NY Times' Paul Krugman calls out John Edwards for being the substance candidate so far, Clinton not

[jsamuel]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview

Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.

...

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side... Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance...

Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

...

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive ... and ... she’s offered few specifics. ... In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said ... in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”

...

He sites YearlyKos as well.

[diva77]

1. what about Kucinich?

[Sherman A1]

2. Agreed

:toast:

[diva77]

4. There has to be a way to make him more glamorous and appealing to the MSM

If Gore doesn't run, then Kucinich will be the absolute best choice to resuscitate our democracy...

[hijinx87]

14. kucinich glamorous?

I am afraid that one is just impossible. :evilgrin:

his wife, on the other hand . . . .

[wake.up.america]

6. I agree, although Edwards is not the only one. I would not vote for Hillary as it stands now.

[Hieronymus]

3. Edwards has a chance .. Kucinich doesn't.

[benny05]

7. Where are his detailed plans?

:shrug:

[diva77]

delete (dupe)

[diva77]

13. here is link to Kucinich site

http://www2.kucinich.us/issues


I like Edwards and he certainly fares better in the MSM, but I think Kucinich has a superior message and record of public service to the people.

[Dawgs]

11. What about Obama?

[Mythsaje]

5. I'm backing Edwards as well...

To tell you the truth, I'm totally mystified why anyone would back Hillary over Edwards. Obama, well... :shrug: He's at least throwing out some class war stuff, but Edwards is ON it.

[anniebelle]

8. Edwards has the best chance nationally to be elected,

IMHO. Hillary will have this whole country so polarized, we'll never take the WH. I really think the only reason they haven't pulled out both barrels on her yet is so we'll be sure and have her as our candidate -- that's the only way an 'R' is going to win. Jus' sayin'.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Only one problem with that: Clinton is obviously the smarter of the two

Quicker on her feet and better with the language, plus she's winning the experience argument. That's how how she gets away with an apparent lack of specifics on key issues. No matter how many plans writen by other people that Edwards puts out there, what we see at the debates and in unscripted environments (i.e. MTP, Hardball, etc.) is the still style over substance; the guy Shrum said can't be bothered to read position papers.

[venable]

15. please do not reference Shrum

as a legitimate observer of Edwards.

He was fired by Edwards and wants to hit back.

The things he wrote in that book are patently, provably false.

[Cameron27]

18. What things that Shrum wrote are provably false?

[venable]

21. principally the meeting at which he says JE said he was 'not comfortable'

with gay people.

I know people who were there, and it simply never happened.


also the IWR vote shenanigans, which Shrum made it seem like JE was simply being political. never happened the way shrum said it did.


just remember that shrum was fired - asked to leave the campaign immediately - in the run up to 04. so, referencing his sliming of the man who fired him is hitting way below the belt.

shrum, who is nothing but the presider over losing campaigns, is trying to make a buck, since he can't do it on any campaign.

everyone involved in the shrum/edwards relationship - going back to his senate run - sees the book as crap.

[Cameron27]

22. Elizabeth Edwards claims that it did happen,

and gave her opinion as to why Edwards responded the way he did.

Please link to who was involved in the Shrum/Edwards relationship and to their quotes about the IWR vote, or anything else you think is crap.

As far as I can tell, it's a "Shrum said vs the Edwards' campaign said" situation.

[venable]

24. precisely

EE explains the situation, clearly and in such a way that someone simply referencing Shrum is not a worthy parry.

as for links, no. is this kind of thing linkable?

'he said/she said' - right. but look at the history. one was scorned, the other did the scorning. the book is payback.

if you don't think shrum is a slime bucket, fine. I do think so, hence I know which of the two I believe. I also know people involved at the time, and am entirely certain that shrum's version is not worth the air it takes up.

[Cameron27]

27. You said it was provable, and that's what I was questioning.

Unless a third party, like John Kerry has something to say about it, then it's he said/she said. FWIW, I'm no fan of Shrum's & I don't put much faith in what he has to say about anything, but your opinion isn't the same as verifiable fact.

[venable]

30. perhaps I should have said that IMO it is unarguable nt

[Blackhatjack]

23. Edwards is the smartest candidate and Shrum has no credibility ....

Point out the last time you ever saw John Edwards speak from written notes. Hasn't happened. Edwards has tremendous recall, which he used to display in the courtroom arguing cases to the juries.

Edwards has taken on responsibility for crafting each of his plans he has published on his website. He was the creator of the college for everyone program, and put his own money into it to finance a test of the concept in Greene County, NC.

I wouldn't put too much faith in what Shrum has to say. Put Shrum and Edwards on the same platform and Edwards would eat his lunch.

[Dawgs]

10. So Paul Krugman's choice is Edwards.

I'm sorry, but opinions like this mean nothing.

[venable]

17. why not?????

what you probably meant is that these opinions mean nothing TO YOU. Krugman, the most intelligent, consistentlly progressive MSM voice, means a lot to a lot of good people.

[CTyankee]

25. Means something to me. Krugman has been consistently right on just about everything

he has written on. I find him really smart and well informed. He almost makes the subject of economics attractive (but not quite; I've never gotten over the nightmare of my grad level Econ course!)

[sundancekid]

12. yours is a misleading and disingenuous quoting from Krugman article ...

here's the rest of the story for those of us that would like to see things (and Krugman in particular) unvarnished and uncensored ...
why would the OP leave out the Obama part and set off misleading conclusions????


~snip
The entire G.O.P. field, then, fails the substance test.

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side... Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance...

Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive ... and ... she’s offered few specifics. ... In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said ... in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”
~snip

[venable]

16. he is specifically raising Edwards over BO in the health care issue

that's why you leave him out.

'somewhat less comprehensive' - this is about substance, and on that point, he honors Edwards above the others.

[jsamuel]

19. Fair use limits to 4 pharagraphs, that is the general rule

Obama is mentioned, but he obviously calls out Edwards specifically.

[JohnLocke]

20. K&R!

[AtomicKitten]

26. well, that would be his opinion

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. Sometimes people state an opinion that expresss the truth of a matter. Not

a half-truth even. The truth. Another course may not; he/she may peddle half-truths or lies or plain nonsense.

Being an opinion is not, ipso facto, a slur. I don't believe he said he'd received it from Yahweh on tablets of stone.

[AtomicKitten]

29. I didn't even imply that.

It's a simple statement of fact. This is an opinion piece. Truth is in the eye of the beholder in politics.

My larger point is that people often post opinion pieces, blog chatter, etc. to punctuate their own point of view. Not quite as insidious as leaking info to the papers and then quoting them on the Sunday morning talk shows as this administration does, but still it's important to call a spade a spade.

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. Well, truth may or may not be in the eye of the beholder, but I get what

driving at. Just disagree concerning its relevance (accuracy/truth) in this case.

'Opinion' is in the eye of the unpersuaded beholder, imo. It could express the truth, it might not. Nothing changes it from being an 'opinion', i.e. one opinion among others to the sceptical. I agree on that.

[venable]

32. of COURSE it's his opinion, what else would it be?

And you can dismiss Paul Krugman's opinion, or you can dismiss him.

I respect him. Immensely.

[AtomicKitten]

33. again, a simple statement of fact

... that it is his opinion.

I made no qualifications of that statement nor commented on it.

Sheesh.

[venable]

34. oh, please...then why even mention it?

if you don't intend to diminish it as JUST an opinion.

let's be honest.

[AtomicKitten]

35. perhaps you shouldn't appoint yourself hall monitor (nt)

[venable]

36. come on, that's not necessary

you made a quietly dismissive remark, dimishing Edwards' support from the only legit MSM progressive, and I mentioned it.

again, let's just be honest. your post was not as innocent as you make out, and I suspect you know that.

I've no interest in the job of hall monitor, but thanks for offering.

[AtomicKitten]

37. My comment was simple and bereft of judgment: "That is his opinion."

Here's a picture of my dog. Perhaps you can kick her around too while you're at it.

[venable]

38. this is absurd

if you really think 'that's his opinion', in the context of this thread, is bereft of judgement....well, we don't speak the same English language.

cute dog.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Ya know what?

I'm trying really hard to love the contenders. I'm trying to focus on the upside of them all. Sometimes I narrow my focus too much on the war and that is depressing. Plus there is the reality that these indeed are our choices. I have no desire to sh*t where I eat. I fully understand the implications of that.

Here's the entirety of my thought process on this OP: "Hmmmmmmmm. That's a way to look at it."

That's the truth whether you believe me or not. You are perfectly entitled to embellish and analyze my brief and innocuous comment; I can't stop you. But it's rather presumptuous. Plus you are wrong.

Relax.

[venable]

40. cute dog

seriously

[AtomicKitten]

41. thanks!

She came to us a really aggressive 4-month-old part pitbull that had been adopted twice before already and returned, and now four years later my two cats run all over her like she's patio furniture.

My son calls her a giant hamster.

[venable]

42. that's because your cats are atomic ;)

and your dog looks like a sweetie

peace