and doctor visits. The result is better care, lower costs, and fewer hospitalizations and doctor visits. In fact, if hospitalizations and doctor visits across America mirrored the numbers at Mayo, for certain conditions, inpatient Medicare spending would decrease 20 percent, Medicare costs for doctor visits would decrease 35 percent. That's billions of dollars in savings. But at the same time physicians salaries are above the national average. So when I'm President, I'll support federal reimbursements for precisely this kind of team approach to medicine. We know it saves money -- and saves lives.

From her plan, on chronic conditions
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/am...

Prioritize Prevention to Reduce the Incidence of Disease that Impose Huge Human
and Financial Burdens: Only half of recommended clinical preventive services are
provided to adults and less than half of adults had their doctors provide them advice
on weight, nutrition, or exercise.ii Only 38 percent of adults receive recommended
colorectal screening. Hypertension contributes to 35 percent of all heart disease and
dramatically increases the risk of stroke, yet only one in three people with this
condition know it, despite simple, proven screening tests. Along with guaranteeing
accessible insurance throughout the system, the American Health Choices Plan
requires coverage of preventive services that experts agree are proven and effective.

• Improve Care of the Chronically Ill: Americans with multiple chronic diseases –
including heart disease and diabetes – account for 75 percent of our total national
health expenditures and are the leading causes of death in the U.S.iii The American
Health Choices Plan will promote chronic care management programs as well as
innovative models such as “medical homes.”

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. Finally--someone voiced what Obama was doing...he does the same to Clinton

He misrepresents comments, distorts, twists in order to imply contradiction. Obama's right-wing rhetoric is scary to me.

[ClarkUSA]

20. No, Obama defends himself against partisan attacks by biased Clintonian columnists

Too bad the Clinton campaign can't send out anymore Republican talking points about Obama's being Muslim anymore, eh? Maybe they can
do more oppo on Obama's seventh grade essays... where he said he's not interested in politics as usual. ;-)

[cuke]

22. Then why does he lie about Krugman?

Krugman has consistently criticized Obama's lack of a mandate on individuals. Once Obama's shifting rhetoric (ie "My plan is universal. No, it's not. It's virtually universal. It's universal. It's "more universal" than Clintons, etc") on the rightwing meme that mandates are BAD, Krugman started criticizing Obama's rhetoric

[ClarkUSA]

23. Where's the lie?

See Reply #6 for details of what exactly Obama said (though I doubt you're interested in anything except misrepresenting Obama, as that's your MO):
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3806180&mesg_id=3806258

[cuke]

24. He clalims that Krugman is changing his tune

Krugman has been consistent. When Krugman said Obama's plan passed the "Basic" test, that was not high praise.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Krugman has changed his tune/tone. See Reply #6 for details.

MSNBC's First Read said the same thing in their report, "Krugman... Then And Now." Again, check Reply #6.

[BeyondGeography]

29. We spent hours on that thread last Friday night

someone needs to move on (and it's not you).

[ClarkUSA]

32. Hillaryworlders like to regurgitate debunked anti-Obama strawman arguments ad nauseum

Have you ever noticed that? ;-)

[BootinUp]

34. Some Obama fanatics love to attack Hillary supporters too.

I've sorta noticed that.

[ClarkUSA]

36. No, Obama supporters constantly defend against endless Hillaryous lies and distortions

That's what you're noticing. ;)

By the way, in 2003-4, people called me a Clark fanatic. That was a badge of honor, as far as I was concerned.

[Cameron27]

37. There's plenty of distortion and lies on all sides here, and

fanatics usually see what they want to see, only search for sources that back up their opinions and are generally useless in reaching any objective opinion. Fanatics who hate are the worst.

[ClarkUSA]

38. I think the campaign of Kindergate & the Madrassa email forwarding is all about lies & distortion

Not to mention Bill's laughable comment on being against the Iraq war "from the beginning."

David Corn's piece on how Clintonian staffers HATE Obama was quite enlightening, too. That hate is reflected in the tone and number
of Obama bashing threads here, to some extent.

[Cameron27]

39. The madrassa email was handled appropriately

by the Clinton campaign, once the higher ups knew about it. Obama's wretched parroting of Bob Novak's RW hit piece was handled shamefully. I don't give much credence to David Corn's interpretation of things, what the candidates say and do in public matters the most.

I haven't seen a lot of Obama-hate from the Clinton supporters, dislike maybe, and only very recently have names like Obamawards popped up. The same isn't true for some Obama supporters who have resorted to calling Clinton's supporters hillbots and worse, posted "wicked-witch" pics with the caption Hillary's twin, photo-shopped pics from RW sites, and of course the pure sexist BS that passes for debate.

[ClarkUSA]

42. No it wasn't. The Clinton campaign sat on the knowledge for 2 wks. and didn't do a damned thing.

It was not until a Dodd supporter blew the whistle on Daily Kos in front of millions of online readers (including members of the media) that Hillaryworld
acted. Obama's smackdown of another Clintonian swift boating attempt via Novak was both masterful and effective.

And David Corn has far more credibility, than, say, Blackwater PR rep/Venezualan exit-poll fixer Mark Penn.

Your rosy-lensed view of your fellow Clintonians is touching, but I assure you there is ample evidence to support Corn's piece here at GDP from where
many sit at their keyboards.

[Cameron27]

43. I only started supporting Clinton a few weeks ago,

I actually was favoring Obama until his shameful inclusion of a bigot in his gospel tour. I don't have rosey perceptions of anyone on this board, and trying to use the madrassa email against Clinton is pathetic.

I could give a crap about what the campaigns think of one another, it's how they behave towards each other in public that's important. Obama not only tried to smear Clinton in public, he used a scumbag like Bob Novak to do it.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Funny how you are trying to use the Clinton campaign's swift boating attempts to shame Obama

How Clintonian of you.

You and I will never agree on these matters, so let's leave it at that.

[Cameron27]

46. I don't know what the hell you're talking about,

but I'm happy to leave it at that.

[AX10]

48. Actually, Obama went Jeremy Corsi (swiftboated) on Hillary...

at the Philadelphia debate.

[Jim Sagle]

49. Let's pick just one of your lies apart.

You said:

Obama's smackdown of another Clintonian swift boating attempt via Novak was both masterful and effective.

1) It wasn't a smackdown, it was an ugly smear, because

2) There was nothing Clintonian about the swift boating via Novak. NOT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE ever connected the Clinton campaign to it.

3) If it was "masterful and effective" (we won't know until Iowa votes), it was a masterful and effective lying smear job couched in hypocritical tones of outrage.

[BootinUp]

47. I don't really understand the point of post #32

Can you explain why it was necessary to use the term Hillaryworlders when defending your hero? It seems to me you have a problem with separating political discussion from your Hillary hate.

[cuke]

30. No he hasn't

He has responded to changing facts. At no time did Krugman give Obama's plan any high praise. He praised its good points (using fed money) and criticized it bad (lack of an individual mandate) points. Once Obama started using rightwing propoganda, Krugman criticized it just as he has always criticized that piece of repunlican tripe.

[AX10]

40. Krugman knows his business.

He is calling Obama's plan as it is, flawed and unworkable.

Hillary has an opening here too. She can also call Obama on his BS about there being an imminent crisis with the social security system. There is no near term crisis.


Perhaps Obama is listening to the "Chicago Boys" these days.

[zulchzulu]

44. Perhaps you, Clinton or Krugman can tell us just how mandated healthcare insurance will be enforced

I have yet heard or read anything that concretely says how it would be implemented, by whom and at what penalty if compliance doesn't happen.

You have a chance to succinctly lay it out: rules, penalties, timelines, what happens if you're not covered... or you can just namecall me and think that's good enough...

[Lord Helmet]

51. they can't

I just did a paper on the health care policies of the prez candidates. Hillary's plan is a mess. Obama and Edwards are workable. Dennis's plan rocks.

[wyldwolf]

52. Krugman has, and you know it. You scurried away from the other thread

As Krugman said, 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.

If you can enforce a mandate on children like Obama's plan calls for, that means you enforce the mandate on the parents of the children to enroll the children.

So, how does Obama enforce the mandate?

[cuke]

54. The enforcement issue is a distraction

No plan is ever complete in every detail, and even when they are, those details are subject to change when the bill hits Congress. All of this blather about enforcement is nothing more than people using it to campaign for their favorite candidate.

One side, people are complaining about the use of govt force as loudly as any freeper. Since when have progressives been opposed to using govt force to enforce just policies? Do progressives object to being forced to pay for Medicare and Medicaid? Social Security?

I don't think so. It's only an issue so partisans can act outraged by minor differences.

On the other side, people are complaining about the lack of detail, as if their candidate has proposed a plan that is complete in every detail. Take a look at their plans and think again. Each plan has areas where it relies on generalities

[ecstatic]

55. Oh my goodness! Obama should stay in his place!!

:eyes: :sarcasm: