Fmr. Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich: "Krugman, the Times Oped Page, and Obama"

[ClarkUSA]

Will someone please explain to me why Paul Krugman has it in for Barack Obama? And why the Times oped page continues to devote its prime real
estate to Krugman’s repeated attack? Here he is again today, for the third time in two months, excoriating Obama for compromising too much with
insurance companies and drug companies in his health care plan, without mentioning that (1) HRC’s health care plan compromises at least as much,
(2) all the leading Democratic plans are basically the same apart from mandates, which would apply to a tiny fraction of the currently uninsured, and
(3) Obama’s may be marginally better than HRC’s if he’s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured couldn’t afford to pay HRC’s
mandate anyway.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-times-oped-page-and-obama.html

Robert Reich knows what he's talking about. He has a singularly distinguished background in government service AND economic policymaking
(as opposed to being an armchair op-ed quarterback like Paul Krugman):

Robert B. Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in
three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton... His articles have appeared in the New Yorker,
Atlantic Monthly, New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Mr. Reich is co-founding editor of The American Prospect
magazine. His weekly commentaries on public radio’s "Marketplace" are heard by nearly five million people.

In 2003, Reich was awarded the prestigious Vaclev Havel Foundation Prize, by the former Czech president, for his pioneering work in economic
and social thought... As the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor, Reich implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act, led a national fight against
sweatshops in the U.S. and illegal child labor around the world, headed the administration’s successful effort to raise the minimum wage,
secured worker’s pensions, and launched job-training programs, one-stop career centers, and school-to-work initiatives. Under his leadership,
the Department of Labor won more than 30 awards for innovation. A 1996 poll of cabinet experts conducted by the Hearst newspapers rated
him the most effective cabinet secretary during the Clinton administration.

Reich has been a member of the faculties of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and of Brandeis University. He received his B.A.
from Dartmouth College, his M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

http://www.robertreich.org/reich/biography.asp

Riech is also the author of "SUPERCAPITALISM The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life". I've read it and it's very good for
anybody who's interested in macroeconomics.

[rinsd]

1. Wow 3 whole attacks in 2 months!

The Obama campaign is truly battle tested!

:rofl:

As for Mr. Reich

"(1) HRC’s health care plan compromises at least as much,
(2) all the leading Democratic plans are basically the same apart from mandates, which would apply to a tiny fraction of the currently uninsured, and
(3) Obama’s may be marginally better than HRC’s if he’s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured couldn’t afford to pay HRC’s
mandate anyway."

But parents could afford to pay for Obama's mandate?

And having uninsured continue to use emergency services and not participate in prevention measures (checups etc that are a big part of all the big 3's plans) is going to save us money?

[ClarkUSA]

5. Children have no protection against negligent parents, whereas adults can make their own decisions

Your strawman argument is weak. Say, has Hillary mentioned how she's going to enforce her mandate yet? :shrug:

[rinsd]

6. What strawman? Reich claims people will not be able to pay for mandated coverage.

How does that change for children?

Obama is not against mandates as policy, he made that a political decision and he is rightfully getting hit for it.

[ClarkUSA]

14. Reich says Obama's healthcare plan is better than Hillary's for this very reason

To be exact:

Obama’s may be marginally better than HRC’s if he’s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured couldn’t afford to pay HRC’s
mandate anyway.

[rinsd]

16. So how can they afford to pay for Obama's mandated coverage for children?

And considering how big a part prevention and regular care is in Obama's health plan to reducing costs wtf is the point if you don't cover everyone?

[BeyondGeography]

22. Childrens insurance is the cheapest product out there

Obama's one mandate applies far less pain than anything HRC and Edwards are proposing.

[rinsd]

25. If it were the cheapest product out there, some 10 million children would not be uninsured.

[BeyondGeography]

28. Ugh...if there was an effort to first bring down the cost, subsidize it

and then impose a mandate, don't you think that number goes down?

The funny part about Krugman is he's trashing a candidate who is committed to delivering UHC in his first term (unlike Hillary, who says its a two-term deal...as if the country will sign on for another 8 years of the Clintons). Obama acknowledges that the system is a mess as is and it will take time to unbundle it. His focus on first bringing down the costs before imposing mandates has many defenders. Krugman's objection is that Obama is actually throwing some legitimate punches in order to get elected. And if you don't think they're legitimate, all you have to do is take a look at how mandates are working in Massachusetts, where 200,000 adults are still uninsured.

[rinsd]

33. So why not apply the same logic to more than children?

"If there was an effort to first bring down the cost, subsidize it and then impose a mandate, don't you think that number goes down?"

Because some of that is happening simutaneously.

Hillary's (or Edwards') plan is not like Massachusetts.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Spin it all you want but Hillary's plan is very much like MittCare in Massachusetts.

In fact, one of her surrogates said so on MSNBC when he was discussing her healthcare plan. Unlike Hillarycare II, Obama's proposal does
not include an individual mandate and the attendant problem re: penalties and costs of enforcement.

Time magazine agrees with me and many others in their report "Hillary's Health Care Do-Over":

Ironically, although the Clinton plan looks very much like the one that Mitt Romney signed into law for Massachusetts when he was Governor
of that state, the Republican candidate blasted it Monday as "bad medicine."

[rinsd]

41. So how is it similar to MittCare?

Please demonstrate for me how similar they are.

"looks like" does not equal. Clinton's plan (and Edwards for that matter) has several key differences in terms of the availability of gov't insurance programs and subsidies.

But since you consider this Time author to be such an authority

"(One difference: Obama's proposal does not include an individual mandate, and therefore, does not reach true universal coverage)."

[ClarkUSA]

43. It's obvious to anyone who has read the two plans...

Try doing your homework: mandates don't work. See Massachusetts.

From the above OP:

"... all the leading Democratic plans are basically the same apart from mandates, which would apply to a tiny fraction of the currently uninsured,
and (3) Obama’s may be marginally better than HRC’s if he’s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured couldn’t afford to pay
HRC’s mandate anyway.

[rinsd]

48. You made the claim. You demonstrate it.

If its as easy and simple as you say and since you apparently have such a first grasp on both plans and their intricacies, you should be able to post something in no time.

[ClarkUSA]

51. The Washington Post and Time agree with my assessment. Who agrees with you, eh?

If that's not enough, I owe you nothing. You made the claim that Hillarycare II is nothing like MittCare. YOU prove that, you made the claim.
Time backs me up. What credible source backs YOU up? Another HillaryAttacks story maybe?

:rofl:

Here's a fact you keep ignoring... Hillarycare II is NOT universal and IT IS LIKE MITTCARE:

The Facts

The truth is that neither the Obama plan, nor the Clinton plan, guarantees "universal coverage" for all Americans, although they both aspire to
this goal... MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a "universal coverage" plan,
in contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a "universal access" plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include
everybody. "Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage," he told me, when I reached him after the
Las Vegas debate... The Clinton plan is also comparable to the health care plan introduced in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney
(who is opposed to extending the experiment to the rest of the United States.) It provides various incentives and penalties for uninsured
residents of Massachusetts to subscribe to a health plan. Known as "The Connector," the Massachusetts plan has so so far enrolled 200,000
out of 400,000 uninsured residents. The big unknown is how many of the remainder will sign up once health insurance becomes "mandatory"
at the end of this year. Some Massachussets residents have already been exempted from the "mandatory" health insurance requirement.

"The only place in the U.S. that has attempted a mandate is Massachusetts, and we do not know if it is going to work here," said David
Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university and an adviser to the Obama campaign. "A mandate is not a slam-dunk
solution. The key question is whether there is the political will to enforce the mandate once it goes into effect."

Blumenthal concedes that the Obama plan will not cover all the uninsured, at least to begin with. But he claims that Obama will do a better
job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums. He says that Obama might consider a mandate at a later stage, if his present
plan does not achieve its goal of universal coverage.

So where did Clinton get her figure of 15 million uninsured under the Obama plan? Her website cites an article in the New Republic, hardly
an authoritative source.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

:smoke:

[rinsd]

56. A offhand quip that it "looks like" the Mitt plan is your proof?

:rofl:

"If that's not enough, I owe you nothing."

Don't worry, I was expecting anything but empty rhetoric from you anyway.

"Time backs me up."

That same Time article also said Obama's plan was not universal care. Or do you just pick and choose which quotes are "evidence"?

"You made the claim that Hillarycare II is nothing like MittCare. YOU prove that, you made the claim."

Here is my claim as opposed to your bullshit.

"Hillary's (or Edwards') plan is not like Massachusetts."

Why? Because although there are similarities in terms of the mandate for coverage, involvement of businesses, health savings accounts etc there is more choice in term of public plans offered.

Also their plans (along with Obama) are more comprehensive to tackling the entire healthcare problem especially when it comes to preventative care and modernization of record keeping.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Spinning? My proof is from WaPo AND Time. You said Hillarycare II is not like MittCare. Prove it.

*crickets*

[rinsd]

61. I just offered up some differences.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

65. No you did not... you offered ad homenim attacks & your biased opinion that have no basis in fact.

Just like Krugman.

[rinsd]

68. Why do you keep attacking Krugman?

:shrug:

Here is what I said

"Why? Because although there are similarities in terms of the mandate for coverage, involvement of businesses, health savings accounts etc there is more choice in term of public plans offered.

Also their plans (along with Obama) are more comprehensive to tackling the entire healthcare problem especially when it comes to preventative care and modernization of record keeping."

[ClarkUSA]

72. I am telling it like it is ...

Again, it's all your opinion, backed up by no links or sources. Who agrees with you?

Fact checks at WaPo and Time back me up.

[rinsd]

75. I realize that you have to rely on MSM to summarize the plans for you.

So to help you out here are link to both plans.

Here is the pdf for Hillary's plan

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

Here's stuff on the Mass system that describe details for the plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/health/policy/01insure.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_152510.htm

"I am telling it like it is ..."

I think you realize the impact Krugman has on the netroots and his attacks on Obama have you scared,

[ClarkUSA]

76. Whereas you have nobody to back up your claim that Hillarycare II "is not like" MittCare?

I'll trust the fact checks by WaPo and Time over your BS Hillaryworld spin any day.

[rinsd]

78. I gave you the info.

Feel free to peruse both plans and use google to find out as much as you can.

[ClarkUSA]

83. WaPo and Time both fact checked & concluded Hillarycare II isn't universal & is like MittCare

I offered proof of my counterclaim to your claim that Hillary's plan is not like MittCare. I am still waiting for yours. But you haven't got any, have you?

[rinsd]

86. All your WaPo fact check proved is that they both have mandates.

And the Time article was not a fact check.

In addition to the mandates, the involvement of businesses and the creations of safety nets for the most destitute are similar, but both the Edwards and Clinton plans allow more public health care choices for those who are not destitiute.

The Clinton/Edwards (and Obama for that matter) plans are also more comprehensive in their committments to preventative care, record modernization and the bridge to single payer by making private insurers compete with public plans.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Since you're intent on misrepresenting both fact checks' conclusions, I've excerpted quotes here:

"The Clinton plan is also comparable to the health care plan introduced in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney..."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1662655,00.html
Also, the WaPo fact check concluded HillaryCare II is NOT UNIVERSAL:

'MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a "universal coverage" plan, in
contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a "universal access" plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include
everybody.'

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

The TIME article "Hillary's Health Care Do-Over" is indeed a fact check which examined Hillary's healthcare plan and came to the same conclusion
about the similarity between HillaryCare II and MittCare:

"Ironically, although the Clinton plan looks very much like the one that Mitt Romney signed into law for Massachusetts when he was Governor
of that state..."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1662655,00.html

C'mon, keep writing false subject lines to mislead readers of this thread... I'll keep correcting you.

Thanks for kicking this thread so much, by the way. :smoke:

[rinsd]

95. Nice selective quoting!

"The Clinton plan is also comparable to the health care plan introduced in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney..."

You stopped here? Why? The next part tells what is being compared.

"(who is opposed to extending the experiment to the rest of the United States.) It provides various incentives and penalties for uninsured residents of Massachusetts to subscribe to a health plan. Known as "The Connector," the Massachusetts plan has so so far enrolled 200,000 out of 400,000 uninsured residents. The big unknown is how many of the remainder will sign up once health insurance becomes "mandatory" at the end of this year. Some Massachussets residents have already been exempted from the "mandatory" health insurance requirement."

And what do you know its the mandate. What did I say again, all the WaPo factcheck proved was that they both have mandates. And this happens to be the only comparison this article offers between Mitt and Clinton's plan.

""Ironically, although the Clinton plan looks very much like the one that Mitt Romney signed into law for Massachusetts when he was Governor
of that state..."

Again, you cut the context of the quote which was a zinger at Mitt.

Oh and since you apparently live and die with the WaPo analysis

"Neither plan truly provides for "universal" coverage, although Clinton's proposal probably comes somewhat closer to reaching this goal than Obama's."

[ClarkUSA]

98. No, the quotes prove your dishonesty regarding the conclusions of the WaPo/Time fact checks

Spin, spin, spin like a top... :crazy:

[rinsd]

99. I'm not the one taking quotes out of context.

At this point, I am surprised you haven't said Krugman's son works for Hillary.

[ClarkUSA]

103. Again with the dishonesty? The quotes stand alone in refuting your false claims.

And you have yet to prove that HillaryCare II "is not like" MittCare. :smoke:

*crickets*

[rinsd]

106. Sure I did.

"And you have yet to prove that HillaryCare II "is not like" MittCare."

I gave examples of differences and provided resources for you to verify the info.

"The quotes stand alone in refuting your false claims."

LOL, even robbed of their context they don't refute much.

Both have mandates as well as other similarities but they are not the same plans.

Just as Obama & Clinton's plan having similarities(many in fact) though they are not the same plan.

[ClarkUSA]

Anyone reading this thread can see the spin you're employing...

You have yet to provide any credible source analyses that backs up your claim as I have with mine.

[rinsd]

115. I provided sources with base info and did my own analysis.

I gave examples of differences.

You cling to shit you found that does not even prove what you claim it does.

[ClarkUSA]

120. You provided links to the plans & then offered biased personal opinions instead of sourced analyses

You gave me nothing but biased mumbo jumbo that you plucked out of your Clintonian hat. Rather than do that myself,
I offered two credible sources whose own fact checking supported my original assertion that HillaryCare II is very much
like MittCare, except the Queen of Parsing has yet to explain how she intends to enforce her mandate.

[rinsd]

121. Put aside bias, what was wrong with my analysis(beyond its brevity)?

Were the differences I pointed out non existent?

Oh wait, how would you even be able to tell since you apparently can't understand the plans in the 1st place and need to rely on fact checks for your info.

Much like the teacher who only knows the answer key in the back of book but doesn't understand the answers given.

[ClarkUSA]

124. I prefer independent fact checks from credible sources to biased blather -- and so do most people.

Your insults fall on deaf ears. You're quite the abusive one, aren't you? You must be such a delight at family gatherings when people
disagree with you.

[rinsd]

125. Or how about doing one's own investigation?

"You must be such a delight at family gatherings when people disagree with you."

:rofl:

I was just thinking the same about you.

[ClarkUSA]

128. You have yet to prove your claim. What is in it for you to persist on this thread in this vein?

Are you being paid by the line or something?

[BeyondGeography]

12. Four columns plus numerous blogs

on a candidate who hasn't even been subjected to a caucus yet. The man is clearly obsessed.

[rinsd]

15. Well I think it was a bad idea for the Obama campaign to make it personal with him.

They went after him after his first column.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Wrong

Reich wrote a blog after the second column. The "Krugman Attacks" page on the Obama site, which was a simple cut-and-paste of Krugman before-and-after he decided to criticize Obama, appeared after the third column.

While we're at it, whch NYT columnist is tearing apart Fighting Nell's policies every time he or she files copy?

[rinsd]

35. More on Krugman v Obama

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/8/113320/183

[ClarkUSA]

39. Jerome Armstrong has been an anti-Obama mouthpiece from Day One

Anything he says is irrelevant and intellectually dishonest because of his partisanship.

[Dems Will Win]

101. Hillary has lots of Experience:

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5806861,00.jpg

[AtomicKitten]

2. Krugman is an Op-Ed columnist venting his opinion, repeatedly.

Other more qualified critics disagree with his sustained harangue against Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

132. That's it in a nutshell.

How's it going in Nevada? Good, I hope. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

133. Got home this A.M.

Just in time to read that Obama is now only 8 points down (as opposed to 25 points) here in California. I'm working on a voter registration drive now and then I'll be hitting the bricks here in California to knock on some more doors preaching the Gospel of Obama. Can I get an amen?

[ClarkUSA]

134. AMEN!

:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

Yes, Obama's message is coming through loud and clear in California, thanks to great volunteers like you and a strong commitment from the
Obama campaign to support grassroots organization. It's basically a two-person race in CA which means Obama is going to end up being
the anti-Hillary alternative if all goes well in Iowa.

Thanks for the good news. Good luck and maximum kudos for all you're doing! My Iowa phone banking is going great and I'm planning my
own trip down to SC to provide support there since Iowa and NH are maxed out on volunteers. :hi:

[Gloria]

3. Krugman is already past healthcare...he's really looking at the

stuff that hasn't worked before and won't work at all now...because it takes PRESSURE..as JE described on Hardball yesterday...It takes someone who really understands the bully pulpit...or as Ramsey would say, someone who as real bollocks.

[ClarkUSA]

7. Krugman is also past honestly reporting the facts... what he's doing has nothing to do with policy

It has everything to do with partisan shilling.

[elizm]

4. Krugman is backing Edwards...and attacking Obama to help Edwards. nt

[ClarkUSA]

9. He's a Clinton supporter... attacking Obama helps Edwards which helps Hillary (in Iowa)

It's a political chess game. Hillaryworld is putting a pincer movement into play to squeeze Obama out of winning Iowa using every single
surrogate they have.

[elizm]

11. Jonathan Alter at Newsweek says he is an Edwards supporter...

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

17. Really? That's news to me.

I know Prof. Krugman and he has told those of us in his political circle that he likes Hillary. Hmmm....

[William769]

18. Seems like a lot is news to you.

[ClarkUSA]

29. How typical of Hillaryworld: You're full of childish playground taunts but short of facts.

This, coming from someone who deliberately misrepresents what I say in subject lines. :eyes:

[William769]

30. And who edited their OP with no explanation?

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

34. Um, what's your point?

I don't owe anyone an explanation for editing grammatical mistakes or adding relevant factual content.

[William769]

36. Or...

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

40. So, has Hillary revealed how she plans to enforce her mandate yet? What is she hiding?

:smoke:

[William769]

92. So I guess the or was right.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

Do you normally write incoherently incomprehensible one-line replies or am I being unduly honored?

:shrug:

[elizm]

27. Alter today...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/output/print

[ClarkUSA]

32. Krugman's first two attack Obama op-eds were strong defenses in Hillary's favor

Only with this week's op-ed has he come out for Edwards more... before this, Edwards was an afterthought in his columns, Clearly, it's a political gambit
designed to pump up Edwards in advance of the Iowa caucuses, in light of Obama's criticism of Edwards' healthcare plan. An Edwards win would be the
second best scenario for Hillaryworld because it looks as if she might not get her best-case scenario. The worst case scenario is an Obama win and you'd
better believe the Clintons are going to tell all their surrogates to sing Edwards' praises while simultaneously attack Obama. Plus, I know Prof. Krugman
personally and he told me and at a political function a month ago that he supported Hillary's campaign. Alter may have come to his own conclusions
after Krugman's recent op-ed, but his prior two Obama hit pieces belie Alter's assumption that Krugman is an Edwards supporter.

[rinsd]

37. "Only with this week's op-ed has he come out for Edwards more" Bullshit

http://www.hillaryattacks.com/2007/11/paul-krugman-ge.html

[ClarkUSA]

42. Anyone who has read Krugman's op-eds knows this is the truth. Your attempt to deny it is telling.

Linking to HillaryAttacks.com is a bit ironic, isn't it? What, is HillaryIs44 not sufficient? Funny how Hillaryworld is trying to push the
meme that Krugman supports Edwards now. Very interesting... why would they bother pushing that if it wasn't purposeful?

[rinsd]

50. Hillaryattacks in an ANTI-Hillary site, genius.

"Funny how Hillaryworld is trying to push the meme that Krugman supports Edwards now."

When ignorant Obama supporters claim Krugman is a Hillary supporter are presented with evidence to the contrary apparently they just start to babble.

[ClarkUSA]

66. And you just happen to like to link to there as a bitterly partisan Clintonian, right?

You have yet to prove your bogus claim that Hillarycare II is nothing like MittCare. Ad hominem attacks from you are not effective and only
serve to show your venality to all of DU. Which I enjoy greatly. :-)

[rinsd]

70. Um, I found that website via google.

But its nice to know you're whipped up into such a lather you're just blinding rage typing.

Also if you think your nasty attacks on Paul Krugman are going over well with DUers, well I can't help you there.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Sure you did. By the way, do you ever stop with the nasty ad hominem personal attacks?

Guess you really are a Mark Penn Clintonian. He's such a role model, I know. And you're such a good stenographer. Gold star for you
and the others here who are so diligent at applying those daily Hillaryous talking points!

[rinsd]

77. Now we have dishonesty's good buddy, hypocrisy!

You can always expect hypocrisy to be tagging along close behind dishonesty.

" By the way, do you ever stop with the nasty ad hominem personal attacks?"

And then you wrote this

"Guess you really are a Mark Penn Clintonian. He's such a role model, I know. And you're such a good stenographer. Gold star for you
and the others here who are so diligent at applying those daily Hillaryous talking points!"

And before you wrote this

"You're another dishonest Hillaryworlder who peddles Obama mistruths on a consistent basis."

[ClarkUSA]

96. Nah, those are honest observations shared by most DUers.

Your ad hominem attacks have been pure frothing nastiness.

[rinsd]

97. Yes, nasty personal attacks are just honest observations

I wouldn't expect anything less from an Obama supporter.

:thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

100. Your attempt to spin what I said is another Clintonian attempt at doublespeak

And again, thanks for kicking this thread so much! :smoke:

[rinsd]

102. No problem kicking the thread.

You need the exposure.

[ClarkUSA]

104. Good, because Robert Reich's smackdown of Krugman's attacks need the exposure

Thanks again!

[DURHAM D]

138. You of all people leveling the "ad hominem personal attacks"

accusation. Rich, very rich.

[ClarkUSA]

139. Ah, another voice from the Hillaryworld Hallelujah chorus....

Thanks for kicking my thread. :-)

[elizm]

44. Maybe tell Krugman to answer Alterman's claim?? :) nt

[ClarkUSA]

47. Good idea...

Too bad classes are over and Prof. Krugman has no more office hours. The next time I see him again at a Democratic student-professor university town
fundraising event, I'll be sure to tell him how I feel about his dishonest attacks on Obama. By then, the nominee will probably be known, though (GOBAMA!). :-)

[rinsd]

13. Krugman is a Hillary supporter?

:rofl:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/nyts-krugman-hillary-_b_70643.html

[ClarkUSA]

21. Yes, he has been very defensive of Hillary in his Obama hit pieces...

And he's told me and others face-to-face that he likes her campaign at Democratic student-professor political gatherings.

[rinsd]

23. Umm he's defended mandates as a concept, not Hillary.

"And he's told me and others face-to-face that he likes her campaign at Democratic student-professor political gatherings."

Sure, I totally believe you. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

26. Wrong... he's repeatedly defended Hillary's healthcare plan after the Las Vegas debate

Now he's turned on his heel and lauding Edward's plan as the Iowa caucuses are nearing... it's clear that an Edwards win in Iowa benefits Hillary.
Nice strategy from a dishonest broker.

Oh, and I don't give a damn if you believe me or not. You're another dishonest Hillaryworlder who peddles Obama mistruths on a consistent basis.
I'm just glad that someone with as much gravitas as Robert Reich is calling Krugman on his BS.

[rinsd]

31. Oh this is too easy

Here's a compilation of Krugman singing Edwards praises.....Onedit: I orginally thought this was done by the Obama campaign but it is just a blogger.

http://www.hillaryattacks.com/2007/11/paul-krugman-ge.html

[ClarkUSA]

46. HillaryAttacks is another Clinton campaign talking point vehicle. Why do you keep linking to it?

Repeat: anyone who has read Krugman's first two Obama hit pieces can see his defense of Hillary and her plan for themselves. He only mentioned
Edwards in passing. Then all of a sudden, Krugman LOVES Edwards' plan just in time for the Iowa caucuses, when it looks as if Hillary will lose to
Obama. And now, HillarIs44's sister site HillaryAttacks has a companion piece on how Krugman LOVES Edwards. Very coincidental. :eyes:

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[rinsd]

49. Just when I thought it was too easy, you went ahead & made a fool of yourself

"HillaryAttacks is another Clinton campaign talking point vehicle. Why do you keep linking to it?"

About this blog:
I'm just a guy in Las Vegas with a blog -- I'm not affiliated with any political campaign, nor is this web site. Feel free to leave a comment in this thread, or check out my other blog, The Jed Report. --Jed

Why not Hillary?
I'd vote for Hillary over a Republican in a heartbeat, but I don't think she represents the future of the Democratic Party. I think she's become a part of the system which she once sought to change, and that system isn't working for America. Of the three major candidates, she's taken the most hawkish positions on foreign policy issues, including continuing combat missions in Iraq and taking a hard-line on Iran. Finally, I don't think she is a popular enough leader to help expand the Democratic majority in Congress.

Why Edwards?
I support John Edwards primarily because of his progressive domestic agenda, including universal health care, corporate reform, and economic equality. Moreover, he would be a strong candidate for the party, growing the Democratic majority in Congress so he can enact his legislative agenda.
Why Obama?
Barack Obama would make a great President. His opposition to the war when it was still popular and his ability to bring people together are the signs of a true leader. Like Edwards, he would elect more Democrats to Congress, and would redefine the Democratic Party as an agent of change.
Why work together?
Even though most Democrats don't support Hillary, she could still win the nomination by dividing her opposition. To make sure that doesn't happen, at some point we may have to switch candidates to make sure Edwards or Obama wins the nomination. For most of us, that day will come sometime between the South Carolina primary (1/26) and Super Tuesday (2/5).

Yup, nothing but Hillary talking points as far as the eye can see!

"Repeat: anyone who has read Krugman's first two Obama hit pieces can see his defense of Hillary and her plan for themselves. He only mentioned
Edwards in passing. Then all of a sudden, Krugman LOVES Edwards' plan just in time for the Iowa caucuses, when it looks as if Hillary will lose to"

Here's Krugman praising Edwards' health plan in February.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907E.shtml

And the article I linked to that contained the doizen or so pro-Edwards columsn that Krugman has written this campaign season.

Game....set....match.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Sure, sure, and Krugman isn't a Clinton partisan attack dog... btw, Hillarycare II is NOT UNIVERSAL

Here's a fact you keep ignoring... Hillarycare II is NOT universal and IT IS LIKE MITTCARE:

The Facts

The truth is that neither the Obama plan, nor the Clinton plan, guarantees "universal coverage" for all Americans, although they both aspire to
this goal... MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a "universal coverage" plan,
in contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a "universal access" plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include
everybody. "Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage," he told me, when I reached him after the
Las Vegas debate... The Clinton plan is also comparable to the health care plan introduced in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney
(who is opposed to extending the experiment to the rest of the United States.) It provides various incentives and penalties for uninsured
residents of Massachusetts to subscribe to a health plan. Known as "The Connector," the Massachusetts plan has so so far enrolled 200,000
out of 400,000 uninsured residents. The big unknown is how many of the remainder will sign up once health insurance becomes "mandatory"
at the end of this year. Some Massachussets residents have already been exempted from the "mandatory" health insurance requirement.

"The only place in the U.S. that has attempted a mandate is Massachusetts, and we do not know if it is going to work here," said David
Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university and an adviser to the Obama campaign. "A mandate is not a slam-dunk
solution. The key question is whether there is the political will to enforce the mandate once it goes into effect."

Blumenthal concedes that the Obama plan will not cover all the uninsured, at least to begin with. But he claims that Obama will do a better
job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums. He says that Obama might consider a mandate at a later stage, if his present
plan does not achieve its goal of universal coverage.

So where did Clinton get her figure of 15 million uninsured under the Obama plan? Her website cites an article in the New Republic, hardly
an authoritative source.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

[rinsd]

58. Ahhhh the sweet taste of victory!

Oh and let's look at that last blrub you decided to crop out

"So where did Clinton get her figure of 15 million uninsured under the Obama plan? Her website cites an article in the New Republic, hardly an authoritative source."

Here's where you stop....gee I wonder why?

Add this to your Krugman has said squat abotu Edwards till the last two weeks whopper and we see the beginning of a pattern

Well let's take a look at the rest of the quote shall we.

On the other hand, it is more than just a wild guess. The Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, gamed out various different models for health care reform in Massachusetts several years ago. According to John Holohan, one of the authors of the study, "we estimated that we would probably get half the uninsured without a mandate." Extrapolated to the whole country, that would leave 22 million out of 45 million people still uninsured. Since the Obama plan provides for mandatory insurance for children, the total number of uninsured would probably come down to around 15 million.

You should be glad I didn't wear wingtips today.

[ClarkUSA]

64. What victory? WaPo said Hillarycare II is NOT UNIVERSAL and it is like MittCare in MA

You're desperate. By the way, where's YOUR PROOF that backs up YOUR CLAIM that Hillary's healthcare plan isn't like MittCare?

[William769]

8. If he can't stand the heat, then he needs to get out of the kitchen.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Um, Reich is addressing the lack of merit in Krugman's repeated attacks against Obama.

Reich knows what he's talking about, much more so than Krugman, who's an ivory tower professor and occasional opinion columnist
who's never implemented any government policy in his life.

[William769]

20. Former Labor Secretary and he "never implemented any government policy in his life. "

Thats odd.

[ClarkUSA]

24. You are purposely misrepresenting what I just said to you; read the OP and learn about Reich's work

Reading comprehension is not a Hillaryworlder strong point, is it? But, oh, y'all are experts at spinning like a Mark Penn signature top.

[hayu_lol]

45. Lessee if I get this straight...

16 years ago, it was Hillary who brought up healthcare, healthcare crisis, uninsured parents and children. Where were Obama and Edwards then? Why did they not stand and back her then?

The Repugnant talking machine attacked both Bill and Hillary about their healthcare concerns then. They are still doing so today. What crisis in healthcare they argue.

Wasn't too long ago that Edwards was a consultant for half a million a year for a for-profit healthcare corporation. One of his early ideas about healthcare was that it be a mandated expense borne by the uninsured.


Dunno about Obama, he has spoken about several different kinds of healthcare but cannot, by himself, get it through the congress.

Both Obama and Edwards are positive about some sort of healthplan, but neither is for a single-payer national healthplan that most industrialized nations in the world already have.

I'm not picking on either of them. They change their plans according to the feedback they are receiving. Hillary continued to propose the plan she had in mind 16 years ago, but is more than willing to work out the differences with the congress--which is what any of them would have to do. Seems like it was about a week ago that I heard Hillary say that it would take about 2 terms to finally realize a national health plan--at least one the people want and need. At least she isn't stuck in low gear and unable to work around the roadblocks.

Neither Edwards nor Obama have exactly sterling Senatorial credentials. Obama seems to shy away from votes that might bite him...not exactly the sort of personality trait a president needs in order to function within our system.

Any one of the three candidates could do the job. Our job is deciding which one we want/need in the position. Which one can work with the congress for the good of the people?

If you study carefully, the records of all three, you have to agree that the one that has done the most is Hillary. Thats the way I see it. There are others who feel as I do.

There are NO perfect candidates.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Here's what I have to say...

I want someone to tell me, exactly what EXPERIENCE does Hillary Clinton have?

Exactly what the hell did she do as First Lady?

Oops, that right, we don't exactly know what is part of Hillary's 'EXPERIENCE', because they won't release her papers showing what she did as First Lady.

We DO know that the ONE thing she was assigned to do- Health Care- WAS A DISASTER.

Not only in terms of results, but her APPROACH.

Secret Meetings. Not willing to tell how it was organized.

Does this approach remind you of anyone? Oh yeah, Dick Cheney.

This is her natural instinct. This is her style. This is her EXPERIENCE.

Hate it with Cheney. Hillary is no better.

So, let's go to ELECTIVE experience.

She has ONE full term of elected office. ONE term in the Senate. That's it.

She got it because?

Because she was married to Bill Clinton.

She's gotten everything in her professional life because of WHO SHE WAS MARRIED TO.

Period.

She walked into NYC, and ran on her husband's coattails.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, wasn't even completely well known on the South Side of Chicago, let alone the state, when he ran. But, he did
the hard work. The grunt work, going from town to town, winning over the voters, until he earned the Democratic Nomination.

Same thing for President.

She expected a coronation.

Barack Obama wants to be elected.

Huge difference.

He's done the work for it; going state to state, raising the money - FROM THE PEOPLE - not PACS or Lobbyists - FROM THE PEOPLE. He put together
the organization, state by state, from the ground up. Doing the hard work. Doing the grunt work. Presenting himself to the American people, and
trusting them to respond.And, they have.

Is part of the ' Experience' mantra of Bill Clinton, is that HE'S part of the experience?

So, you're telling me that the reason we should elect the first FEMALE President is because she'll bring ALONG A MAN TO HELP HER?

Hillary Clinton's EXPERIENCE can be whittled down to 2 pivotal moments:
1. Her handling of Health Care
2. Her vote on the Iraq War

Don't we already have a President that makes bad decisions, and refuses to live up to the mistakes that they bring? Why the hell would we elect
another? And, she was on her way TO IRAN, until the NIE came out.

There may be no perfect candidates, but some candidates are better than others. Gobama!

[spooky3]

52. Krugman's bio is every bit as distinguished as Reich's, if not more so

"armchair op-ed quarterback"? Try "distinguished economist." Below is just a portion of his bio:

http://leighbureau.com/speaker.asp?id=100

"Krugman’s work in economics has earned him broad acclaim from the economic press and several prestigious awards, including the John Bates Clark medal from the American Economic Association for his work in international trade and finance. He is recognized worldwide as a leader in the fields of economic geography and the role of increasing returns in shaping international trade.

Paul Krugman is professor of economics at Princeton University.

Krugman the Economist

Paul Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge."

He also is the leading pioneer in economic geography—the economic dynamics that determine how and why certain places (like Silicon Valley) end up specializing economically and the advantages this kind of clustering brings to companies and economies. For example, there has been no important commercial traffic on the Erie Canal since 1850, yet the head start that canal gave to New York City has allowed New York to remain the largest US city and its major commercial center to this day.

The overarching theme to his work: bringing the theory of increasing returns into the economic mainstream. ‘Increasing returns’ is the technical term for the phenomenon that success tends to breed further success—that economics is dynamic, not static, and that the multiple choices available to economies eventually get sorted out through the accumulation of initial advantages that may be accidents of history. He’s applied increasing returns theory to international trade and geographic clustering.

Mr. Krugman's current academic research focuses on economic and currency crises."

[ClarkUSA]

54. Reich has actually accomplished great things in government policymaking under Clinton I

Krugman is nothing more than an armchair quarterback and an errant one at that.

[spooky3]

80. If you choose to value policymaking over research achievements

go right ahead. But don't insult a great scholar, and don't expect anyone else to agree with you.

[ClarkUSA]

107. Um, Krugman has zero experience with policymaking on a federal scale while Reich does

So Krugman can spin his wheels all he wants and in the end, he's just another armchair quarterback and a partisan one at that.

[springhill]

136. Geez,

The only progressive columnist who has been telling it like it is and he gets this kind of treatment from you. You may not agree with him, but he is not a hack.

[spooky3]

144. Bingo (n/t).

[BeyondGeography]

55. No hands-on public policy experience is the point

Political realities are lost on the man.

[spooky3]

81. You choose one career path, but then get criticized for not choosing another?

Not a very sound basis for criticism. Disagree with a distinguished economist about economic issues if you wish, but ad hominem attacks, and weak ones at that, aren't very compelling. This kind of criticism is like criticizing a doctor for not being an auto mechanic.

[BeyondGeography]

91. Who cares what career path he has chosen?

Fact is, Reich, by virtue of experience, knows more than Krugman about what it will take to get meaningful health care reform through COngress.

[rinsd]

59. But he said something bad about Obama, therefore he must be insulted and reviled.

At least that's the way the OP operates.

And yes I will certainly separate the OP's behavior from other Obama supporters.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Your Hillaryworld hypocrisy is breathtaking. And very very funny for those of us who know you.

Whining about my facts again? You have yet to back up your false claim that Hillarycare II is nothing like MittCare while I have provided two
factchecks from the Washington Post and Time that says her plan is very much like Romney's fucked up program in MA.

[rinsd]

67. Except I never claimed HillaryCar was nothing like MittCare.

There are differences between the two.

We'll just toss that lie on the pile with the others in this thread like:

Hillaryattacks is a talking point vehicle for her.(yes a site created to document Hillary's attacks on her opponents and promote said opponents is apparently a clever rouse)

That Krugman all of a sudden loves Edwards plan two weeks before Iowa. (except for the column when Edwards debuted his plan in Feb, and the 3 or 4 columns after that where he praised Edwards plan)

"Funny how Hillaryworld is trying to push the meme that Krugman supports Edwards now"

As opposed to your pushing the meme that Krugman is a Hillary supporter. LOL

Then we have another examples of you twisting people's word

Your words: Reich says Obama's healthcare plan is better than Hillary's for this very reason

The quote you offer to support that "Obama’s may be marginally better than HRC’s if he’s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured couldn’t afford to pay HRC’s
mandate anyway."

"May be marginally better" vs "is better".

But my favorite? That Paul Krugman told you that he was for Hillary.

That took the cake! Bravo!

[ClarkUSA]

69. ZING!! See your reply on this thread #33: "Hillary's plan is not like Massachusetts."

You are so full of ad hominem BS.

[rinsd]

71. "Hillary plan is not like Masschusetts" vs " HillaryCare is nothing Like MittCare"

One of these phrases is not like the other!

I then later offered differences between the plans.

Something you're not even aware of beyond what Time or the WaPo was able to summarize for you.

[ClarkUSA]

73. Splitting hairs because you're wrong, huh?

Your opinions are not facts. And ad hominem attacks on me are not substitutes for facts, either. Who backs you up? Both WaPo and Time took the
time to do a fact check and they both say Hillarycare II is like MittCare. That means they agree with me and disagree with your statement "Hillary's
plan is not like Massachusetts". Again, can you find ONE credible source that agrees with you?

I think not. :smoke:

[rinsd]

79. Yes reading the plans on my own and making my own arguments.

VS MSM told me so it must be true.

[ClarkUSA]

85. Oh, and of course we all trust your totally unbiased "arguments" over WaPo and Time fact checks.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

87. You don;t have to trust me. I provided data to both plans.

You could actually read them yourself but I suppose launching nasty epithets at Paul Kruguman because he displeased you is far easier.

[ClarkUSA]

108. Anyone can see you've no links to back up your BS claim that HillaryCare II "is not like" MittCare

You're pathetically dishonest... Bill Clinton has nothing on you in that department. Gold star from Mark Penn for you!

[rinsd]

109. Post #75 has the links.

"You're pathetically dishonest... Bill Clinton has nothing on you in that department. Gold star from Mark Penn for you!"

Gee would that be an ad hominen attack? I thought that was oh so wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

114. Post #75 offers no links to credible independent analyses to back up your claim

And what I said is true. You have spun this entire thread while I have repeatedly offered the facts to refute your false assertions.

[rinsd]

117. I never said it was indy analysis. I linked to info about the plans themselves.

"You have spun this entire thread while I have repeatedly offered the facts to refute your false assertions"

Yes, I forced you into becoming a feces flinger making your entire thread look like shit.

[ClarkUSA]

122. You offered your biased personal opinions but nothing in the way of credibly sourced analyses

So it's clear that's all you've got.

Your vulgarity says more about you than it does about me. Everyone reading this thread can see what a venal example of Hillaryworld you are,
not that many of us needed further evidence given our prior experience with your BS.

[rinsd]

123. Too bad you are unable to check up on my "biased personal opinion"

Since my comments dealing with preventative care, record modernization & public health plans aren't contained in neat little fact checks.

"Your vulgarity says more about you than it does about me."

So you're offended by my vulgarity? :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

126. I have repeatedly linked to credible fact check sources that give the lie to your bogus claims.

You can throw around neat catchphrases all you want, but you still have not provided any proof of what you say. You seem to be more
interested in anything other than substantive dialogue, which is typical of Hillaryous individuals here and on Daily Kos.

[rinsd]

127. Ok show me where in those fact checks they discuss those components?

Show me where beyond the mandate the Mass plan is compared to Clinton's when it comes to public health plans, preventative care, record modernization etc.

"You can throw around neat catchphrases all you want, but you have not provided any proof of what you say."

I do have a weakness for the fancier words, I'll admit that. But again, I provided links to information about each plan. I have brought up some differences. You appear unable to discuss them. That is not my problem.

[ClarkUSA]

129. You're now moving the goalposts instead of offering proof of your claims.

Your links are not proof. Both WaPo and Time fact checks (and many others) conclude that HillaryCare II is similar to MittCare. Your continuing
efforts at obfuscation are to no avail.

[spooky3]

84. yes, it's interesting how that works.

it's especially interesting how Dr. Krugman, a professor at Princeton with a very distinguished record in economics, is being deemed by some DUers to be unqualified to criticize macroeconomic or microeconoomic health care proposals. I guess he's supposed to "shut up and sing."

[ClarkUSA]

88. Oh, stop the sniggering partisan high-fives and read Reich's correction of Krugman dishonest attacks

Do you Hillaryworlders ever stop whining? Those of us who haven't drunk the Clinton Kool-Aide have every right to lambast Krugman's patent
partisan attacks against Obama as dishonest. And Reich's creds overshadow Krugman's by a mile. What expertise in creating and implementing
federal economic and health care policy has Krugman got? I'll save you the trouble of answering: Krugman has got NONE to Reich's PLENTY.
Case closed.

[rinsd]

93. Yes, saying stop insulting Paul Krugman is partisan!

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

110. Yes, it is, because only in Hillaryworld does calling Krugman on his BS equal to "insulting"

Thanks for keeping this thread at the top of GDP, by the way.

[rinsd]

113. Shortt list of your actual insults directed towards Krugman

armchair oped quarterback

dishonest

partisan shill

And that was just from a quick scan.

"Thanks for keeping this thread at the top of GDP, by the way."

Hey no problem. Anytime I can make the Obama supporters look foolish by holding up the most crazy example I can find of them is good news for Hillary!

So keep up the good work!

[ClarkUSA]

131. Only in Hillaryworld are accurate criticisms of Clintonian BS peddlers considered insults.

This has been shown to be the case again and again.

[spooky3]

143. Uh, I am an Edwards

supporter. So the personal attacks on my motives have no weight. My posts on this thread have nothing to do with partisanship. Don't believe me? Check my posts since before 2004. Ask Catchawave or some of the other long time Edwards supporters.

And I'll have to ask you to trust me on this - I have made many small donations to Edwards' campaign, but never to Clinton's.

What I do is sometimes object to unfair, ad hominem attacks on any good Democrat, whether they be Obama, Clinton, Edwards, etc., or people who don't hold or seek public office or appointments. I've read Krugman for years and think his columns are excellent, though he, like everyone else sometimes gets it wrong or says things you or I could disagree with.

So you are missing the point entirely. Once again, if you do not like WHAT KRUGMAN (or someone else) says, attack the content of the remarks with evidence. Personal insults directed toward a person or his or her characteristics or achievements display a lack of knowledge, a weak case, or worse. Attacking my motives is just more evidence of your weak case.

[rinsd]

89. Its very sad. Some deluded Obama supporters even insisted Krugman's son worked for Hillary

On TPM's site on the interview they posted with Krugman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3865494

Problem with that nasty rumor is that he does not have children.

[ClarkUSA]

111. I never did... and what has that got to do with the OP?

Who cares? It doesn't change the facts of what Reich says in my OP.

[rinsd]

112. Just showing the lengths that some Obama supporters are going to while attacking Krugman.

And I thought it fit in with this thread.

But by all means continue your frothed mouth attacks on anyone who dares agree with Krugman.

You're winning supporters for Obama here with every view!

[ClarkUSA]

116. Um, according to you... for all I know, it's Clinton staffers making Obama supporters look bad.

Your continuing "froth mouthed attacks on anyone who dares disagree with Krugman" are amusingly hypocritical, indeed.

However, I'm very appreciative of the fact you've kept this thread at the top of GDP all evening.

[rinsd]

119. Actually that was according to TPM not me.

But hey we've already established that you have troubles with honesty.

[ClarkUSA]

130. I don't truck in rumormongering like you do. Only in Hillaryworld is that "the fun part"

What's next, another National Enquirer story smearing Obama instead of Edwards?

[zulchzulu]

63. Thank you, Dr. Reich

I'll take what he says on ANY issue over Krugman. I like Krugman, but he would get schooled by Bob. No contest.

If Krugman can do ONE COLUMN on how mandated healthcare would ACTUALLY be performed, let alone passed legislatively, I might consider his opinion a little more regarded.

[Radical Activist]

82. Anyone who disagrees with Reich is a conservative!!!!

Isn't that how it works? I remember people accusing Obama of being conservative and using "right wing talking points" because he disagreed with Krugman. Maybe now everyone can admit how silly that accusation was.

[ClarkUSA]

118. Yes, that's how it works

Good catch, RA. :thumbsup:

[depakid]

90. Krugman's simply TELLING THE TRUTH about Obama (particularly his naivity)

Something he wasn't allowed to do about Bush in 2000.

The fact that Reich doesn't like it- or that the OP sees fit to post up his curricula vitae just goes to show the extent to which Obama supporters (kinda like Bush supporters) are willing to ignore facts and repeated public statements.

Same thing happened in 2000.

[ClarkUSA]

105. Prove it. I believe Bill's Secretary of Labor over you or Krugman any day of the week.

Prove it with links and sources or I'll just think you're another Hillaryous partisan who's full of Clintonian BS.

[depakid]

135. What's to prove? The FACTS are out there for everyone to see for themselves

Just like Bush's tax cut and social security numbers were in 2000.

If you choose to ignore those things, then fine- that's your prepogative.

But don't expect reasonable people Like Krugman (or anyone else who's analyzed what's been said and done) to go blythly along with the shallow talking points or the far right and fundy pandering.

Aother thing about Paul Krugman is he calls it like he sees it- and if you've read his columns (or the Great Unravelling) you'll find that in many if not most cases, he's been nothing less than prescient. So spot on that it's scary sometimes whne one looks back at the material.

[ClarkUSA]

137. List them because Robert Reich refutes many of Krugman's arguments and premises

You're talking apples and oranges now. Your original subject title said he was telling the truth about Obama. Robert Reich (as quoted in the OP) disagrees
with you.

I have known Prof. Krugman from local political circles for the past four years. I have a signed book from him (didn't want to buy anymore). But he was not
the only one who predicted that Bush's tax cuts were going to be a disaster, nor that Bush's deficit-spending was actually about Starving The Beast. Hell, I
knew those things, plus the fact that IWR was a fucking mistake for any Democrat to vote "aye" for and that any Democrat who did was doing so for purely
political reasons because enough Senators (like Bob Graham) raised grave questions about it on the Senate floor (turns out that behind-the-scene, there
was much reason to have grave doubts, too, as publicly recounted by Senators who voted nay).

All that aside (his books, his alleged "predictions") Krugman has become a partisan shill recently which accounts for his dishonest op-eds attacking Obama
(read the OP for how Krugman is doing so).

[depakid]

140. Just read the articles for yourself!

Reich refutes nothing. Zero, Zip, Nada.

You know why? Because Obama's own words, actions and what's written in his "plans" speak for themselves.

Krugman merely recited them and, in several instances, reminded us all how they compare with far right talking points.

That you choose to attack the messenger with cheap ad hominem shots doesn't change those facts.

What it does show me (and many others) is just how far Obama supporters are willing to go to apoligize for the man, who's shown himself repeatedly to be a panderer and enabler.

What I've seen these past several months is starting to look more and more like a cult following- never questioning what's said and done, no matter how naive or absurd it gets.

Sad to see that, actually.

[ClarkUSA]

141. I did... you're still not offering what "truths" Krugman told about Obama

Totally subjective ad hominem attacks by you (about me and Obama supporters) or by Krugman (about Obama) are far from the truth. Your
partisanship is preventing you from acknowledging Robert Reich's smackdown of the basic points in Krugman's latest hit piece on Obama.
Like his prior two hit pieces, Krugman seems to ignore facts about HillaryCare II while attacking Obama on a purely subjective basis with
nothing to back it up in the way of facts. Like most Obama haters, you seem to be projecting your own motives of bitter partisanship onto
those of us in the Obama camp. Sad to see that, really.

[Lucinda]

142. ...