Self-Inflicted Confusion : Krugman NYT

[BootinUp]

Krugman puts hammer to nail again, and again and again. I am not too interested in the Obama fans nasty replies to this, but there actually are some Democrats who will be interested in reading this so I am posting it for them.

After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”

He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">Cont'd

[cali]

1. Krugman is disappointed that the candidate he supports

is done. Understandable.

[quickesst]

12. "How to vote for Hill: Clothes pins, booze and drugs."

How far down the slime hole can Obama fans reach? I doubt you'll find a Clinton supporter who's signature is: "How to vote for Obama: Guns, cocaine, and hos."

Ah, the wisdom of the self-proclaimed "enlightened". Remember, if Obama gets the nomination, and Obama fans are "willing" to take Clinton supporters back "into the fold", they will know the fans are lying, and the hatred will still be there for Clinton, and her supporters. They have proven again and again that they cannot be trusted, and any cumbayah offered will be empty, selfish, and self-serving horse-shit, in order to see the fruition of their campaign of elitist hatred. It will be as phony as the proverbial three-dollar bill, and any votes for Obama by Clinton supporters will be because of dread over a McCain presidency, and certainly not because his supporters chose to wage their campaign in the gutter of lies, spin, and idealism inspired by elitist guilt. MLK is probably rolling in his grave at the bizarre caricature Obama worshipers have made of his "dream". I do not believe his cause was inspired by hatred, which has become the hallmark of the Obama supporters efforts. Sadly pathetic. Thanks.
quickesst

[cali]

15. do try and work on your logic skills.

My sig has nothing to do with anything in hill's ethnicity or gender. Your comparison of "guns,cocaine and ho's" relates obviously to Obama's race. It is in fact blatantly racist. Says a lot about you.

My sig is in response to all the idiots on both sides who declare sanctimoniously that they can't vote for the candidate they don't support. In simple language, it says, "whatever it takes, vote for the dem nominee". And sorry, there's been just as much hate and racism and vile crap from hill supporters as sexism and hate from Obama supporters. There are more Obama supporters, but proportionately, there's MORE hate from the hill side than from the Obama side.


Your hypocrisy and YOUR unfettered hate and willingness to compare out and racism to my sig line, make it clear that you are worse than what you decry.

Thanks,
cali

[KoKo]

27. Your signature line is very offensive....to your fellow DU'ers and says more

about you than you might want people to know.

[JoFerret]

44. This is true

And unfortunately true of many DU posters who with their signature lines signal with every post their lack of character, narrow perspective and willingness to tear down fellow democrats.

[dionysus]

33. I doubt you'll find a Clinton supporter who's signature is: "How to vote for Obama: Guns, cocaine,"

actually, sparky, a large percentage of the shillbots here say they'll NEVER vote for obama, so, try again...

[JoFerret]

45. Are there DU posters who tear down Obama with their sig lines?

Whose sig lines are racist and offensive?

I am sure there must be some. They should cease and desist.

[judasdisney]

2. I'm glad Krugman isn't wasting his time attacking McCain

and he has his priorities straight with not BUILDING UP Hillary but rather TEARING DOWN any Democrat who stands in her way.

[JoFerret]

46. Don't worry. He will. Big time

Meanwhile he has a thoughtful set of opinions different from yours and from the mainstream democratic view.

Good for Krugman. Diversity is important.

[madinmaryland]

55. Actually, Krugman has been all over McCain and the rest of the

repubs. His comment is that McCain has NO plan, which is even worse than having a bad plan. He's been at it for months about McCain.

[Asgaya Dihi]

3. He's got the right to his opinion

but if the best example of playing dirty he can come up with is the recent Pennsylvania ad he hasn't been paying attention. For me it was the Wright thing that got my attention, others had their triggers too I'd guess but the ad one was both a little thing and pretty late in the game.

[dsc]

8. The wright thing isn't Hillary's fault

it is Obama's. He chose to be in that church and Wright chose to give sermons on film which sounded like those did.

[Asgaya Dihi]

9. No, but the way she handled it was hers.

Saying it's just vetting or the repubs will do it too doesn't cut it with me, dems aren't supposed to use right wing talking points like that. And certainly not against each other. We were campaigning for the dem nomination, not the repub or general election, so it not only backfired on her but it hurt him as well. It was stupid from start to finish.

Same as it was her fault to stand up in the last debate and say Ayers was relevant when it turns out the Clinton White House pardoned two members of the same group. She's trying to smear him for sitting on the same board with a neighbor who wasn't convicted and her ties are to people released from prison.

I could go on, would rather not. We've had enough of that recently and everyone should know it all by now.

Edit to correct a point, they had sentences commuted rather than pardons. My mistake.

[tishaLA]

23. the wright thing is progressives' fault

because we sat by, engaging in internecine warfare, while a progressive church was slimed in the mainstream press. TUCC--like much of the Black church, and certainly all of the Black Liberation Theology movement--fights for social justice everywhere. That we allowed it to become a caricature of itself so we could score a few cheap political points against our "opponents," instead of looking at the real (republicon) opponents, does not speak well of us.

[futureliveshere]

4. He implies the Obama campaign has its head in the clouds. Its ALWAYS about the numbers.

Any metric you look at, Obama is clearly the front-runner.

1. delegate count
   
2. states won
   
3. popular vote
   
4. money raised
   
5. momentum (measured using national polling)
   

BTW, the AA community is a BIG chunk of the blue-collared vote, and Obama has beaten Hillary in the blue collared vote in other states. So lets dispense with the "Why is Obama unable to win the blue-collared vote?"

edited the last line for clarity.

[dkf]

5. I don't know why he writes this stuff. It really destroys his credibility

as it shows he has become a campaign operative.

Sad.

[Mist]

16. I've enjoyed, and learned from, his columns and books. I think he still

has credibility on micro and macro economics, and how the politics around that, but I'm sorry to see him dissing Obama this way. Because Obama has injected new hope into this election doesn't mean Obama and his staff are ignoring the numbers. I don't know if this destroys Krugman's credibility, but I'm disappointed with him.

[chimpymustgo]

19. It completely BOLSTERS his credibility, because he tells the clear-eyed, unvarnished truth.

Maybe the blind and the bammed refuse to see it, but Krugman has always been a truthteller - and remains one of the few who still do.

[dkf]

22. Krugman is an economist...I wish he'd stick to his subject

then maybe I could rebuild my respect for him.

Sadly, he looks like a hack to me.

[Bake]

58. Do you really want to start that?

Martin Sheen is an actor. Maybe he should stick to acting.

Jane Fonda is ... whatever it is that she is, she should stick to that.

Jeremiah Wright is a preacher. Maybe he should stick to preaching.

So by your logic, who gets to voice an opinion?

Bake

[GOTV]

31. He starts with a false premise about how it was "supposed to play out" which causes his confusion...

... about where we are. Barack was supposed to be the neophyte to be crushed by the Clinton machine. Barack's strength against Hillary was a surprise to everyone. Krugman's already forgotten that, or wants to re-write the history with a Paul Bunyan tale to make it appear as if Barack has fallen short of expectations.

[C_U_L8R]

6. mmmm... pie

[durrrty libby]

21. "mmmm... pie" That sums up BOBots perfectly.

[C_U_L8R]

26. oh look, a name caller from the Hillary Camp

what a surprise.

[sandnsea]

7. WA, IA, MN, WI, VT, VA, ND, KS, NE,

Just because he can't win a bunch of racists in the east, doesn't mean he can't win white voters and the national election. It's stunning that someone of Krugman's stature can be so easily duped.

[rodeodance]

25. "bunch of racists"--ah yes, more divisiness!!

[KoKo]

30. " a bunch of Racists in the East? .........do you hear yourself? n/t

[BootinUp]

54. he/she is being him or herself, no listening required, lol.

[Bake]

60. And here I thought all the racists were down South ...

Bake

[sandnsea]

62. So did I, boy was I wrong n/t

[Catchawave]

35. I voted for Edwards in VA......

am I a racist too ?

[McCamy Taylor]

10. Good summary.

[Oleladylib]

11. we know what "buying" the nomination is called!

[Hillary by 10]

13. He is absolutely right and therefore he is trying to destroy the democratic party.

Isn't it obvious. Krugman is a Republican now, he is practically Karl Rove. By discussing "reality" with some objectivity, he has clearly reached a new low. He has waved the bloody shirt of current events.

His next column should be a bunch of GO'BAMAs strung together in a recognizable pattern of sentences and paragraphs. Perhaps we can all put him on ignore until he does this. Maybe Randi Rhodes can cuss at him. I will email her some cusswords in case she has run out.

Math!

[Enrique]

14. I'm not sure Obama was ever expected to win big

but I do agree with Krugman about why some people prefer Hillary. Speaking for myself, this is exactly it. I appreciate Obama's eloquence, but it just doesn't resonate with me.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

[GOTV]

32. He wasn't. He wasn't supposed to win at all. Krugman is talking down to his audience...

... and expecting us not to know better.

[datopbanana]

17. Krugman! Now there's an objective opinion!

[wrando]

18. Krugman a true progressive

Krugman is one of a few left in the media willing to speak the truth.

Bill from ct

[JoFerret]

20. That's an excellent article

Many important and interesting points.

<<...how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.

It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

....

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage. >>

[paulk]

52. best line -

"Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for".

That's exactly it for me. If Obama is the nominee, I'll vote for him - but I have never, in the 30 plus years I've been voting, felt such a disconnect to a campaign and a candidate as I do to him.

[JoFerret]

57. I can understand that

.

[zabet]

24. k and R

I know you know that everything is the Clintons' fault. :sarcasm:

[BootinUp]

48. lol, thanks.

:)

[HousePainter]

28. Paul Krugman embarasses himself once again

Krugman writes
"Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November."

Was he? I sort of remember Barack saying over and over that change isn't easy, it will take all of us working together to make it happen.

Krugman writes
"Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class."

And especially in those states where the old line Democratic machine like PA and Ohio were sewn up by the Clntons before Barack was seen as viable. Ed Rendell in PA was according to Democratic party people there twisting arms and threatening Barack supporters with political payback if they didn't get in line with Hillary. If he uses the same muscle for Barack in November why will PA with the addition of 370,000 new Democrats registered mostly by the Obama campaign not be in the Blue column ?

Krugman writes
"And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain."

Most of the polls I've seen show Barack with a much better chance than Hillary and show him with a good chance of turning purple and even some red into Blue.

Krugman writes
"But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina"

Gee and it also said that the Republican nominee has a lifetime of experience (in foreign policy) whereas the Democratic front runner and likely nominee "only has a speech from 2004", and that Barack is an elitist, that his Health plan will leave 15 million people uninsured, that he looks down on working class Americans, that if he wasn't black he wouldn't be where he is today, that he lost in Michigan where his name wasn't even on the ballot, etc. etc.

So Yeah I get Krugman's point:
"The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?"

Obama has been knocked off that pedestal and now only leads by victories in twice as many states ( 30-15), by at least 140 delegates, and by roughly 500,000 votes. WOW, what a comedown.
And of course in the fall if Hillary were the nominee the Republicans wouldn't have anything negative to throw at her because the scandals of the 90s, her increasingly erratic husband's role in her White House, her Bosnia sniper fire lie, her vote for the War resolution and Kyl /Lieberman just to name a couple of items off the top of my head wouldn't come into play.
And of course John McCain will be able to have John Hagee and Rod Parsley lead the attacks against Jeremiah Wright.

Krugman writes
"Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for."

True Paul,so I guess working class voters must be the entire 19% of the population that thinks we're on the right track and moving in the right direction . So maybe a "change" message will only appeal to the other 81% of Americans who think we're not. I see your point it would be hard to win an election with those kind of numbers.

Krugman writes
"From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage."

It's a pretty simple idea, Paul. It's saying don't blame politicians and blowhards suffering from self-inflicted confusion for our problems. But rather rise to the promise of this country that We, the people, can change our future if we get involved and speak truth to power. Another way of saying it is Yes We Can. It involves grass roots organizing, voting for our common interests and participatory democracy among other things.

Krugman writes
"The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not."

Not to mention her knocking back a shot and a beer, shooting lead into Lake Winola, all the while regaling the common folk with tales of the intricacies of regulatory policy as it impacts the growth of capital markets in emerging service industries.
At 3 AM, while tearfully finding her voice, and reminding people that Barack hangs with a crazy Black radical preacher and Bomb throwing Weathermen.

Krugman writes
"The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans."

And under the first Clinton brought you NAFTA and made the Contract with America look like the preferable path forward , continued with deregulation and the breakdown of Governmental oversight and brought Girls Gone Wild to the Oval Office.

And finally the sage intones:
"But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties."

Because The New Deal (FDR) and The New Frontier (JFK) were such failures with Democratic voters and the historically low approval ratings for Congress and the 81% of Americans who feel we're on the wrong track and the majority sentiment that fierce partisan division prevents us from moving forward calls out loud and strong for the "old politics" of tearing down your opponents and villifying anyone who doesn't get in line (like Judas you know who).

And they pay him for this drivel ?

[GOTV]

29. No, the way thing were SUPPOSED to play out was a Clinton Coronation....

... Barack messed that all up and you're unhappy about it.

"Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences"

It's only Hillary fans that claim he's falling short of magical, or god-like, powers.

"yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters"

Then what does that say about Clinton, whose blocks of voters are even smaller?

Such a transparent rhetorical technique: Barack Obama was supposed to be 10 feet tall! It turns out he's only 6 feet tall and yet Obama fans overlook this and continue to support him. The must be drinkin' the koolaid.

[KittyWampus]

34. Plouffe has ALWAYS been about the fucking MATH. There was nothing "Magical" about Obama unless Krugm

Krugman wants to propose Limbaugh's Magic Negro crap. And yes, I know Krugman's wife is black.

And who said he was supposed to 'sweep easily'?

Obama's camp had many scenarios and back up plans.

Krugman's girl had SQUAT.

And if Krugman looked at the stats, he'd see his column regurgitates LIES about groups Obama has won in other states before PA and ignores stats that show where he's improved.

[Bake]

61. "Krugman's GIRL?"

You'd positively shit your pants if I called Obama "your boy."

Bake

[JoFerret]

64. Pretty twisted stuff

We have a girl and a boy running for president? I think we have two fine democrats. Both adults.

[nichomachus]

36. Has the "Deaning" of Obama begun?

In 2003, Howard Dean was the "unbeatable front runner." Then, the media decided they didn't want him and began a three-week barrage -- NBC, ABC, CBS, cable propaganda channels, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, etc -- that ran 24/7 declaring him "unelectable." At the end of three weeks, I think even Howard believed he was unelectable. The early voters did, because in the exit polls they said they voted for Kerry because Dean was "unelectable," a word many of them never would have used before the anti-Dean media barrage began.

It looks like the barrage has now begun against Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/media-jump-ship-from-obam_n_98545.html">Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton

In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.

The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

It looks like the word is out from the corporatocracy through its propaganda arm. The corporatists desperately want to run McCain against Hillary.

[dysfunctional press]

43. it's WAAAAAAY too late for that.

dean got deaned before he even really got started.

[zulchzulu]

37. Has Krugman said that he's going to vote for McSame yet?

Let me know....

:boring:

[madinmaryland]

56. Nice post, Hannity.

Krugman has been blasting any proposal the McCain has issued.

[JoFerret]

59. What a childish and ignorant response

to a thoughtful article.

[LulaMay]

38. K & R

[Cameron27]

39. Hi Jim!

Great article, thanks for posting.

K&R

[BootinUp]

49. Hey!

:hi:

[snooper2]

That's all he's got...?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:




GOBAMA!

[snooper2]

40. That's all he's got...?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:




GOBAMA!

[stratomagi]

41. Its sad to see Krugman use the trust he built up over the years

by promoting economic populism and now squandering it by printing Clinton's talking points almost verbatim. I've been following some of his more recent articles especially in regards to bitter-gate and i can't believe how intellectually disingenuous he has become on that particular point.

The truth of the matter is as far as a race vs. Clinton goes it is a tough state. In spite of that Obama actually improved amongst demographics who have been more favorable to Clinton. One REAL issue with PA Democrats is that we tend not to go against establishment friendly candidates. Why do you think Rendell, Nutter, and Ravensthal all endorsed Hillary? Its because the Democratic party here in PA is a good old boys club. Nobody who isn't hand picked by the party around here gets any favors. If you're actually fighting to change something in say Pittsburgh party insiders consider you an asshole. Sometimes you have to even try running as a Republican here even if your a democrat because the party gets in your way. Pittsburgh and Philly have been consistently democratic territory for the past 30 years, nobody wants to do anything that might upset that, that means even trying something new.

That being said its unlikely that PA democrats won't get behind Obama in the fall. All 3 of the endorsers above will be actively promoting him against McCain. The thing I scoff at the most is being considered a swing state in the press, we went solidly Kerry and Gore in the last elections and we will vote a democrat in no matter who it is. The notion that we're a swing state is foolish. The only thing Clinton had going for her in this state is that she was the known candidate, and sadly thats how we vote here in PA.

[AlCzervik]

42. i love Krugman, i disagree with him but i still love him.

Krugman has been correct about the mess where in right now economically, he was right all along.

[kentuck]

47. Not that anyone is pulling the other direction...

wihin our own Party. People like Paul Krugman.

[NashVegas]

50. It's a Great Question: What IS Obama Doing to Address the Concerns of Working Class Americans?

Hope is great. Change is great. Let's talk about chaning $3.75 pg gas. Let's talk about affordable housing that's out of reach for the average earner. Let's talk about health care and health insurance costs.

[BootinUp]

51. you belong at

Free Republic. :sarcasm:

:)

[sandnsea]

63. He's done it in Illinois

In fact, while the Clintons were kicking people off welfare, he was passing legislation to catch them in Illinois.

[anigbrowl]

53. Has Krugman ever been critical of Clinton in this campaign? He sounds like a campaign surrogate

The fact that he already had a column doesn't make him objective. I imagine he's going to get quoted by the GOP a lot during the fall campaign...maybe he can become the next George Will.