Krugman took Obama to school. Wow!

[kerrybama08]

If you squeeze everything Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have written this year, you won't get half the substance in today's column by Krugman.

his piece today mae a strong argument against several of Obama's assertions in San Francisco. These two struck me as very interesting:

1) Claim: Small town jobs were lost and never replaced:
Debunking: Krugman notes that whatever jobs were lost were replaced with better ones, judging by the raising income, adjusted after inflation, during the Clinton years.



And just in case any of you wants to make the point that "it is not about income, but about jobs", remember that there was a net gain of jobs in the Clinton years. Not a loss.

2) Claim: Poor people in the midwest and south cling to guns and religion because of financial hardship.
Debunking: Krugman notes the obvious: The South is a traditionally religious area, period.
Why do poor people from Montana and Maine attend church at a smaller rate than its richer counterpart, Connecticut? How can Obama explain that only poor people from one area and not the other, according to his theory, are led to "cling" to religion, and even guns, because of financial hardship?

At the end of the piece Krugman asks Obama a favor:

let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

This is arguably Krugman's best piece this year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[blm]

1. The Dem PARTY has acknowledged Obama's statement as fact for the last two decades.

and many lawmakers have expressed themselves simlarly, including Bill Clinton when he was running for office and in his earlier term.

So - why did things change at the moment Obama made his statement?

Krugman is being disingenuous - are you?

[papau]

8. I recall no such Dem PARTY position - indeed the opposite is the party position - Obama lied

[blm]

43. Dem lawmakers have recognized that the GOP uses demagogued issues to betray working class for

decades and Bill Clinton made similar remarks when he ran. I would bet that if I tracked your posting history over the last 7 years, that you have probably made similar complaints about the GOP using blame for social issues, guns or religion to vote against their economic interests.

Come on, papau......who are you trying to kid, here?

[papau]

105. I have indeed noted voting against economic interests - but is Obama correct that Clinton sucked? NO

[blm]

119. The economy would be a million times better today if BCCI matters hadn't been deep-sixed by Clinton.

A million times better for many more hundreds of millions people around the world than just the 300 million here in the US, too.

[krkaufman]

148. "sucked"... perhaps not. But Clinton policies *were* a coninuation of Conservative policies ...

... including NAFTA, WTO, GATT, which have been detrimental to the economy and welfare of the people. A Slick Willy needing to get some action for little willy and then feeling the need to lie about it is a large part of the reason why we ended-up with Bush.

Without worrying about exact gradiation, Clinton was certainly better than W, but Clinton wasn't no FDR.

[stillcool]

149. NAFTA certainly did...

Is their any other policy that has done as much damage to our country?

[JoFerret]

102. Obama deceived by attacking the Clinton economy

and has mistakenly bought the false sociology of "Kansas" at least as revealed by Larry Bartels (yesterday's NY Times.)

The second is a mistake. The first is a deliberate deception and an attack on a democratic president.

[KittyWampus]

24. When Krugman supported Dean he had no problem with "God, Guns, Gays". Krugman went LOOKING

for someone who had an opposing viewpoint and seized on the first book he could find.

It's pathetic.

Krugman is now so emotionally invested in his half-assed view of the Health Care debate which is BLIND to political realities, he feels compelled to trash Obama.

[OzarkDem]

79. What does that have to do with health care reform?

And yes, Krugman knows what he's talking about re health care reform and the economic consequences of various plans. That's his area of expertise.

Let's try to take these discussions seriously and weigh the options and advice of the experts without letting partisanship get in the way.

[Igel]

115. The problem is deciding when he was wrong.

"I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong."

He's essentially admitting that Frank's book impressed him not because of a thorough evaluation of the data, but because it fit with Krugman's biases. He took it to be good, he didn't need to be convinced it was good.

It's a sign of a decent academic that he *can* be convinced that he was wrong when presented by facts, and admit it. It's the difference between "thinking" and "believing". On this point, Krugman's not a believer.

Now, Krugman would probably be the first to say that his deciding he was wrong is conditional: If Bartels' facts are wrong, or if he left out crucial information, he'd have no problem changing his views. But, off hand, it's hard to see how Krugman could do anything but say he was wrong, unless Bartels is simply wrong on the facts.

Oddly, I haven't heard anybody say he spouted false data. I've heard them skirt the issue of facts and go for political, ideological, or personal attacks. These don't actually bear on his argument, however. (Note that this isn't Krugman's argument; it's Bartels argument, Bartels data, Bartels conclusions by and large, apart from the defense of Clinton.)

[kentuck]

2. Like mothers cling to their children...

in the corners of their house, when a Midwestern tornado is approaching. They hug them closely. Because they feel threatened. They cling to them. Because they don't want to lose them. So it is with guns and religion. They feel safer with what gives them security. They cling to them more in some times than others. Especially when they feel threatened.

[Two Americas]

114. I disagree

Can you not see how demeaning and condescending that is? I see no evidence that any clinging is going on in rural areas more than anywhere else. I think much of this is projection. In farming country people are going on with their lives and give far less attention to these culture war issues than most liberals do. Many in the liberal activist community feel threatened and are clinging to things and seeking security in the comfortable and familiar, just as much as anyone else is. In fact, the stereotypes of rural people is one of those things that we cling to when we feel threatened.

[AX10]

3. K & R! Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

4. And Robert Reich will endorse Obama this afternoon. NT

[juajen]

28. Reich endorsed obama months ago. It was in all the news.

This just shows how desperate the Obama campaign is, they saved him to truck out when needed, but everybody knew because he said he supported Obama on TV, I can't remember which show, but I saw it, and this was early in the campaign.

[QC]

35. It's like those people who get saved all over again every time

a tent revivalist passes through town.

[blm]

49. Clintons did the same with a Kathleen Kennedy redux - after Ted endorsed Obama.

They've done it with other endorsees, too - just like those people who get saved all over again every time a tent revivalist passes through town.

[LSK]

129. then why did Reich say he did not endorse anyone until today???

Is he a liar or are you a liar?

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-for-president.html

"My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer."

[stillcool]

152. He preferred his health plan...

[tokenlib]

5. I'll take Reich over Krugman anyday!! n/t

[OzarkDem]

80. Obama doesn't like Reich?

Does Obama and his supporters realize when they attack Clinton's successful economic reforms, they're also criticizing Reich?

He was part of the Clinton administration and played an important role in helping guide the economic reform strategies.

Does this mean Obama doesn't like Reich? I'm confused.

[JoFerret]

144. They are both excellent economists

.

[cyberpj]

6. Good article. I have one comment though - Bill Clinton's economy benefitted greatly from

the tech boom of the time which had nothing to do with his policies. It was coincidental timing that the home computer and internet boom created a huge tech job market during his presidency. One that, not so coincidentally, was soon to be the market most outsourced to other countries following manufacturing.

[KittyWampus]

20. Not only did Clinton-era economy boom from Tech Bubble, the Nafta/Glass-Steagall repeal

didn't have it's negative effects until later.

[kentuck]

69. Bingo!

The unvarnished truth. However, his tax policies also led to a balanced budget. But he gets more credit than deserved as far as the economy goes, in my opinion.

[damonm]

122. True. Clinton's greatest move then...

Was to get out of the way of a booming tech sector.

[BlooInBloo]

7. "blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress"...

... That IS something Obama will have to stop doing - especially as the primaries are winding down.

[papau]

10. Obama wants GOP love - as his campaign says - his current statements are just for the campaign

[BlooInBloo]

11. lol - um, no. He's running against Clinton in the primary is all...

EDIT: So he decided to be campaign-economical and run *1* campaign against both. That might go a certain distance, but as Krugman points out, it doesn't go *that* far. And as the primaries wind down and coalesce behind one nominee, that need to lessen, and eventually stop.

[KittyWampus]

26. Sorry, but Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall, signed Nafta and empowered China. It's time

the Democratic Party recognized the extent to which we've allowed Reaganomics to dictate our own policy making.

[papau]

38. Glass-Steagall was "repealed" via waivers that began under Reagan - and it was

a good thing since it was so easy to make the same product for any structure that money was being wasted to set up structures with the lowest regulatory cost for each product.

Bush41 signed NAFTA.

empowered China" - WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN - the suitcase bomb was developed in 83 and by 87/88 it was in Chinese technical literature (our CIA claims they didn't know until the 90's) - Reagan empowered the Chinese if anyone did.

[juajen]

42. NAFTA was passed during GHWB's term. Bill had nothing to do

with it passing, but it was given to him for his signature. It was soon after he took office. I don't remember what his chances were of having a veto stick, but I think he thought it could work with strong requirments written in the bill, like human rights and trade equality. Of course, when Georgie got in office he promptly ignored all these requirments and regs, taking down everything Bill had done in the eight years previous. Ergo, the freakin' mess we have now.

Obama is stupid to act as if Bill's terms in office were bad. He only hurts himself and other dems with this stupidity.

[LisaM]

51. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to what you just said?

I wish you luck. Of course, as we saw in the debates, Obama just LOVES Bush41 and can't drool enough over him.

[redqueen]

60. Considering how wrong it is? No.

Do you like listening to stupid lies? Or are you just pretending it's not stupid lies?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hfojvt]

107. and after intense White House lobbying

over the objections of the AFL-CIO.

[redqueen]

109. Not to mention the objections of Dems in both houses of Congress.

[blm]

65. HAHAH...then WHY did Bill set up a War Room for NAFTA if he didn't wage a battle to pass it?

You really have that much trouble with timelines or are you just pretending like the rest of TeamClinton does so often?

[OzarkDem]

83. Congress had to pass NAFTA

or be out of the loop on any world trade agreements. The train had already left the station when Clinton came in, the best he could do was amend it as much as possible to protec jobs and the environment. Blame BushI.

Lying about Clinton's economic policies and the success of his administration is only going to hurt Democrats and the country. I wish we really knew what policies Obama favors. Apparently he doesn't approve of the ones that worked.

[spooky3]

136. Wiki supports what you said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA

History of the implementation

NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),<7> and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).<8>

[stillcool]

151. not true...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/ThreeYears_NAFTA.html
THREE YEARS OF NAFTA:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !
by Scott Cooper

On July 10, 1997, Bill Clinton released his Administration's report on three years of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA).
By law, Clinton was required to release the report by July 1. But he missed the deadline-no doubt to ensure that the report would vindicate NAFTA, which has been under constant scrutiny and criticism since well before its ratification. As InterPress Service (IPS) reported on July 3, 'The delay appears reminiscent of the Administration's handling of a recent investigation of plant closings and labor practices under NAFTA, observers say. Release of that report was delayed for months, during which time the Administration repeatedly disputed allegations it was seeking to suppress and sanitize the document."

And what did the Clinton Administration conclude?
NAFTA had a modest positive effect," says the report's executive summary, i'on U.S. net exports, income, investment and jobs supported by exports."
In his cover letter to the report, Clinton wrote: "The Congress and the administration are right to be proud of this historic agreement. This report provides solid evidence that NAFTA has already proved its worth to the United States during the three years it has been in effect. We can look forward to realizing NAFTA's full benefits in the years ahead."
Why has the Administration been so keen on ensuring a positive assessment of NAFTA? Clinton is seeking Congressional support in the fall for so-called "fast track" authority to negotiate new trade accords, including the expansion of NAFTA to include Chile as well as the planned establishment of a hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This means legislators would agree either to approve or reject-but not amend-trade accords the president negotiates. Administration officials believe they need this authority to signal other countries that they can negotiate without fear that U.S. Iawmakers will amend deals beyond recognition.
But, as trade officials have acknowledged in recent weeks there is concern that whatever public and political support for tree trade might have existed is waning. Given the stakes. the IPS report continued, the pressure has grown for officials to portray NAFTA as an engine of economic growth."
As London's Financial Times reported on July 9: "President Clinton believes he will need to expend a significant amount of capital on Capitol Hill to get fast-track authority. He does not want to spend it at least until the autumn, when the battle over the balanced budget is over."

Devastating effects
The run-up to the release of Clinton's report touched off a flurry of activity. The week before Clinton's report was released, six research groups-the Economic Policy Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies, the International Labor Rights Fund. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch campaign, the Sierra Club. and the U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation- issued a counter-report. titled '-The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years," the report is a scathing indictment of the treaty.

Here are some of the highlights regarding the United States.
For nearly two decades, the real wages of American blue-collar workers have been declining. Imports from low-wage countries are an especially important cause of increasing wage inequality, and Mexico is one of America's most important low-wage trading partners."
Many firms have used the threat of moving to Mexico as a weapon against wage increases and union organization. In a survey commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Secretariat, Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell found that over half of the firms used threats to shut down operations to fight union organizing drives When forced to bargain with a union, 15% of firms actually closed part or all of a plant-triple the rate found in the late 1980s, before NAFTA."
Based on standard employment multipliers, the increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has cost the U.S. 420,000 jobs since 1993 ('50,710 associated with changes in the trade balance with Mexico, and 169,498 with Canada). NAFTA was responsible for 38% of the decline in manufacturing employment since 1989. NAFTA and globalization generally have changed the composition of employment in America, stimulating the growth of lower paying services industries and accelerating the deindustrialization of our economy."
The Clinton report claims that U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico supported an estimated 2.3 million U.S. jobs in 1996, "an increase of 311,000 jobs since 1993." But Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at Public Citizen, had a different assessment: The administration's NAFTA report must be from Mars, which would explain both the delay and the amazing whoppers and omissions."
The "Failed Experiment" report illustrates how the 1995 peso crisis in Mexico, "commonly used to excuse the sharp deterioration of the U.S. trade balance with Mexico," in fact resulted from an engineered effort to support an aggressive export-led growth strategy in Mexico. The artificially high peso "held down inflation in Mexico" and "helped to win votes" in Congress for passage of NAFTA.
'The peso collapse has devastated Mexico's economy. The number of unemployed workers doubled between mid-1993 and mid-1995, to nearly 1.7 million. Additionally, there were 2.7 million workers employed in precarious conditions in 1996. To make ends meet, many families are forced to send their children-as many as 10 million-to work, violating Mexico's own child labor law. An estimated ~8.000 small businesses in Mexico have been destroyed by competition with huge foreign multinationals and their Mexican partners. Real hourly wages in 1996 were 7% lower than in 1994 and 37% below 1980 levels. Of the 1995 working population of 33.6 million, 19% worked for less than the minimum wage, 66% lacked any benefits, and 30% worked fewer than 35 hours per week. During three years of NAFTA, the portion of Mexican citizens who are 'extremely poor' has risen from 31 to 51%, and 8 million people have fallen from the middle class into poverty.'
-------------------------------------------------------
Those conclusions should be enough to convince every trade unionist and activist for social change from the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego that the fight to stop NAFTA's expansion throughout the hemisphere should be a top priority. But if not. consider the scandalous report released on June 1 by the three nation North American Commission on Labor Cooperation on "Plant Closings and Labor Rights" under NAFTA. It had also been delayed-by some eight months-while commission officials sanitized the findings (not surprisingly, a charge they deny). IPS picks up the story. ' The study not only white-washes data, it also under-reports it.' Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University. was quoted as saying at the time.
"In research undertaken for the commission's report, Bronfenbrenner found a marked increase in U.S. employers threatening to move jobs to Mexico under NAFTA as a way of dissuading their workers from joining unions. When this effort failed. some 15 percent of employers actually closed their plants.
"These findings were expunged from the commission's report, " Bronfenbrenner told IPS. Even worse, the final conclusion of the report basically states that labor law is working effectively to deal with these problems and their only recommendation for the future is that there be more research.''
The job displacement effects and downward pressure on wages in the United States due to NAFTA is well documented. Here are a few examples.
In Pocohantas, Arkansas-with a population of only 6151- some 400 workers were laid off at the Brown Croup's shoe manufacturing plant due to "increased imports from Canada'' resulting from NAFTA, according to the report of the U.S. Department of Labor's NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program. (Dec. 16, 1996)
Under NAFTA, JVC shifted production of television sets from its Elmwood Park, New Jersey plant to Tijuana, Mexico. laying off 198 workers in the process-according to the Labor Department. The New Jersey workers averaged $360 in weekly earnings, while the Tijuana workers get $50 on average. Some 24,600 workers in Tijuana are employed in the television manufacturing industry. (Miami Herald. May '4, 1996)
According to an Institute of Policy Studies report, an estimated 69,048 U.S. jobs in motor vehicle-related industries were lost in 1995 due to trade with Mexico. Meanwhile, an internal memo revealed that Chrysler invested $300 million in facilities in Coahuila, Mexico between 1994 and late 1996.
According to the U.S. Labor Department report cited above, more than 100,000 U.S. workers had lost their jobs directly due to NAFTA by the end of last year. The Economic Policy Institute puts the real number at 600,000.

[stillcool]

150. Stupid....

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/ThreeYears_NAFTA.html
THREE YEARS OF NAFTA:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !
by Scott Cooper

On July 10, 1997, Bill Clinton released his Administration's report on three years of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA).
By law, Clinton was required to release the report by July 1. But he missed the deadline-no doubt to ensure that the report would vindicate NAFTA, which has been under constant scrutiny and criticism since well before its ratification. As InterPress Service (IPS) reported on July 3, 'The delay appears reminiscent of the Administration's handling of a recent investigation of plant closings and labor practices under NAFTA, observers say. Release of that report was delayed for months, during which time the Administration repeatedly disputed allegations it was seeking to suppress and sanitize the document."

And what did the Clinton Administration conclude?
NAFTA had a modest positive effect," says the report's executive summary, i'on U.S. net exports, income, investment and jobs supported by exports."
In his cover letter to the report, Clinton wrote: "The Congress and the administration are right to be proud of this historic agreement. This report provides solid evidence that NAFTA has already proved its worth to the United States during the three years it has been in effect. We can look forward to realizing NAFTA's full benefits in the years ahead."
Why has the Administration been so keen on ensuring a positive assessment of NAFTA? Clinton is seeking Congressional support in the fall for so-called "fast track" authority to negotiate new trade accords, including the expansion of NAFTA to include Chile as well as the planned establishment of a hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This means legislators would agree either to approve or reject-but not amend-trade accords the president negotiates. Administration officials believe they need this authority to signal other countries that they can negotiate without fear that U.S. Iawmakers will amend deals beyond recognition.
But, as trade officials have acknowledged in recent weeks there is concern that whatever public and political support for tree trade might have existed is waning. Given the stakes. the IPS report continued, the pressure has grown for officials to portray NAFTA as an engine of economic growth."
As London's Financial Times reported on July 9: "President Clinton believes he will need to expend a significant amount of capital on Capitol Hill to get fast-track authority. He does not want to spend it at least until the autumn, when the battle over the balanced budget is over."

Devastating effects
The run-up to the release of Clinton's report touched off a flurry of activity. The week before Clinton's report was released, six research groups-the Economic Policy Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies, the International Labor Rights Fund. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch campaign, the Sierra Club. and the U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation- issued a counter-report. titled '-The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years," the report is a scathing indictment of the treaty.

Here are some of the highlights regarding the United States.
For nearly two decades, the real wages of American blue-collar workers have been declining. Imports from low-wage countries are an especially important cause of increasing wage inequality, and Mexico is one of America's most important low-wage trading partners."
Many firms have used the threat of moving to Mexico as a weapon against wage increases and union organization. In a survey commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Secretariat, Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell found that over half of the firms used threats to shut down operations to fight union organizing drives When forced to bargain with a union, 15% of firms actually closed part or all of a plant-triple the rate found in the late 1980s, before NAFTA."
Based on standard employment multipliers, the increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has cost the U.S. 420,000 jobs since 1993 ('50,710 associated with changes in the trade balance with Mexico, and 169,498 with Canada). NAFTA was responsible for 38% of the decline in manufacturing employment since 1989. NAFTA and globalization generally have changed the composition of employment in America, stimulating the growth of lower paying services industries and accelerating the deindustrialization of our economy."
The Clinton report claims that U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico supported an estimated 2.3 million U.S. jobs in 1996, "an increase of 311,000 jobs since 1993." But Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at Public Citizen, had a different assessment: The administration's NAFTA report must be from Mars, which would explain both the delay and the amazing whoppers and omissions."
The "Failed Experiment" report illustrates how the 1995 peso crisis in Mexico, "commonly used to excuse the sharp deterioration of the U.S. trade balance with Mexico," in fact resulted from an engineered effort to support an aggressive export-led growth strategy in Mexico. The artificially high peso "held down inflation in Mexico" and "helped to win votes" in Congress for passage of NAFTA.
'The peso collapse has devastated Mexico's economy. The number of unemployed workers doubled between mid-1993 and mid-1995, to nearly 1.7 million. Additionally, there were 2.7 million workers employed in precarious conditions in 1996. To make ends meet, many families are forced to send their children-as many as 10 million-to work, violating Mexico's own child labor law. An estimated ~8.000 small businesses in Mexico have been destroyed by competition with huge foreign multinationals and their Mexican partners. Real hourly wages in 1996 were 7% lower than in 1994 and 37% below 1980 levels. Of the 1995 working population of 33.6 million, 19% worked for less than the minimum wage, 66% lacked any benefits, and 30% worked fewer than 35 hours per week. During three years of NAFTA, the portion of Mexican citizens who are 'extremely poor' has risen from 31 to 51%, and 8 million people have fallen from the middle class into poverty.'
-------------------------------------------------------
Those conclusions should be enough to convince every trade unionist and activist for social change from the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego that the fight to stop NAFTA's expansion throughout the hemisphere should be a top priority. But if not. consider the scandalous report released on June 1 by the three nation North American Commission on Labor Cooperation on "Plant Closings and Labor Rights" under NAFTA. It had also been delayed-by some eight months-while commission officials sanitized the findings (not surprisingly, a charge they deny). IPS picks up the story. ' The study not only white-washes data, it also under-reports it.' Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University. was quoted as saying at the time.
"In research undertaken for the commission's report, Bronfenbrenner found a marked increase in U.S. employers threatening to move jobs to Mexico under NAFTA as a way of dissuading their workers from joining unions. When this effort failed. some 15 percent of employers actually closed their plants.
"These findings were expunged from the commission's report, " Bronfenbrenner told IPS. Even worse, the final conclusion of the report basically states that labor law is working effectively to deal with these problems and their only recommendation for the future is that there be more research.''
The job displacement effects and downward pressure on wages in the United States due to NAFTA is well documented. Here are a few examples.
In Pocohantas, Arkansas-with a population of only 6151- some 400 workers were laid off at the Brown Croup's shoe manufacturing plant due to "increased imports from Canada'' resulting from NAFTA, according to the report of the U.S. Department of Labor's NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program. (Dec. 16, 1996)
Under NAFTA, JVC shifted production of television sets from its Elmwood Park, New Jersey plant to Tijuana, Mexico. laying off 198 workers in the process-according to the Labor Department. The New Jersey workers averaged $360 in weekly earnings, while the Tijuana workers get $50 on average. Some 24,600 workers in Tijuana are employed in the television manufacturing industry. (Miami Herald. May '4, 1996)
According to an Institute of Policy Studies report, an estimated 69,048 U.S. jobs in motor vehicle-related industries were lost in 1995 due to trade with Mexico. Meanwhile, an internal memo revealed that Chrysler invested $300 million in facilities in Coahuila, Mexico between 1994 and late 1996.
According to the U.S. Labor Department report cited above, more than 100,000 U.S. workers had lost their jobs directly due to NAFTA by the end of last year. The Economic Policy Institute puts the real number at 600,000.

[OzarkDem]

81. Nixon empowered China

Bush I negotiated NAFTA and the GOP Congress passed Glass Steagall.

[Radical Activist]

34. When did Obama do that?

I didn't hear it.

[LisaM]

63. You didn't hear how he just gushed over the Gulf War?

Believe me, it happened.

[Radical Activist]

82. The gulf war? The claim was about the economy.

When did Obama say there was no difference between the Bush and Clinton economies, as Krugman claims?

[oasis]

139. "Reagan good/Clinton bad" is just part of Obama's "bring us together" strategy.

:crazy:

[AtomicKitten]

9. Oh, so an Op-Ed columnist has an opinion -- I'll alert the media.

[The Wielding Truth]

12. kerrybama08,??? is this post in support of Obama?

[Mezzo]

68. would knowing the distinction affect what you would say?

that says a lot.

[golddigger]

117. I'm so confused....lol

[The Wielding Truth]

145. To me the article seems so bias against Obama, but the name

they chose is kerrybama08. I just wandered if I am missing the sarcasm. Maybe it is funny.

Honestly I don't get it.

Can you explain how to interpret this thread?

Thanks.:shrug:

[DAGDA56]

13. I always enjoy reading Paul Krugman...however

...as a Socialogist, Mr. Krugman is a fine Economist. Removing Clinton era statistics does not negate the fact that currently, people in Pennsylvania are hurting. Guns and religion are wedge issues that Republicans use to divert attention from economic issues during elections. Surely Mr. Krugman knows that.

[merh]

55. I'm confused and maybe you can help me out.

Is Pennsylvania in the midwest?

If not, why does he write of how wonderful things were for the folks in the midwest under Clinton? What about those folks in the rest of the nation?

And why does the Billy Joel song "Allentown" keep ringing in my ears.

:shrug:

x(

[Armstead]

14. A substantive response to that from William Greider in 2000

This article is a long -- but spot -on -- explanation in depth about why so many of us do NOT want to see the Democrats revert to the Clintonian brand of politics and governance.

This is why -- on a substantial level -- Hillary keeps pushing my own hot buttons, and those of many other people.

Among other things, it outlines the economic and political failures that would later be amplified (but not created) by Bush 2. It also gives context to Obama's analysis that led to "bittergate" and why Obama was exactly right.....And why Hillary's pandering lies about it are so enraging.

It's worth reading over a cup o' coffee or printing out to take to lunch or whatever.

And, if you do find it worthwhile, please Kick and Recommend. The author really does get the core of it in a substantive way.


P.S. I realize peopel might have legitimate disagreements with his analysis. Fine, if you do disagree please say so. But at least read it with an open mind.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000214/greider/5

The Nation Magazine
Posted January 27, 2000 (February 14, 2000 issue)

Unfinished Business: Clinton's Lost Presidency by William Greider

Excerpt:

...Clinton, as President, consigned the malfunctioning global economy to the reform energies of the Business Roundtable and Wall Street. His Administration led cheers for multinational commerce, opened fragile economies to the manic surges of global capital and created the World Trade Organization to judge whether new social standards are, in fact, barriers to trade and therefore forbidden.

When Bill Clinton recites the big challenges, he reminds us of all he danced away from as President. The spirited reformer is the young man we met back in 1992, brimming with big ideas, but he is utterly unconvincing now. One feels sadness for the lost promise of this extraordinarily skillful politician......

Clinton has taught Democrats to think small. And it works as politics in this media age, given his talent for emotive communication. Republicans are learning from him too, smoothing over their big ideas with more charm, less snarl. Clinton's many retreats from large purpose--accompanied always by small, symbolic gestures--were supposed to restore faith in government, bit by bit, and raise public expectations for genuine action. Instead, his political success has deepened the skepticism. For the cynical and disengaged, he confirms their assumption that politics is not real. For idealistic young people, who feel Clinton did the best he could, the message is that large ideas are simply impossible to achieve in this era.....

The "New Democrat" straddle--the money comes from business and finance, the votes from ordinary people--worked for Clinton, but it is a cul-de-sac for the party that claims to speak for the working class and poor, that built its reputation by leading bravely on the toughest questions of reform. The Clinton success actually confines Election 2000, limiting what his party's candidates can say and think. One important subtext of this election is whether the Democrats will find a way out of the dilemma or simply become smaller in number, weaker in purpose....

... That outcome describes the Clinton legacy. Rather than bring Americans together, his presidency deepened the economic fault line that separates the many from the few. Bottom line: The folks who twice supported him for President are worse off in fundamental terms, despite the currently improving conditions. The median family income did not get back to its 1989 level until 1998 (a slower postrecession recovery of lost ground than occurred in the Reagan years). Real wages for nonsupervisory production workers remain at early seventies levels. The maldistribution of wealth--ownership of property and financial assets--has accelerated; its impact is reflected in the negative savings rate for households. In these best of all possible times, how come typical Americans are still spending more than they earn to keep up?

....Clinton's big retreats from party ideals were seen as smart tactical moves, and they often were. But they also became the new starting line for the Democratic Party. Like Bradley, I find myself feeling nostalgia for the stubborn clarity of Ronald Reagan--a leader who believed in a few big things, who repeated them endlessly, never backed off and never admitted defeat, though he frequently lost. The Gipper accomplished great forward progress for his way of thinking.

Clinton instead has talked romantically about a far horizon of progress, then backed away from the messy political conflicts that might actually move the country toward it. The most serious omissions of his presidency define his failure, but are not even talked about in this campaign because he never took up the fight for them. He leaves no legacy on a lot of tough issues, except that he ducked....

...While there are many other contributing factors, money politics helps to explain why presidential elections are no longer very convincing. Choosing a new leader for the nation was once the most absorbing drama of American democracy, but the process is now caught in a spiral of declining legitimacy. Neither major party seems able to speak plainly, convincingly, on fundamental matters that distress Americans, in part because both parties depend upon the same galaxy of contributors to finance their candidates. Real differences endure, of course, but money makes it increasingly risky for any candidate who thinks anew and outside the accepted boundaries (unless the candidate happens to be rich as Croesus and finances himself)....

....By comparison, Election 2000 already looks like a failed brand of soap, since so many Americans aren't buying any of it. Restoring credible accountability in the representative system, from the ground up, is the long way back to a robust democracy, for sure. But don't dismiss it as impossible. Leaving aside the fools and scoundrels, of whom there are many, the great saving virtue of Americans is that they do not always believe what they are told by the authorities. Sometimes, they still find their way to the truth about things, despite the media's opacity and the blanket of propaganda for the status quo. When they do figure things out for themselves, Americans sometimes still get real ornery about it.

[KittyWampus]

15. Krugman apparently doesn't know what a Wedge Issue is. Funny, he didn't mind Dean saying God Guns

and Gays when he supported Dean.

He also never mentions Clinton-era stuff like repeal of Glass-Steagall, Nafta, empowering China and how those ULTIMATELY trashed our economy.

Krugman has crossed the line into being a hack.

[dsc]

25. He didn't endorse Howard Dean

trust me if he had, I would have crowed about it back then.

[KittyWampus]

37. He wrote quite a few columns making it plain he preferred Dean. Just as he has written quite a few

columns making it plain he preferred Edwards (and now Clinton).

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Krugman has been "taking Obama to school" for months now, but

it doesn't seem that voters are interested, as Obama's delegate lead continues to widen.

[grasswire]

33. not as of today

See the latest poll data. Obama lost two points, Clinton gained two.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. I'm talking about the numbers that matter, delegates

When was the last time a week went by and Clinton actually gained more delegates than Obama?

[hfojvt]

57. Krugman has been shilling for Clinton

This is at least the 3rd time I have found his arguments to be specious.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

72. It's so obvious. He's getting increasingly petulant.

If he's such a "liberal" why isn't he going after McCain with the same fervor he reserves for Obama?

[BootinUp]

17. Krugman's column today is a keeper

and should be the last word on the subject.

[KittyWampus]

30. Why? Krugman seems totally ignorant of Wedge Issues. Just because your girl is too fucking stupidc

to realize how damaging her attacks last were, you feel it's a good thing to pretend the GOP doesn't use Wedge Issues?

[BootinUp]

If you disagree with the research in the article

post something to dispute it other than common conventional wisdom which can often be wrong.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. Why did Krugman fail to mention the growing disparity between the rich and poor in the 90s?

Maybe because it wouldn't help his case?

[hfojvt]

91. may I humbly suggest posts #53 and #84?

Or not so humbly. :blush:

And there are others in this thread.

[stillcool]

157. I'm sure things are much worse now....

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/ThreeYears_NAFTA.html
THREE YEARS OF NAFTA:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !
by Scott Cooper

On July 10, 1997, Bill Clinton released his Administration's report on three years of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA).
By law, Clinton was required to release the report by July 1. But he missed the deadline-no doubt to ensure that the report would vindicate NAFTA, which has been under constant scrutiny and criticism since well before its ratification. As InterPress Service (IPS) reported on July 3, 'The delay appears reminiscent of the Administration's handling of a recent investigation of plant closings and labor practices under NAFTA, observers say. Release of that report was delayed for months, during which time the Administration repeatedly disputed allegations it was seeking to suppress and sanitize the document."

And what did the Clinton Administration conclude?
NAFTA had a modest positive effect," says the report's executive summary, i'on U.S. net exports, income, investment and jobs supported by exports."
In his cover letter to the report, Clinton wrote: "The Congress and the administration are right to be proud of this historic agreement. This report provides solid evidence that NAFTA has already proved its worth to the United States during the three years it has been in effect. We can look forward to realizing NAFTA's full benefits in the years ahead."
Why has the Administration been so keen on ensuring a positive assessment of NAFTA? Clinton is seeking Congressional support in the fall for so-called "fast track" authority to negotiate new trade accords, including the expansion of NAFTA to include Chile as well as the planned establishment of a hemispheric Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This means legislators would agree either to approve or reject-but not amend-trade accords the president negotiates. Administration officials believe they need this authority to signal other countries that they can negotiate without fear that U.S. Iawmakers will amend deals beyond recognition.
But, as trade officials have acknowledged in recent weeks there is concern that whatever public and political support for tree trade might have existed is waning. Given the stakes. the IPS report continued, the pressure has grown for officials to portray NAFTA as an engine of economic growth."
As London's Financial Times reported on July 9: "President Clinton believes he will need to expend a significant amount of capital on Capitol Hill to get fast-track authority. He does not want to spend it at least until the autumn, when the battle over the balanced budget is over."

Devastating effects
The run-up to the release of Clinton's report touched off a flurry of activity. The week before Clinton's report was released, six research groups-the Economic Policy Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies, the International Labor Rights Fund. Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch campaign, the Sierra Club. and the U.S. Business and Industrial Council Educational Foundation- issued a counter-report. titled '-The Failed Experiment: NAFTA at Three Years," the report is a scathing indictment of the treaty.

Here are some of the highlights regarding the United States.
For nearly two decades, the real wages of American blue-collar workers have been declining. Imports from low-wage countries are an especially important cause of increasing wage inequality, and Mexico is one of America's most important low-wage trading partners."
Many firms have used the threat of moving to Mexico as a weapon against wage increases and union organization. In a survey commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Secretariat, Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell found that over half of the firms used threats to shut down operations to fight union organizing drives When forced to bargain with a union, 15% of firms actually closed part or all of a plant-triple the rate found in the late 1980s, before NAFTA."
Based on standard employment multipliers, the increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has cost the U.S. 420,000 jobs since 1993 ('50,710 associated with changes in the trade balance with Mexico, and 169,498 with Canada). NAFTA was responsible for 38% of the decline in manufacturing employment since 1989. NAFTA and globalization generally have changed the composition of employment in America, stimulating the growth of lower paying services industries and accelerating the deindustrialization of our economy."
The Clinton report claims that U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico supported an estimated 2.3 million U.S. jobs in 1996, "an increase of 311,000 jobs since 1993." But Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at Public Citizen, had a different assessment: The administration's NAFTA report must be from Mars, which would explain both the delay and the amazing whoppers and omissions."
The "Failed Experiment" report illustrates how the 1995 peso crisis in Mexico, "commonly used to excuse the sharp deterioration of the U.S. trade balance with Mexico," in fact resulted from an engineered effort to support an aggressive export-led growth strategy in Mexico. The artificially high peso "held down inflation in Mexico" and "helped to win votes" in Congress for passage of NAFTA.
'The peso collapse has devastated Mexico's economy. The number of unemployed workers doubled between mid-1993 and mid-1995, to nearly 1.7 million. Additionally, there were 2.7 million workers employed in precarious conditions in 1996. To make ends meet, many families are forced to send their children-as many as 10 million-to work, violating Mexico's own child labor law. An estimated ~8.000 small businesses in Mexico have been destroyed by competition with huge foreign multinationals and their Mexican partners. Real hourly wages in 1996 were 7% lower than in 1994 and 37% below 1980 levels. Of the 1995 working population of 33.6 million, 19% worked for less than the minimum wage, 66% lacked any benefits, and 30% worked fewer than 35 hours per week. During three years of NAFTA, the portion of Mexican citizens who are 'extremely poor' has risen from 31 to 51%, and 8 million people have fallen from the middle class into poverty.'
-------------------------------------------------------
Those conclusions should be enough to convince every trade unionist and activist for social change from the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego that the fight to stop NAFTA's expansion throughout the hemisphere should be a top priority. But if not. consider the scandalous report released on June 1 by the three nation North American Commission on Labor Cooperation on "Plant Closings and Labor Rights" under NAFTA. It had also been delayed-by some eight months-while commission officials sanitized the findings (not surprisingly, a charge they deny). IPS picks up the story. ' The study not only white-washes data, it also under-reports it.' Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University. was quoted as saying at the time.
"In research undertaken for the commission's report, Bronfenbrenner found a marked increase in U.S. employers threatening to move jobs to Mexico under NAFTA as a way of dissuading their workers from joining unions. When this effort failed. some 15 percent of employers actually closed their plants.
"These findings were expunged from the commission's report, " Bronfenbrenner told IPS. Even worse, the final conclusion of the report basically states that labor law is working effectively to deal with these problems and their only recommendation for the future is that there be more research.''
The job displacement effects and downward pressure on wages in the United States due to NAFTA is well documented. Here are a few examples.
In Pocohantas, Arkansas-with a population of only 6151- some 400 workers were laid off at the Brown Croup's shoe manufacturing plant due to "increased imports from Canada'' resulting from NAFTA, according to the report of the U.S. Department of Labor's NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program. (Dec. 16, 1996)
Under NAFTA, JVC shifted production of television sets from its Elmwood Park, New Jersey plant to Tijuana, Mexico. laying off 198 workers in the process-according to the Labor Department. The New Jersey workers averaged $360 in weekly earnings, while the Tijuana workers get $50 on average. Some 24,600 workers in Tijuana are employed in the television manufacturing industry. (Miami Herald. May '4, 1996)
According to an Institute of Policy Studies report, an estimated 69,048 U.S. jobs in motor vehicle-related industries were lost in 1995 due to trade with Mexico. Meanwhile, an internal memo revealed that Chrysler invested $300 million in facilities in Coahuila, Mexico between 1994 and late 1996.
According to the U.S. Labor Department report cited above, more than 100,000 U.S. workers had lost their jobs directly due to NAFTA by the end of last year. The Economic Policy Institute puts the real number at 600,000.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. Krugman is either just shilling for HRC or an idiot or both

When Obama spoke about "clinging" to guns and religion, he was talking about wedge issues, not about going to church in hard times. They cling to these ISSUES in politics because Washington has been so disconnected to them economically that they just tend to tune out. Republicans (and now Hillary) have used these "issues" (they'll take your guns, they'll scorn your church, they'll make you have an abortion, they'll burn the flag, they'll give welfare to the Mexican that stole your job) to get poor people to vote against their own interests for decades. If you don't understand that fact, you are an idiot.

[DemGa]

22. I think people understand full well how Obama covered himself

on his statements.

[DefenseLawyer]

27. No, I think Hillary supporters want to win at any cost

"People" know better.

[Zodiak]

130. Remember the flag lapel pin question?

That was a question submitted by an unemployed Pennsylvanian.

So out of ALL the issues facing the nation, she is the most concerned about flag lapel pins. So concerned she gets to ask her burning question on ABC during a televised debate.

Kinda proves Obama's point, doesn't it?

[DemGa]

21. Obama had to lie his ass off on this one

Just as he's used other right-wing attacks against Hillary Clinton. The man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Would a Democrat condemn the Clinton Presidency as this man Obama has?

[americanstranger]

31. Condemning...

Comparable to Hillary 'condemning' Gore and Kerry.

Talk about using right-wing attacks. Pot, kettle, etc.

- as

[OzarkDem]

95. It says a lot about Obama

and its not good.

To trash a fellow Dem is one thing, to lie about the success of his economic policies, which represented a real sea change for the modern party and for the US flies in the face of common sense.

Its worse than GOP and one really must wonder why he's doing it. Money, no doubt.

Obama's attempts to sabotage real health care reform are very troubling also.

[Skwmom]

23. Capital flooded the market due to low interest rates. Just like capital flooded the

market during the phony run up in house values. It took a while for the Clintons "ship jobs overseas" trade deals to be felt (and the sad thing is that jobs will CONTINUE TO BE LOST under those agreements).

Krugman is one of the Clinton supporters who doesn't want to let the cat out of the bag - the Clinton economic policies have DEVASTATED this country. What a bunch of idiots. MANY people warned about the trade policies and financial deregulation but clueless camp Clinton ignored those warnings.

[thevoiceofreason]

29. Welcome to DU

Another green troop.

[Radical Activist]

32. Krugman is stetching the truth and is out of touch with the real world in rural America.

I live in the rural Midwest and I see enough devastated small towns to know that Krugman is clueless. You can site statistics all day long but it doesn't alter the real world small towns that used to have a good union factory jobs but now everyone is working at Walmart or on welfare. Krugman needs to take a road trip through middle America to get a reality check. Jobs created in Chicago doesn't mean rural areas are better off so his statistics about the "Midwest" are meaningless to the discussion.

Besides, his entire column is based on a disingenuous straw man attack. He wrote: "But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading."

And when exactly did Obama ever make that argument? Krugman loses more credibility every time he stretches the truth to help out Hillary.

He also fails to understand Obama's argument about religion. Just because people go to church doesn't mean that they're automatically susceptible to their religion being used for a right wing political agenda. These are two completely different issues unless Krugman thinks ALL church goers are right wing gun nuts.

The Democratic Party completely ignored rural America during the Clinton years as they chased after suburban soccer Mom's. That had long term consequences. It's another example of how the Clintons damaged the party while helping themselves.

[redqueen]

36. Well done.

Krugman makes it about jobs... and ignores the focus on small towns.

Krugman has tarnished his reputation with his spinning for Hillary. I wonder if he'll have anything to say about Reich's endorsement.

[americanstranger]

40. I predict: Krugman on Reich....

'Robert Reich is DEAD to me!'

:rofl:

- as

[OzarkDem]

97. Reich was responsible

for the very same economic policies that Obama is criticizing. Does everyone have collective amnesia? Reich was Labor Secy, he was at the table when Clinton's policies were developed.

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

101. Reich also disagreed with Clinton over many policies.

Its one reason he left the Clinton administration and became one of its critics.

[stillcool]

154. what would that have to do...

with Reich endorsing Obama?

[mopinko]

41. you made my point- chicago

lumping together "the midwest" is pretty disingenuous. the chicago area is an economy unto itself, and doing quite well under blue, blue, blue leadership. some of the last good jobs in america are here in chicago. funny that.

[Radical Activist]

88. Krugman is really playing into the clueless east coast ivory tower elitist stereotype.

He's out of touch with the real world people are facing in Middle America.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. I live in the rural northwest and I find his comments to be on the money.

In the 90's we had some significant success in recovering from the loss of jobs in our natural resource-based economy. That success has evaporated in this decade.

If you think that Krugman is being unfair in his contention that the Obama campaign has abandoned working class voters, try this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Racists%2C+Right+Wingers%2C+Dumb+White+Fucks+and+Hillary+supporters%22+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS221US221

[Radical Activist]

85. The Northwest isn't the Midwest

And nothing in that link is from the Obama campaign. Very pointless. Clinton abandoned working class voters many years ago from her time on the anti-union walmart board to her support for NAFTA.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Indeed it is not. The midwest is now home to Boeing. n/t

[Radical Activist]

100. Yes, in Chicago. Is Chicago rural to you? You make my point for me.

Statistics about the "Midwest" in general are meaningless because it includes numbers for large cities that having nothing to do with the job situation in rural areas. That's what makes Krugman's statistics and arguments so incredibly misleading.

[zulchzulu]

39. NAFTA and China MFN have made thousands of jobs leave the US

I've written about it many times. Krugman is a Hillbot shill and has been lowering his credibility with every recent OP he writes.

He has no idea about the effects of Clintonion free trade legislation happily supported by Hillary?

[juajen]

50. As usual, total bullshit!

NT

[redqueen]

61. Like you'd know?

You think Clinton didn't have anything to do with getting NAFTA passed.

[stillcool]

155. How can you possibly say that?

The facts are in evidence..overwhelmingly!!!

[hfojvt]

56. He was originally hired at the NY Times

with the idea that he would, like Tom Friedman, promote free trade. I remember reading that somewhere.

[LisaM]

44. Obama has made many anti-Clinton adminstration comments

They were folded into his Reagan comments, they were folded into his small town comments, and I'm sure the list goes on.

The fact that he's not being called on his negative campaigning is just proof that the media is in love with him and won't point out facts. The Clintons are racists! Times were bad under the Clintons! Hillary is responsible for everything that went wrong when Bill was in office, but can't take credit for anything that worked!

[americanstranger]

46. Why in the world should she be allowed to take credit?

She wasn't president.

If I was married to Celine Dion :scared:, it wouldn't make me a freakin' Canadian pop star. Sheesh.

- as

[LisaM]

47. Then she likewise shouldn't be blamed for anything

That was my point. You can't have it both ways, no matter which side you're on. For example, he mentioned that Bill Clinton pardoned 2 members of the Weather Underground in the "debate", to counter the fact that he served on a board with one of them. Was that, then, an unfair remark?

[americanstranger]

52. I think it was fair to point that out.

If she's holding up Obama's association with Ayers as something negative, then it is absolutely fair play to point out that Bill Clinton would seem also to be on the wrong side of that controversy.

But that's a different thing from Hillary taking credit for any success of the Clinton presidency. She may have acted as an informal advisor, but she was in no official capacity other than First Lady. To take credit for Bill's accomplishments by fiat of marriage is somewhat of a stretch, IMO. I realize opinions may differ on this. :)

I personally think the Clinton presidency was a mixed bag, and a confluence of factors that will probably never occur again. The tech/internet boom made for a lot of jobs on Clinton's watch, but the case can be made that the credit for that should actually go to Al gore, who spearheaded the effort to make the internet more accessible for all. But in the strictest terms, Clinton can and does get credit for that segment of job creation.

I don't take part in criticizing the Clinton years - his presidency was historic and his popularity was stellar. No one can take that away from him. But Clinon's time in the White House and the style of campaigning that Hillary engages in are two entirely separate things.

I think the bottom line is that they took very bad advice at the outset of the campaign and when things didn't go according to plan, it was already too late in the game for them to change tactics.

Sorry, I'm rambling here.

- as

[LisaM]

58. The one thing I think she was NOT involved in at all was the pardons

All presidents make pardons at the end. My personal take was that the Republicans blew up over the Marc Rich pardon (made at Scooter Libby's request) to deflect a rehash of Bush41's pardons of his fellow Iran-Contra conspirators, but if you recall from the time, Bill Clinton apparently spend many hours by himself at the end of his administration going over what pardons he was going to issue, and he did not seek advice. I remember this distinctly. I have never heard that Hillary had anything to do with any of them.

[americanstranger]

74. I didn't mean to imply that I thought she did.

I just thought that in light of the point of Ayers being raised, it was a fair counter-point that a couple of WU members had been pardoned by Bill.

More of an illustration that former WU members were capable of rehabilitation and using Bill's pardons as evidence of that than blaming Hillary, IMO.

- as

[mrreowwr_kittty]

76. Then she should stop running on her husband's record

Along with not-so-subtly implying that they will be a team.

[thereismore]

45. Krugman is an elitist. nt

[Orsino]

48. Selective statistics.

Wealth disparity didn't shrink during the Clinton years; it grew. More jobs is generally a good thing, but when the gap between the very rich and everyone else gets bigger, the policy that gets us there deserves scrutiny.

[hfojvt]

53. Krugman maybe still hopes to be in a Clinton administration

How else to explain his intellectual dishonesty?

Look at the chart. Median income was $45,000 in 1979 and then almost 20 years later it was $47,000. Wow, that's a growth rate of 4.4% in 20 years which averages .2% per year. That's pretty stagnant isn't it?

Second, there was a net gain of jobs in the Clinton years. Yes, but the manufacturing jobs that were lost in the Reagan-Bush years did not come back in the Clinton years. This was in an OP I answered last week. Something like 1.9 million manufacturing jobs lost during Reagan-Bush and 600,000 gained during Clinton. So Obama was right in that 1.3 million manufacturing jobs never came back.

Finally, I am not sure median income is all that meaningful. It could just mean rising incomes FOR THE MIDDLE, the 40-60th percentile. If Krugman was not trying to puff up Clinton, he would say something about the increasing inequality in the United States. Inequality that increased under Clinton "prosperity" that was very good for the wealthy, particularly after the Clinton tax cuts in 1997 which favored them. In 1977 the bottom 20% got 4.4% of the national income. In 2001, they got 3.5%. In 1977, the bottom 40% got 14.7% of the national income. In 2001, they got 12.2%. In 1977, the top 5% got 16.1% of the national income. In 2001, they got 22.4%. In 1977, the top 20% got 43.6%. In 2001, they got 50.1%.

In Clinton's 8 years, the real value of the minimum wage went down, and social programs continued to be cut or restricted in the name of the balanced budget. Clinton's economic record was not nearly as good for the working class as it was for the investor class.

[BootinUp]

103. You seem to be disputing some other article. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. Criticizing Krugman for intellectual dishonesty?

What has the time period between 1979 and 1992 have to do with Clinton?

Why are Obama supporters so vigorous to demand recognition of context for Obama yet so unwilling to apply context to Clinton?

Clinton's 1993 tax increase was the entire reason for the resulting budget surplus, which in turn played a huge role in economic prosperity.

[hfojvt]

116. because Obama said "in the last 25 years"

which goes back to 1983, not 1993. The fact that some jobs came back during the Clinton administration does not negate the fact that they ALL did not come back. If 1.9 million manufacturing jobs were lost and 600,000 came back, then it is true that 1.3 million manufacturing jobs were lost and never came back. It also does not negate the fact that the supposed Clinton prosperity left many people behind in spite of some positive statistics that often seem to be used to paint a picture of "universal prosperity under Clinton".

I am certainly not gonna argue against Clinton's 1993 tax increase, although he should have worked harder to make it bi-partisan, but it is not entirely responsible for the budget surplus. There were also restrictions on the spending side that helped too.

As it is debatable how much prosperity we had in the 1990s, it is also debatable how much was due to a balancing Federal Budget. I recently noticed that in Clinton's first five months in office that the economy created something like 1.5 million jobs. Not something that he can take credit for so early in his administration even if he did keep the momentum going.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. Yes, that's what he said. It is apparent he sees little to recommend the Democrat of that timeframe.

I wish he'd heap similar praise on Clinton as he is willing to give Reagan.

The former deserves it.

[hfojvt]

124. the last 25 years includes 17 years of Republican administrations

and only 8 of Democratic. He glossed over Clinton. He did not go out of his way to bash him. The thing about Reagan was that he shifted this country to the right, and the thing about Clinton is that rather than reverse it, he shifted it even further with NAFTA, the Era of Big Government is Over, ending welfare as we know it, and so on. You don't praise Reagan by saying he successfully shifted this country onto the wrong track, and you can't praise Clinton when you notice he did not put us back on the right track.

[nichomachus]

54. Krugman is good, but he isn't always right

He gets things wrong -- something often overlooked by people who are bedazzled by his past bashing of Bush. He had some really shoddy stuff a few weeks ago -- totally misread an issue and said things that just weren't true.

But he is a Hillary supporter, so I think he looks at every issue now through those goggles.

[anonymous171]

62. He's using averages for the entire nation, not small towns.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. That was excellent. Krugman is brilliant.

So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.

Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.

Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?

Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.

[hfojvt]

90. except that he has been debunked economically in this thread

and secondly that Hillary has not offered any more "real answers to their problems" than Bill did. Her only "answer" seems to be tax credits and economic growth. The same thing offered by Reagan :puke:

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. Debunked by DU. Well never mind then. n/t

[hfojvt]

99. That's not much of an answer to my post #53 or others

Just maybe my MA is economics can compete with his PhD when he uses spurious reasoning in attacking Obama - again.

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. One need not rely on an alphabet soup to get his main point.

It is a bonehead move for a democrat to minimize the accomplishments of the only successful Democratic president in most of our lifetimes.

[haymakeragain]

111. Sorry, I think that you are building a strawman, as did Krugman, who

I like very much. Obama made a statement about rural americans and lost jobs, not about the Midwest and the Clinton admins role.

[hfojvt]

121. I might look up some statistics for the "most of our lifetimes" claim

I, at least, am old enough to remember Carter (although I also remember how his economic record and leadership was trashed by the media). Many of the people who are too young to remember any Democratic President but Clinton are the young voters that Obama seems to be attracting.

I will concede that though, Krugman is right that Clinton did have some positives in his administration, more than a few. I'm a little bit intellectually dishonest when I get fired up to stop a repeat of what I consider some of his huge failures, particularly in regards to electoral losses in 1994 and in 2000. I'm not trying to say the glass is empty, only that it's not as full as supporters would claim. Not that that's all Clinton's fault either, as when someone wrote about weaknesses in the "Clinton economy", I snarled that we are still trying to recover from the damage done by Reagan.

[lumberjack_jeff]

123. I don't wear rose colored glasses either.

I really like Jimmy Carter, but it is very hard to prove the case that his presidency was a success.

Likewise, Johnson and Kennedy were mixed bags.

Clintons accomplishments (and the tangible benefits thereof) are hard to miss - unless we, like Obama, treat the last 25 years as all kind of one big uniform hazy blob.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

67. Of course Dr. Paul "I Heart Outsourcing" Krugman is going to defend the 90s.

He was one of the architects of Bill Clinton's economic policy. Notice how he doesn't mention how the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us widened to unprecendented levels during Clinton's presidency.

And fuck him for bringing up the guns and religion shit. That was completely unnecessary. Krugman's no liberal, I don't care what he puts on the cover of his books.

[Cha]

77. This isn't the first time he's

put swarmy disingeous shit in opinion piece against Obama.

He's sounds nothing more than a corporate tool.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hfojvt]

84. there does seem to be alot of truth to that

********* <18 *** 6-18 *** <6
1975 **** 47.4 *** 54.8 *** 38.9
1980 **** 56.6 *** 64.4 *** 46.6
1985 **** 62.1 *** 69.9 *** 53.5
1990 **** 66.7 *** 74.7 *** 58.2
<1994 Information Please Almanac (BLS)>

Those are previous stats I have for mothers in the workforce as a percent. Women with children under 18, 6-18, or under 6.

I am not sure if that trend continued through the 1990s, but the 20% growth from 1975-1990 would account for some increase in household income. An increasing number of DINKs would do so as well. The women in my family were 27,30,and 28 when they had their first child.

[midnight]

75. I happen to think that Clinton with all his foibles will be known

as one of the Greatest American Presidents. Can't beat peace and prosperity.

[OzarkDem]

78. Thank you and Thanks to Krugman

Our economy, our country, our future is too important to play games with facts or spend time running down leaders who were very successful in their economic policies.

[hfojvt]

106. it is Krugman who is playing with facts

trying to help a corporate candidate for some reason. Clinton was not that "successful" from a working class or progressive perspective.

[Terran]

86. Here are some interesting figures too...

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html

Note that the number of families living below the poverty line, as of 2006, increased by almost 1 million since Bush took office. I kinda thought *that* was the sort of thing Obama was talking about.

And I, living in a smallish Midwestern town, know quite a few people who cling to religion but can't be bothered with going to church; so I don't think the numbers of people attending church really says much in this context.

[anonymous171]

87. Krugman thinks factory workers can somehow become computer programmers overnight.

:wtf:

[OzarkDem]

94. No, but he gives them credit

for being smart enough to learn new skills for higher paying jobs. That's a compliment to those workers, not an insult.

[bicentennial_baby]

89. From the same man that said "NAFTA will have no effect

on American jobs"

:eyes:

[Major Hogwash]

96. Krugman espoused the virtues of NAFTA as well. Look how well that turned out.

How many jobs have been lost to NAFTA in Pennsylvania alone? 1.2 Million or somewhere around there.

[Texas Hill Country]

98. ObamaPWNT K&R

[haymakeragain]

112. Not hardly.

Straw man argument at best. I like Krugman generally, but me thinks he's shooting for a cabinet position on this one. Treasury perhaps?

[Texas Hill Country]

118. his arguments are sound and undermine Obama on every point... sorry. and he deserves a post.

[LulaMay]

104. It is idiotic for a party to slam its own great record, and allow a candidate to do so.

[haymakeragain]

113. I'll say it again for the hard of hearing,

Krugman built a strawman argument. Obama said nothing about the midwest, he talked about rural americans. Obama didn't lay blame on the clinton admin either. He only stated the obvious, rural americans have lost a lot of jobs and some of them are bitter. spot on.

[Texas Hill Country]

126. "like a lot of towns in the midwest...." what was that?

[madrchsod]

128. we have`t just lost jobs--we have lost our future!

bitter?..nah i`m fucking disgusted with every son of a bitch that voted your jobs away..

[madrchsod]

125. krugman do`t have a fucking clue

you really believe this pile of shit? if you do grab a shovel cause you posted it and the place is starting to smell...

[Texas Hill Country]

133. yeah, the world famous Princeton economist doesnt know shit... youre right...

LOLZ

[anonymous171]

146. Just another elitist whose out of touch with the common man's plight.

[LSK]

127. the 90s dot-com boom was in CALIFORNIA, CHICAGO AND NEW YORK

Not in Toledo, Columbus and Pittsburg.

Sometimes the full story is not told in averages.

So Obama is correct and Krugman is correct, depending on WHERE YOU LIVE.

Why does this have to be spelled out? CAN'T PEOPLE FIGURE THIS OUT ON THEIR OWN???

[madrchsod]

131. remember it depended where one lived in those cities

if i remember correctly the dot com boom went west out of chicago leaving the inner city people with transportation costs and other problems to go to those jobs. then the clinton welfare reform that put even a bigger smack down on a lot of women.

the hot spot in northern illinois right now is Rochelle over new 800 jobs due to the new fiber optic cable laid along I-5.

[jackson_dem]

132. Clinton gave us the best economy in the generation. St. Obama is unlikely to come close to that

[TML]

134. Krugman should visit my 'hood

We have a lot of people who cling to guns and religion. That's why Duncan Hunter was always re-elected every two years by double-digit margins, and why we've always had a Klan presence.

[Algorem]

135. obamer's a decent inspirational speaker

[jbm]

137. Gene Lyons echoed Krugman..check out this weeks column..

http://nastyletterstocrookedpoliticians.blogspot.com/


<snip>
This is what Democrats get if they choose an inexperienced
faculty-lounge lizard as their presidential candidate. People tend to assume that a black candidate has a lot of street sense, but Obama increasingly comes off as a classic Ivy League brainiac too impressed by his own SAT scores to change a tire without delivering an oration on the economics of rubber tree cultivation.

Since 1968, when Richard Nixon put his famous “Southern strategy” into play, two big themes have kept the GOP in the White House most of the time: race along with class and regional resentment. In seeking to transcend the former, Obama has handed them the latter on a silver platter. Republicans won’t have to caricature him as a condescending snob who looks down on working stiffs. He’s already done it to himself. Sheltered, cosseted and treated as a wonder of nature most of his life, Obama’s never run against a tough opponent, and it’s showing.

Obama’s attempts to joke his way out of this mess amuse only the already converted. No, Clinton’s not a very convincing huntress, but she certainly knows that nobody goes duck hunting with a “six-shooter.” For pointing these things out, the Clinton campaign, hitherto run on strict standards of political correctness—too timid even to point out that it was Obama’s fellow Chicagoan and national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. who “radicialized” the campaign by accusing Hillary Clinton of shedding no tears for black victims of Hurricane Katrina long before Bill Clinton alluded to his famous father—can now be accused of helping Republicans make their case. But what should she do? Stand silently watching the disaster unfold? Instead, she might try pointing out that it was working-class Democrats Obama insulted. Also, that far from falling during the Clinton administration, employment in Pennsylvania rose by more than 500,000 jobs between 1993 and 2000 while unemployment dropped from 7.3 to 4.1 percent. That’s the perfectly rational reason that many cling to her candidacy.
<snip>

[uncertainty1999]

138. great link. we're gonna be so screwed in November!

[krkaufman]

140. One word, Paul.... NAFTA n/t

[Thickasabrick]

143. Interesting how he left that out....huh? LOL His love for Hillary is

seriously hurting his credibility.

[krkaufman]

147. Well, I'm not sure Krugman views NAFTA unfavorably. n/t

[depakid]

159. Except that antipathy about trade policy was one of those things that people were clinging to

according to Obama's statement....

That fact that he sounded disparaging about that ought to make a rational person take notice and wonder what his views really are.

[krkaufman]

160. No, because a rational person wouldn't be distorting what he said ...

... to make some point on a relatively obscure Internet forum.

"anti-trade"

[Tactical Progressive]

141. Obama doing the only thing he does well: smearing other Dems and the whole party

This is typical of the slime that Obama the smear-merchant has been throwing since the first day he started his campaign.

Look at this sleaze conflating the hard-won Clinton middle-class economic successes with GW Bush's wealthy giveaways.

He lies to throw Hillary under the bus, and to do that he has to throw the whole Democratic party and the economic successes we created throughout the 1990's under the bus.

Obama is as low-class as a Democrat gets. I'm glad his bittergate comments at least blew back at him and showed some of what he is really like, even if the real anti-Dem ugliness of his comments didn't get the notice it should have. Hopefully people will note what Paul Krugman has pointed out.

I can't believe a single Dem in this country would even consider voting for him. Anything Hillary has to say or do to stop him is in defense of us all.

[stillcool]

153. bullshit.

December 10, 2007
Third Clinton Volunteer Knew Of Smear E-Mail
A third volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign was aware of a propaganda e-mail alleging that Barack Obama is a Muslim who plans on "destroying the U.S. from the inside out."
"Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential Candidacy," the email reads. "Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they Plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at The highest level."


Two Clinton volunteers, Linda Olson and Judy Rose, have already been asked to resign from the campaign for their roles in forwarding the e-mail. The AP reported yesterday that Olson, a volunteer coordinator in Iowa County, sent a version of the e-mail to 11 people, including Ben Young, a regional field director for Chris Dodd's campaign. Young passed it on to the AP.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html

Kerrey Apologizes to Obama Over Remark
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4031436
Kerrey's mention of Obama's middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States. Obama is a Christian.

The Clinton campaign has already fired two volunteer county coordinators in Iowa for forwarding hoax e-mails with the debunked claim. Last week, a national Clinton campaign co-chairman resigned for raising questions about whether Obama's teenage drug use could be used against him, so Kerrey's comments raised questions about whether the Clinton campaign might be using another high-profile surrogate to smear Obama.

Hillary: Sorry for Any Offense Campaign (Bill) Has Caused
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB65wJ6Rcfs

Bill Clinton Asks for a Second Chance
By Liz Halloran
Posted February 11, 2008

The morning after his wife, Hillary, was routed in three state contests by Sen. Barack Obama in their dead-heat battle for the Democratic nomination, former President Bill Clinton made his case for her before a packed Sunday service at one of the largest black churches in Washington, D.C.
But first he offered an apology of sorts for racially tinged comments he made about Obama and his candidacy that have triggered a backlash in the black community and among many other Democrats.

Clinton invoked his "worship of a God of second chances" in pronouncing himself glad to be at the Temple of Praise, which claims nearly 15,000 members. His invocation of second chances echoed comments he made early last week at black churches in California, where he campaigned for his wife before that state's Super Tuesday primary, which she won.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/02/11/bill-clinton-asks-for-a-second-chance.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/02/bill-clinton-to-apologize_n_84573.html
Bill Clinton To Apologize At LA Black Churches
Once again, Bill Clinton is ready to repent.

On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he's expected to offer a mea culpa to those who "dearly loved him" when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says.
Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she'll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in her district where she says he needs to "renew his relationship" with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged
comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama's landslide victory to Jesse Jackson's wins in 1984 and 1988.)

Source: Newsday
Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 at 12:04 pm
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30629&cat=5
Barack Obama Accepts Apology From Hillary Clinton
Washington D.C. 12/15/2007 09:17 AM GMT (FINDITT)

Hillary Clinton went straight to Barack Obama with an apology following a staffer's remarks about any skeletons that may be lurking in Obama's closet, pointing out that she had accepted the staffer's resignation over the disparaging remarks. Obama accepted her at her word, according to his campaign staff, and is moving on without letting it interrupt his campaign plans.

Obama is currently leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early primary states often considered key to the process, according to numbers at usaelectionpolls.com, but on a national level Clinton still holds a huge lead. The most recently posted poll results show Obama with 31 percent of the probable voters in New Hampshire backing him with 29 percent showing support for Clinton.

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties
By: Justin Rood

ABC News - The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the 1970s group Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001.

In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from the Politico newspaper reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another member of the radical group.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/clinton.obama/index.html
Clinton adviser steps down after drug use comments
Earlier Thursday, Clinton personally apologized to rival Obama for Shaheen's remarks.
Obama accepted her apology, according to David Axelrod, the top political strategist for the Obama campaign.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/edwards-no-conscience-in-clinton-campaign/
January 6, 2008, 5:18 pm
Edwards: No Conscience in Clinton Campaign
By Julie Bosman

KEENE, N.H. – John Edwards angrily took on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at two news conferences in a row on Sunday, saying that her campaign “doesn’t seem to have a conscience.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-17-johnson-apology_N.htm?csp=34

COMPTON, Calif. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign tried to mend ties to black voters Thursday when a key supporter apologized to her chief rival, Barack Obama, for comments that hinted at Obama's drug use as a teenager. The candidate herself, meanwhile, praised the Rev. Martin Luther King and promised to assist with the rebirth of this troubled, largely black city.
------------------

Johnson's comments and remarks by both Clintons before the New Hampshire primary last week had alarmed several black leaders and drew a rebuke from Obama and his top aides.

It began when Hillary Clinton gave an interview in which she seemed to discount King's role in the civil rights movement. Later, former President Clinton cast aspects of Obama's candidacy as a "fairy tale."

Clinton Surrogate Compares Obama Ad to Nazi March
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=278988
Fri Feb 1, 2:23 PM ET
The Nation -- On a media conference call organized by the Hillary Clinton campaign today, Clinton surrogate Len Nichols compared an Obama health care ad to Nazis.
----------
Accusing political opponents of Nazism is an outrageous smear. Raising the specter of a Nazi march in response to a health care mailer that evokes the insurance industry is so absurd, it would be hard to take the attack seriously, were it not launched from a high profile national campaign conference call in this crucial stretch of the presidential race. And political observers know, of course, that the Clinton Campaign regularly arranges opportunities for surrogates to launch these kind of smears, which are later followed up with apologies. (See: Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, and Francine Torge, to name the most recent offenders.) For his part, Nichols did not immediately return a call requesting further comment.
-------------------------
Len Nichols, Director of New America's Health Policy Program, stated, "For nearly 17 years I have worked tirelessly to reform our nation's struggling health system. Today my passion overwhelmed me. I chose an analogy that was wholly inappropriate. I am deeply sorry for any offense that my unfortunate comments may have caused.

CLINTON ALLIES SUPPRESS THE VOTE IN NEVADA...
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit--written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel--that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.
Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state's influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn't be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites.
The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.

Clinton's comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union, on MSNBC's Hardball. "He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members," Taylor said of Clinton. "The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to
disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women."
Rank-and-file members of Nevada's teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing," the letter stated. "As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."
The lawsuit's opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/a-feisty-bill-clinton-defends-nevada-lawsuit/

Link for lawsuit: http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[McCamy Taylor]

142. Another thing, gun ownership goes UP with INCOME. Po folk can't afford them.

I wish that Krugman has included that fact too.

[ProSense]

156. Calling out Paul Krugman on his BS

here

[QC]

158. Linking to bullshit thread