Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Paul Krugman is fast becoming a hack

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:20 PM
Original message
Paul Krugman is fast becoming a hack
Op-Ed Columnist

Hate Springs Eternal

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 11, 2008

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponents vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.

The quote comes from Nixonland, a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of Before the Storm. As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the partys grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I wont try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. Im not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. Weve already had that from the Bush administration remember Operation Flight Suit? We really dont want to go there again.

more


Krugman's hypocrisy:

Letter

Kerrys Policy Proposals

Published: February 9, 2008

Re The Edwards Effect (column, Feb. 1):

Paul Krugman ridicules John Kerrys 2004 campaign as cautious and without strong, distinctive policy ideas.

Talk about a flip-flop that would even make Mitt Romney jealous: Mr. Krugman suggests that Mr. Kerrys policies werent distinctive, but in 2004 when writing about health care policy he said, The difference (from Bush) couldnt be starker. He wasnt alone: Joe Klein of Time magazine called Mr. Kerrys health care reinsurance plan the first new big idea of the campaign season.

The ripples of Mr. Kerrys policy innovations can be seen across the Democratic field. Indeed this newspaper reported that the Obama campaign revives an idea advanced by the Kerry campaign using the federal government to cushion employers from sudden, disastrous spikes in health expenditures, by reimbursing health plans for the cost of catastrophic illnesses among their employees (front page, May 30, 2007).

Every time candidates talk about a Manhattan Project for alternative energy, service for college plans or ending tax subsidies that encourage shipping jobs overseas, they echo principles that Mr. Kerry campaigned on in 2004.

How is it that so many of the same policies Mr. Krugman found cautious in 2004 have become bold in 2008?

David Wade
Washington, Feb. 1, 2008

The writer was national press secretary for Kerry-Edwards 2004.

more


Health Versus Wealth

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 9, 2004

Will actual policy issues play any role in this election? Not if the White House can help it. But if some policy substance does manage to be heard over the clanging of conveniently timed terror alerts, voters will realize that they face some stark choices. Here's one of them: tax cuts for the very well-off versus health insurance.

John Kerry has proposed an ambitious health care plan that would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, while reducing premiums for the insured. To pay for that plan, Mr. Kerry wants to rescind recent tax cuts for the roughly 3 percent of the population with incomes above $200,000.

George Bush regards those tax cuts as sacrosanct. I'll talk about his health care policies, such as they are, in another column.

Considering its scope, Mr. Kerry's health plan has received remarkably little attention. So let me talk about two of its key elements.

First, the Kerry plan raises the maximum incomes under which both children and parents are eligible to receive benefits from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This would extend coverage to many working-class families, who often fall into a painful gap: they earn too much money to qualify for government help, but not enough to pay for health insurance. As a result, the Kerry plan would probably end a national scandal, the large number of uninsured American children.

Second, the Kerry plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs.

By relieving insurance companies and H.M.O.'s of this risk, the government would drive down premiums by 10 percent or more.

This is a truly good idea. Our society tries to protect its members from the consequences of random misfortune; that's why we aid the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Catastrophic health expenses, which can easily drive a family into bankruptcy, fall into the same category. Yet private insurers try hard, and often successfully, to avoid covering such expenses. (That's not a moral condemnation; they are, after all, in business.)

All this does is pass the buck: in the end, the Americans who can't afford to pay huge medical bills usually get treatment anyway, through a mixture of private and public charity. But this happens only after treatments are delayed, families are driven into bankruptcy and insurers spend billions trying not to provide care.

By directly assuming much of the risk of catastrophic illness, the government can avoid all of this waste, and it can eliminate a lot of suffering while actually reducing the amount that the nation spends on health care.

more


Krugman was against mandates


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Because he is an economist spewing
psychological babble:

Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. Weve already had that from the Bush administration...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
48. Because he doesn't think Obama is the greatest thing since oral sex. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Pointing out the truth does not make one a "hack".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Hypocrisy and spin is not truth. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. You're the one spewing hypocrisy and spin. Krugman's the one telling the truth.
And everybody reading this thread goddamn well knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. No, Krugman is the hack

Krugman Wrong on Obama and Mandates

Its not often that I take issue with Paul Krugmans economics (at least not recently), but he does misrepresent the issues in going after Obama on health insurance mandates.

The simple story is that any effort to establish national health insurance will require some anti-free loader mechanism to prevent gaming. The logic is straightforward. Everyone agrees that we want to get rid of the current practice under which insurers are allowed to charge fees based on peoples health. Under this system, people with serious illnesses either must pay exorbitant fees or are unable to get insurance altogether. (Insurance companies lose money if they insure people with high bills.)

Under a reformed system, we will require a standard fee under which everyone pays the same rate regardless of their health history. However, this creates a situation in which it doesnt make sense for healthy people to pay for insurance. Why not just deal with minor health related costs out of pocket? You can wait until you get sick and then buy into the system and pay the standard rate.

That works for healthy people, but it would destroy the system because the only people buying insurance would be those with relatively high bills. This means that insurance would be very expensive, which of course encourages more people to play the wait till Im sick strategy. The end result is that the system collapses, because only the very sick would ever find it worthwhile to buy insurance.

One way around this problem is to mandate that everyone buy insurance. Senator Clinton has proposed a mandate as an explicit part of her plan. Senator Obama has attacked Clinton for this mandate (sometimes unfairly). By contrast, he has suggested that we can get near universal enrollment through other mechanisms. Specifically, he has suggested that we can have a system of default enrollment, whereby people are signed up for a plan at their workplace.

People would then have the option to say that they do not want insurance, so they are not being forced to buy it. However, they will then face a late enrollment penalty if they try to play the healthy person game. When they do opt to join the system, at some future point, they will have to pay 50 percent more for their insurance, or some comparable penalty for trying to game the system.

A system of default enrollment will ensure that people do not remain uninsured due to inertia. A system of late enrollment penalties will ensure that people dont try to game the system.

Is the Obama mix as good at reaching universal or near universal insurance as the Clinton mandate? The reality is we dont know. It will depend on many factors, most importantly the sanctions that are imposed under both systems (i.e. the penalty for not getting insurance with the mandate, and the late enrollment penalty in the Obama system). Krugman is wrong to say that a mandate is necessary. We can get to the same place with Obamas approach; it really depends on the details.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
41. You are WRONG--once again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
36. It is not true that the Obama ca
It is true that he has charisma, but there are two very concrete reasons that I support Obama - that would be there even if he looked and sounded like Senator Sessions! First, he has taken on difficult important issues - that were unlikely to be big vote getters or make him popular with the powers in the party - because they were the right thing to do. These are things I really wish the Edwards supporters would look at. Obama has already taken on lobbyists - and though they likely thing more is needed, it was enough to anger Schumer and more than anyone else got passed in decades. Second, there is the way he accomplished these things - by bringing people together and making a case.

Here are a couple of the very real accomplishments that demonstrate that he really can act as a catalyst to bring people together to do things that need to be done. He did this in Illinois with his bill to require police taping of interrogations - there he worked with the police. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... This is an important piece of work with real impact on people who are "voiceless", to use HRC's word.

There is also how he went against people like Schumer and with Feingold got some real constraints on lobbying money in the ethics bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics....
He also joined people like Feingold, Kerry, Webb and Tester to get more teeth than Reid wanted into the ethics bill. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/7/101110/2068 )

He also brought every stake holder to the table to work out a healthcare plan in Illinois. I give both credit for wanting everybody to get insurance - all real Democrats likely do. Here, the contrast is between Obama who has the ability and the inclination to work to get a solution in an open negotiation and Clinton, whose inclination in 1993 was to work with her person - even keeping secret who they spoke to. Including people in the process makes them stakeholders in the ultimate solution, while bringing in a full blown elaborate solution that most of the Senators had no input doesn't.

The combination of how he works, the things he chose to work on and the success he had are the reasons I support him. I don't see that combination in HRC.

As to Krugman, it saddens me because I always liked his economic columns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Personally, I think he's arrived...
Edited on Sun Feb-10-08 11:25 PM by Kristi1696
...Now that he's slamming Obama even on non-economic issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Krugman himself says look to the candidates policy proposals. He even ADMITS Clinton's are vague
and fuzzy. Just go to her webpage and click on the different Issues. Many are barely fleshed out at all.

Obama, on the other hand, has well though out plans. Whether you agree or disagree.

At least he is honest about talking about health INSURANCE.

Because Clinton is talking about garnishing wages to pay private insurance corporations.

She is not talking about Universal Health Care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Krugman's a hack, because it's not fawning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. No, because he has long opposed mandates now he's claiming they're the
Edited on Sun Feb-10-08 11:29 PM by ProSense
best thing to counter a "cult of personality"? WTF?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. What are you talking about?
What the hell do health care mandates have to do with a 'cult of personality'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. "What the hell do health care mandates have to do with a 'cult of personality'?" Ask Krugman! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Nooooooo....I'm asking YOU...
I don't see Krugman making the connection that you are. Perhaps you should spell it out for me, 'cuz I don't see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. NYT columnist humping for Hilly?
Now isn't that the oddest thing!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillrockin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. He's no longer on my radar. Total hack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. Takes one to know one I guess.
Edited on Sun Feb-10-08 11:31 PM by The_Casual_Observer
But thanks for posting his article again anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
49. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
13. "Becoming"????
Why the gerund?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. All this passion makes him nervous I guess
and it's also affecting the quality of his thinking. This latest column is the lamest yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
32. He should stick to economics.
Nothing in his background qualifies him as any sort of quality political commentator.

He also basically has lived in an ivory tower since the 1970s. Married to a professor, no children. I doubt he even has a dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. so the fact I am unmarried and childless makes me unable to comment
on the political issues of the day? Wow, just wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Cherry-picking. My charge is that Krugman is an ivory tower intellectual.
I assume you hold down a day job, pay your taxes, and do more than write wonky books and screeds for the NYTimes while holding down a class or two at Princeton. I also assume that you have some emotional engagement in your community. Krugman is a career man, and there's nothing insulting to anyone about simply pointing that fact out.

Believe it or not, there is such a thing as keen expertise in politics and Krugman doesn't have it. Satisfied?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. And yet another formerly respected person on DU attacked.
What are we up to now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Why, eating our own....care to join in?
What would like....a wing or a leg?

Sit down for a spell....this will be going on until November, and likely beyond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
19. Experts should stick to their fields of expertise
I think that a good general rule is that people should stick to what they know. Outside of that, their opinions are just as good as mine. When you get outside of your specific message, you lose credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
22. He's a leftwing Jonah Goldberg. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. THE HELL HE IS..WTF ARE YOU BABBLING? do you know the man?
cut the bullshit..

i respect the man more each day for pointing out the shit that is going on inside this party..most of which is making me ill!
fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I know this comment is full of BS:
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 12:17 AM by ProSense
Im not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. Weve already had that from the Bush administration...


Krugman should be ashamed of himself and his hypocritical positions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
23. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
26. Let me rephrase:
Krugman knows what he is talking about, and you have given us less than no reason to believe that you do. Your posts preach to the converted, while you attack the most progressive MSM voice we have. I am quite sure I would not enjoy your anonymous-internet-multiple-thousands-of-posts record.

PS Nice work on getting my last post deleted - that's the fastest deletion I've ever seen. You do have some noteworthy skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Huh? Krugman is disingenous and wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
27. delete
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 12:27 AM by joshcryer
nevermind, wrong thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
28. Waah. An intelligent man doesn't like my candidate. Waah.
Cult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Crazy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
31. Its the Clinton Political Machine in action
They've called in the favors. Look for more articles just like this as they turn to writers to help do their smearing. Its not going to be easy to beat the Establishment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:54 AM
Response to Original message
33. I'm happy with both candidates
I guess I'm the exception
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barb in Atl Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
59. I think there are a few of us ...
But here, as in life, the more impassioned (squeaky wheel) get way more attention.

Just as an aside, I happen to like and respect Paul Krugman a great deal, but there is NO ONE that I agree with 100%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
37. To say that Obama is leading a cult is ridiculous
Here are a couple of the very real accomplishments that demonstrate that he really can act as a catalyst to bring people together to do things that need to be done. He did this in Illinois with his bill to require police taping of interrogations - there he worked with the police. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... This is an important piece of work with real impact on people who are "voiceless", to use HRC's word.

There is also how he went against people like Schumer and with Feingold got some real constraints on lobbying money in the ethics bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics....
He also joined people like Feingold, Kerry, Webb and Tester to get more teeth than Reid wanted into the ethics bill. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/7/101110/2068 )

He also brought every stake holder to the table to work out a healthcare plan in Illinois. I give both credit for wanting everybody to get insurance - all real Democrats likely do. Here, the contrast is between Obama who has the ability and the inclination to work to get a solution in an open negotiation and Clinton, whose inclination in 1993 was to work with her person - even keeping secret who they spoke to. Including people in the process makes them stakeholders in the ultimate solution, while bringing in a full blown elaborate solution that most of the Senators had no input doesn't.

The combination of how he works, the things he chose to work on and the success he had are the reasons I support him. I don't see that combination in HRC.

As to Krugman, it saddens me because I always liked his economic columns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. Do you have a Reading Comprehension Problem?-You are making inferrences!

Im not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. Weve already had that from the Bush administration remember Operation Flight Suit? We really dont want to go there again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
38. Krugman doesn't get that the opposition to HRC isn't centered on details of healthcare
it's the belligerent and dangerous foreign policy, stupid!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
39. Detest the way some DUers so eagerly throw liberal heroes under the bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. yes I agree!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. Agree, Kennedy and Kerry deserved better when they endorsed Obama. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdpeters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
40. It's the primaries. He'll come to his senses when they're over.
Just like the rest of us, no matter who wins the nomination, both sides will hopefully snap out of this madness when we once again find ourselves on the same side again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. It's the folks attacking a great voice for our cause who need to come to THEIR senses!
Don't you see how this makes you look? Krugman is solidly on the side of GOOD. That his daring to disagree with Obama would draw this distortion, dismissal and rebuke is just...scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demokatgurrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
44. Paul Krugman is fast becoming the only voice
for sanity and reason on the NYTimes staff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
46. "Mommy! That nasty economist man said something critical of my candidate!
Make him stop!" :cry:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. "most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody"
Krugman is a jerk, and he needs to stick to the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. yeah, that's pretty accurate
it surely mirrors my experiences, both here of DU, KOS, and out in the real world....

In fact, it pretty much is what you're doing in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. Nonsense, the exit polls (bragged about on DU) showed 63% of Hillary supporters not planning to vote
for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. I doubt that
I'm sure that you, in your more rational moments, do also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. No, it's true. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #66
70. Here's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. nothing posted on this board is "proof" of anything
and I seriously doubt that 63% of HRC supporters would refuse to vote for Obama, despite what some exit poll says.

Try to keep one foot in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
51. I have to disagree
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 11:41 AM by nam78_two
Whatever Krugman's opinion about any candidate, IMHO he has been a consistently progressive voice on the pages of the NYT for these past 8 years. He was critical of Bush right after 9/11, when the man had an 80+ approval rating. He is a very intelligent and accomplished man and doesn't deserve such harsh criticism for his opinions on a candidate imho :shrug:.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. delete n/t
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 11:39 AM by QC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. His hypocrisy and direct calling out of Obama supporters earned him the criticism. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freida5 Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
53. At least you did not call him a racist, I guess a hack is progress for the Obama campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
54. Thread summary here:


Anybody else eagerly awaiting the daily post limit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpeale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
58. why? because he doesn't support your candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. He shouldn't support any candidate. I always liked and respected him because he was objective.
Edited on Mon Feb-11-08 12:14 PM by sparosnare
It seems lately though, he's been very partisan and regardless of who I support, it makes me think less of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. No because he dissed
the 8.3 million people who voted for Obama thus far in the primaries and the millions more who likely support him:

I wont try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. Im not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. Weve already had that from the Bush administration remember Operation Flight Suit? We really dont want to go there again.


Is this portion of the text invisible in the OP?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. Obama said himself that he will get Hillary's voters, but she won't get his
And even several supporters here on DU have said they only want OBAMA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Polling among Independents validate Obama's statement. That is not the same as Democrats
claiming they will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
62. He hasn't been suspended like Shuster. I am stunned at Krugman.
There is a difference between being FOR someone, and in absolutely tearing down the other.

I have respected him so much, and this is sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elixir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
63. You have too much time on your hands. Do some work for your candidate that actually gets votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Maybe instead of responding to my threads you should be taking your own advice. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
69. Yep, he is the one spreading discourse. He has spoken badly of Obama twice now
Oh, and it appears he now attacks his influential supporters too, like Senator Kerry.
It is a shame he has turned into such a hack for Clinton. I can't trust anything he writes anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-13-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. More than twice! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC