home

What Krugman Said

By Big Tent Democrat

Paul Krugman speaks for me:

[T]he suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading. In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000.

[I]f I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress. . . . [L]et’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.

To the "Creative Class," that might mean I am "not a Dem." But it is what I think. I am glad to be in Krugman's company on this.

< Boehlert's Revenge: Now They Notice? | Judge Releases Tony Rezko on Bail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    hey! get out the way of the ... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    ...narrative. You are such a buzz kill.

    Now to be serious. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    If he Demolishes the reputation of the 1990s he really has nothing to run on.

    The Stagflation of Carter?

    LBJs Great Society and the Spirit of '68?

    The Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis?

    Truman's Hiroshima and Nagsaki (without blinking an eye!), FDR and his "crumbling new deal"?

    Parent

    He will run on (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    the great foreign policy accomplishments of GHWB and Raygun.

    Domestically, he will run on "change."

    Parent

    Change or 'spare change'? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    He's rapidly spending any good Dem capitol and people are sick of the Republicans, so unless he comes up with something solid, he's not going to be worth much in the GE.

    Parent
    Change (none / 0) (#17)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:20:44 PM EST
    There should be a lightbulb joke in there somewhere.

    Parent
    Oh, you know there is! (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    My brain is just not in that mode at the moment. Drat.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#63)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:12:18 PM EST
    if it has to do with "screwing in a light bulb", the joke becomes obvious.

    Parent
    How many GE employees (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    does it take to screw in a Presidential candidate?

    Not including Matthews...

    Parent

    Here in California (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    we screw in hot-tubs.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree. (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    I didn't say it will work. I think it's suicidal, personally.

    But who knows?

    Parent

    Down ticket is going to be important (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    If he gets in. I'm carefully checking out the state Dems this year. And also hoping NYS goes blue all the way. A defense wall in DC and my state may keep me from going insane the next 4 yrs. When I think of him or McCain in office, I just want to withdraw and be left alone to live my life.

    Parent
    It will be even more important if he doesn't (none / 0) (#29)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    I'm hoping that even if he loses the GE, as I'm pretty sure he will unless McCain implodes, he will have enough coattails to give us a veto-proof majority in congress. It's a thin hope, however, as I'm told that his supporters don't have a strong record of voting downticket.

    Parent
    I hate to say this (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    but you are correct.  It's not enough to run on NotBush.  The Dems have uncovered the Bush admin misdeeds, but they haven't actually done anything about them.

    Parent
    MAYBE IT IS JUST ME BUT, (4.66 / 3) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:00:52 PM EST
    ...I see alot of similarities between GWB and BHO candidate-wise....no real experience, free pass from the media, supporters who are Am Idol voter types (vote for who is cool, not the best candidate), a uniter (who is helping tear the party apart), mob mentality of their supporters, etc.

    Parent
    The only differnce I see (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    is that one is a "cowboy;' the other is a "rock star."  Any other difference between them is insignificant. Heck, they're both even running on the GHWB record.  

    Parent
    Just happened across Shrub... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by rghojai on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:21:54 PM EST
    ... a book Molly Ivins did in 2000, detailing various things, to include how Bush campaigned, realities behind the experience he talked about, etc. It also talked about the press being easy on him... . A good bit of it struck me as rather Obama-like... to include he and people in his campaign trashing opponents while he and his people dismissed criticisms, attacks, etc., made in his direction as examples of what needs to change, of opponents dragging down the discourse, etc.

    Such was a concern back then, that not only did it seem to take campaign BS and nonsense to a new level, but that it worked--could well serve as an example for others, independent of party.

    Not to say that Obama would be at or anywhere near Bush levels of hopelessness, but not enthusing to see someone sing a song of hope, unity, new politics and run a campaign that can feel like it's taking a Rovian approach.  

    Parent

    ...they're both immature idiots... n/t (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talktruth on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    It's not just you. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    I'm trying to keep that thought from taking root because once it does, I'll never get rid of it.

    Parent
    This Is All Very Disturbing To Me (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    and why I don't want to see BHO wind the Dem primary.  I am uncomfortable with the way he seems to want to tear down the party and build it back in his own image.  I'm proud of the accomplishments of the party, the boom of the 90's, the Civil Rights of the 60's, the New Deal and Great Society.  I want to build on those Democratic values, not start over from scratch.  

    Change for the sake of change is a losing proposition.

    Parent

    It's worse than (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    "Change for the sake of change". He has NOTHING to base it on. It'll be one big freakin' experiment at this point. When I think of him in the WH, I think gov by trial and error.

    Parent
    Experiments normally have (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    a double blind or a strictly isolated and controlled variable...and a set of known constants.

    Yup. There are no controls here.

    It shouldn't be digniofied with the title experiment.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    he wants to change politics. And Washington is out.

    And "We" will govern the country.

    Okay.  So WE, in; politics out; Washington out. That leaves us with the WE; Ezra, John, Marcos, Josh, Steve, and Glenn.

    How thrilling is that?

    Parent

    You are correct! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM EST
    But, don't forget the Great Changer also has a ton of Clinton advisors on staff and ready to offer their help.  You know, those idiots who screwed up the nation during those "republican lite" Clinton years...

    Parent
    Can't Wait For The Debates Between McCain And (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    Obama where they both try to prove how more they are like Raygun than the other.

    OTOH debates between McCain and Clinton would be much more to my liking.

    Parent

    don't forget "hope" (none / 0) (#12)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    and "unity".

    A pony for everyone!

    Parent

    A pony in every pot (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:24:06 PM EST
    Somebody get the pony out of the pot or my friends will have nothing to smoke ;)

    Parent
    I wanna spotted pony!!! (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    I'm sure my dalmatian would love a spotted pony to run along side. Not so sure how my LL would take it though  ;)

    Parent
    I'm gonna get a pony!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    I'm gonna name my pony "Totally F***ed In The General"!!

    Uncle Andy says he's gonna come tomorrow and show my pony all about Unity LOL!!!

    I'm so excited!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [It's fun to write these. Except, of course, for the hollow feeling of impending disaster.]

    Parent

    Feeling Hollow? (none / 0) (#69)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST
    Add Cigars and Bourbon. Repeat.

    Parent
    What goes up, must come down (none / 0) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    What goes up must come down
    Spinning Wheel got to go 'round
    Talkin' 'bout your troubles
    it's a cryin sin
    Ride a painted pony
    let your spinning wheel spin
    You got no money
    and you got no home
    Spinning Wheel
    all alone


    Parent
    Oy . . . . n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    GHWB and Ronnie R. - what a great Dem platform! (none / 0) (#112)
    by noholib on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:15 PM EST
    Perfect!
    except you left out "hope" as a domestic policy.

    Parent
    Obama wants to make sure that there is (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:28 PM EST
    no return to the  long national nightmare of peace and prosperity we had in the 90's.

    Parent
    Hi Salo! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by TomP on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    Wondered where you went.

    Of course Krugman is right.

    And of course he is demonized for it.

    Parent

    refuge. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    last stands.

    Not pro Clinton though.

    Parent

    Yes. I'm neutral. (none / 0) (#118)
    by TomP on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:55 PM EST
    Two centrists.  Dkos is so pro-Obama, though.

    Parent
    Hey, TomP Nice To See You Here n/t (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    Good to see you also. (none / 0) (#117)
    by TomP on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    Havem't seen you much lately.

    Parent
    Here's my question (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    If Obama gets the nomination, is he going to turn around and tout how much better America does with a Democrat in office?  And if he expects Bill to campaign for him, is he now going to say Bill's administration was the greatest thing since sliced bread?  Or is he going to continue the Republican talking points, in which case, why would someone jump to the Democrat if he's telling them the Republicans are just as good?  Why change horses mid-stream?

    If he's all about "New" politics, (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    why is he talking about old administrations anyway? Especially Repub ones. I don't think he can use Clinton in a positive way even after he's not running against his wife. His message is garbled. He needs to pick something and stick with it.

    Parent
    Thank goodness for the courage (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    of Paul Krugman.

    He is the very definition of a mensch.

    I see nothing but Democratic death if Obama is the nominee...unless the voters in the next 10 elections prove me wrong.

    I'm not thinking they will, though.

    Obama will expect (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sister of ye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    both Hillary and Bill Clinton to forgive and forget, and for the media to ignore it when he does turns 180 degrees issues. The first may come to pass, at least enough for them to campaign for the party. The second I wouldn't bet on if I were him.


    Distance from the Clinton's (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:24:47 PM EST
    I predict he will want nothing to do with the Clinton's.  They are not just Washington politicians, they are ugh 'old' symbols of power that failed the people.  He won't want anything to do with them.  Shiny, new change.  I'm naming my pony 'Pansy.'

    Parent
    it's amusing...the pansy thing (none / 0) (#94)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:54:46 PM EST
    Ah gender stereotypes...i'm not a big fan of the pansy word, but being PC aside it's amazing that after all the bashing of gore and kerry for not being manly enough (in the press), here we have a possible third candidate that actually encourages the view that he's not aggressive AND simultaneously comes off as the most passive aggressive person any of us have ever dated (or tolerated for more than five minutes).

    It is absolutely astounding that Hillary has continued to be painted as shrill/fishwifey for so long when faced with an opponent whose entire campaign is a cycle of "memo on Hillary/Bill as racist/liar/mean" -> "response by Hill" -> "Why are you so aggressive, we lead a clean campaign!"

    Parent

    It was bad and needs to be deleted (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:37:18 PM EST
    I 'misspoke.'  I was just a little annoyed with his behavior the last couple of days as I interpreted it as whiny and I think that he's going to be hit with it in the GE.  I guess I will rename my pony 'Toast."

    Parent
    so true (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by proudliberaldem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    Krugman has been a rare voice of wisdom in this election.

    Your sentence (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    is three words too long.

    "Krugman has been a rare voice of wisdom."


    Parent

    even shorter. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    Krugman is a rare voice of wisdom.

    and in the present case.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#101)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:02:05 PM EST
    Krugman/Paul 08!

    Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I've seen too many XX/Paul on the times.  And a couple Obama/Paul.

    Someone should file a charter for a religious 501(c) (i'm too lazy to look up the actual code) and create a web page for the Church Of Krugman.

    Clearly, Bill Kristol would be Satan, and Dowd and Rich would be fallen angels.  But where does brooks fit...double agent?

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#103)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    in case it wasnt painfully obvious, the above needs a supersnark

    i doubt krugman would be enthused by his own faith based community.

    Parent

    BTD, You are hardly alone. (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by bslev22 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    Many of us stand with Professor Krugman, and we do so as proud and loyal Democrats.

    Agreed (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:17:54 PM EST
    I'd also say I stand with him as an ardent member of the Reality Based Community, which has lost about half it's population recently.

    Parent
    I await the redefinition (none / 0) (#111)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    of reality that includes some bizarro dismissal of the findings in Krugman's article.  I've already had the book What's the Matter with Kansas thrown with me as if it were a missing gospel I didn't know about.  As though it hadn't been widely criticized etc...but that's a debate for another day...a day that never comes.

    Parent
    It is ridiculous to equate the two. Thanks for (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Talktruth on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:18:02 PM EST
    helping bring this to light.  

    It seems like BO will do anything to win, including lie about the obvious.  Surely he knows there is a difference!  Then again, Obama said they never could have predicted terrorists would fly planes into buildings.  Hmmm, wonder where I've heard that before (all over the freaking TV, perhaps)?

    Krugman speaks truth to power... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    even if we don't always want to hear it. This has not always made him popular - but it certainly has gained him the respect of a lot of people.

    speaking for me too (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    I love how ... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
    the use of the term "creative class" blurs the distinction between people who are actually creative and those that market, exploit or stand near creative things.

    All more of the "everyone's an artist" nonsense we hear too much these days.

    well, as a creative professional (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    I've asked before and will ask again:

    Since when did a net-nerd become creative?

    Or for that matter, anyone else who claims to be part of the creative class without a resume to back it up?  ;)

    Parent

    Famous Illustrator Brad Holland once wrote (none / 0) (#80)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    Life doesn't imitate art. Art imitates life. Life imitates High School.

    He also had a great article about how 'Everyone's an artist except for Illustrators, who are whores.' :-D

    Parent

    Friday rant... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    Reading this shows me how things are never simple.  Why people need to analyse and question.   But the creative class has twisted history.  Forgotten the past.  Simplified it for the common and facile argument.  It's all about how "the individual feels", it's not about the struggles of the past or the future.   Just make me feel good now. Infantilism.  Everything is reduced to binary bits of thought:  good, bad.  Demonizing and sanctifying.  Murky muddles of life and reality are not comfortable.  And, we have to be comfortable.  Medicated, sanitized and comfortable.  So, we invent a past, we imagine a future and we follow.  "We are the ones we were waiting for" he says, but guess what, turns out we were just like the others.  


    Political Prozac (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    designed to make us feel better about things not actually being better.

    Might be a good time to buy Big Pharma - I have a feeling anti-depressants are going to be going home with a lot more people after November.

    Parent

    Spot on. (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by fafnir on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    I made a similar inference, regarding the Clinton years, a few days ago at TLC:

    If Obama becomes the nominee, he will need to counter the same "tax and spend liberal" label Republicans use every four years. Lest Obama forget, he will have to reach back to the Clinton years to summon Democratic Party credibility on economic governance to win working-class voters away from McCain.

    I have my issues with Bill Clinton's presidency, but for Obama to lift his leg over the only two-term Democratic president since FDR is bat squeeze crazy.

    Repost (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by jen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    because it fits perfectly here:

    Key phrase

    the wrap up summary of the article:

    And one more thing: 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 such an important point - and a valid comeback to those who are whining about Hillary saying McCain has more national security credentials than O! and how could she- how dare she- what on earth was she thinking!!! We all know Obama's national security creds far outshine John McCains. Gasp! She is insane and obviously intent on destruction of the world. Because we all know it is sacrosanct and you do NOT criticize the other Dem in favor of any Republican, right?

    Well how dare Obama repeatedly denigrate the Clinton administration's record? ESPECIALLY when he's lying or just ill informed about the stats- whichever is worse I don't know. Leaving the Reagan era in its "transformational" terms and HW getting a big pass for such shining foreign policy. But slamming the Clinton years over and over and over. Trying to clump it in with the GW Bush administration. Yeah- indistinguishable... right.....Talk about hurting the Dem party. The one time in 3 decades we manage to win a two term presidency and restore a broken economy, prosper and enjoy peace... our shining hour of success in national politics in so many decades -- and he feels he has to trash that? In favor of how he'll be adopting HW Bush and Reagan policies?

    Give
    me
    a
    break

    Yes We Can

    (h/t ms in la)

    This not a Dem stuff is a major problem (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    for Party, I just got off the line with a friend 40ish female professional, who said she has never voted Republican in her life but at least McCain is not a radical she did not watch the debate but heard about it at work, not sure what pushed her button.  I'm an Independent, I still believe Clinton will win the nomination, but this lady was unsure and a former loyal Dem.

    I always miss the final event that makes people turn, hmmm..


    One Problem -- Not a Small Town (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by DJ Adequate on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    I come from a town of 5K people. Where I live we would call somewhere like Youngstown a fairly large city, so I think Krugman ends up looking a little out of touch on this.

    Krugman's using census definitions, I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    which consider a municipality of 750,000 to still be a "town," the largest in the country.

    Those of 5,000 to 25,000 or so generally are called small towns.  Smaller than that are villages, hamlets, etc. -- though it can be confusing with each state's definition of city, town, village, etc., in terms of governmental structure, too.

    Parent

    Heheh (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    My state's largest "city" tops out at 30,000.  My town is 1,200.

    Parent
    Why does Obama get away with this.... (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    and is not called out for trashing a Democrat - you know, like Obama supporters do whenever HRC says something about her versus McCain?  She is called every name in the book, but Obama gets another pass.

    IN ADDITION, Obama et al has managed to take a lifetime of work on behalf of AA's by both of the Clintons and turn them into racists and "massah".

    Obama has, IMHO, set race relations back 50 years.  And that is very sad.

    I agree -- he has done so, I see it (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    in my workplace, where discourse on race has been encouraged and made fairly safe, until now.  I would not attempt it today.  Yes, it is very sad.

    Parent
    I find myself very hesitant relative to AA's (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    right now...worried that my speech, my expressions, my thoughts are going to be misinterpreted.  I have never felt like this in my whole life - and I come from a family with a grandfather who was stunned when he saw an AA driving a bus in Detroit in the 1950's.

    Now I feel cautious and not free to be me with any AA with whom I come in contact.

    Parent

    I feel the same way around my aa friends (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    especially the religious ones--Do they really think I'm part of a conspiracy to spread AIDS in the aa community?  Do they really hate America so badly?

    It's a vicious cycle, and I try not to do it, but it's there.

    Parent

    Yeah - so much for unity and (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:16:28 PM EST
    transcending our differences.  People I know all feel like we are walking on eggshells, feeling defensive and apologetic when we have nothing to feel that way about.

    I haven't felt this uncomfortable and depressed about the state of race relations for a long, long time.

    Parent

    He may make me return to the party of (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    my parents.. lol.
    My father was state chair of the Scranton campaign in 1964. Both he and my mother thought that Democrats were literally crazy. I'm beginning to see the wisdom in their view.

    Parent
    Clinton 3 SDs Today... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30:33 PM EST


    obema is attempting (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by isaac on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    to write out history and, by trashing a very popular administration, which oversaw the greatest economic boon in american history, he is also destroying the party to do it.  by embracing reagan, legitimizing repug myths -- harry and louise, soc. sec. in trouble, etc. -- he is ensuring his irrelevancy in the general.

    I just ordered that Bartel book he referenced. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    I like this article and the book sounded very interesting. Got good reviews all around.

    This will get just as much attention (none / 0) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    as Hillary's big win Wednesday night.

    "Reality-based community?"

    Riiiight!

    It already has gotten attention. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    Even orangists that still like Krugman say he's got some kind of grudge against Obama.

    I have to wonder if the reality-based community was just a convenient phase for kos' blog to go through.  Maybe he's decided he doesn't need that emphasis anymore.  Curious as to who the next crop of front pagers will be.  Can kos still attract talent?

    Parent

    I tiresomely once again have no bone to (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    pick with Krugman or you Mr. Obama Lover.

    Funny you didn't mention the rest of the article (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    Where Krugman, the ultimate liberal elitest, jumped on the Republican/Clinton meme that Obama was elitest, because it help his chosen candidate.  Then ofcourse there is the above cited passage.  
    I don't people benefited from welfare to work, as we remember seeing in the movie Bowling for Columbine, it was a bad policy.  Was Clinton better then Bush yes, was it absolutely rosy nope? Where a lot of out problems then bigger problems now, yes.  Pointing that out doesn't make you a bad Dem.  
    Ohh and on the subject of elitist and out of touch.  We all lived through the 90's we can make out own judgment, but Krugman doesn't care he has a chart to prove to me I was better off.

    Obama has not presented (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    a coherant critique of the Clinton record.

    He's not earned the right in practice, or intellectually to trash the last two term Dem president.

    Parent

    Basic error... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    thinking that it is all about YOU.

    C'mon...you know better than that.

    When the stats talk about 'the average employee' or 'the median price of your new car,' you know perfectly well they're not talking about YOU or YOUR new (or old) car.

    Stop wearing your self and everyone else out with this crap.

    Let's have a new thought from you....any subject...

    Got one?

    Parent

    Krugman is telling (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    people they were better off in the 90's i can decided for myself, as can most people.

    Parent
    you and your method (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:44:17 PM EST
    decided that Bush would make you safer.  

    Parent
    OK. That does it. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    I'm calling your mom.

    Parent
    Some people (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by pie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    will never be better off.  It doesn't matter who the president is.

    I can understand people's anger.  OTOH, they have to take some responsibility for their circumstances.  They've gotten far less sympathy or real help, however, in the last seven years.

    Parent

    Can you please (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by thomphool on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    Quote the text that is Krugman, "jumped on the Republican/Clinton meme that Obama was elitist?" I'm reading the article, and don't see it mentioned anywhere?

    Krugman does what I think Obama has been asking us to do- he's addressing the issues and theory behind what Obama said, and takes a critical eye and asks, outside of the context of "bittergate," let's actually look at what Obama said, and evaluate the claims on their merits.  

    I read a serious intellectual taking the claims at face value, trying to parse out the implications of those claims on governing philosophy and campaign philosophy, and coming to the conclusion that he disagrees with them because he doesn't think the evidence, (the chart you don't "care he has") supports the claims being made.  I see a man who is "disagreeing without being disagreeable."

    If this is not the elevated public discourse that Obama has been asking of us, what is?


    Parent

    We can start with the tittle (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:46:32 PM EST
    "Clinging to a stereotype," but if you don't see it nothing I can do if I respond to much it's chatter.  So have fun dissecting what i said.

    Will Barack Obama's now famous "bitter" quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.

    But here's a different question: was Mr. Obama right?

    Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.



    Parent
    OH GASP! (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by tree on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    Krugman used facts to prove Obama wrong. How dare he! Welcome to the non-reality based Obama community.

    Parent
    to reiterate (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    fireamrs are an integral part of merican political culture--they predate any 25 year drift in politics.

    Religion is a central aspect of American culture--De Toqueville famously observed this in the 19th century.

    Obama linked these two things to Xenophobia and Racism--as a net negative. He was not saying that guns and religion were positives.

    Obama is going to be slaughtered (in the GE) for his inaccurate and misleading sociological analysis of american gun culture and religion; and for linking them to nativist and racist tendencies.

    Parent

    Obama himself has said (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by thomphool on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:55:23 PM EST
    that while he may have not have phased what he said in the best way possible, he stands behind the point he is trying to make and won't let the controversy over the way he said it underly the greater point he's trying to make.

    Krugman essentially says, fine.

    The very text you quote as your response is basically Krugman saying, okay, fine, let's not talk about your phrasing, let's have a discussion about the actual point you were trying to make.  

    Saying

    his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.

    is not an "elitist" meme.  It's saying, "I'm going to evaluate your claims at face value and disagree."

    He then proceeds to do exactly that.  

    Is it fair for Krugman to say that, as a liberal, or whatever he considers himself, he thinks there are serious problems not with how Obama said things but with what Obama said? And that yes, he does view it as a legitimate concern about the candidate Democrats are about to nominate(elitism/"what sort of ammo does this give the GOP" aside)?  

    If that is fair, then how,if not in the way that Krugman puts forth his argument, is he supposed to do it?

    Parent

    The rest of the article is even more (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by tree on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:44:38 PM EST
    spot-on, by my measure.

    Of the points that bothered me about what Obama said, the dissing of the Clinton administration was not the top one. The top one was addressed in Krugman's title, "Clinging to a Stereotype".

    For a campaign that's supposed to be post-partisan and all about unity, Obama's campaign has relied way too much on stereotyping of voters.

    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.



    Parent
    Actually you answered the other guys question (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jgarza on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
    Cult members, rich liberal, elitist, all of the above, Krugman makes fun of democrats he doesn't like, of course its ok to make fun of those democrats, since you don't need them to win.

    Parent
    He's not using your terms (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by tree on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    and he's not "making fun of them", he's proving that, among those who argue that Obama was "right",  their stereotypes of rural voters is wrong. Most of those who have argued that Obama was correct in what he said have been using the Franks book, "Whats the Matter with Kansas" as support, but even Franks doesn't support the attitude. The quote is from Franks.

    Parent
    Frank would not (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    want a candidate to to use his theory so cavalierly.

    He'd want the candidate to embody the suggestions...not be an anthropologist describing the rednecks attitudes to a bunch of liberal donors.

    Parent

    Frank's book... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    ...appeared to me, as a call to return to ECONOMIC  populism and to de-emphasize cultural topics in Presidential elections.

    Obama delivers a phat motherlode of cultural topics to Presidential politics.

    I can't think of a persona more unlike the candidate implied by the descriptions in "What's the matter with Kansas?"

    After reading it I was thinking:

    Economic populist, Southerner, Baptist or Episcopalian, maybe a factory or farm job in his youth, public university education, modest background if not dirt poor. He's used both his hands and his brain in his career.

    Atticus Finch or something like that. Maybe even a Pappy O'Daniel if he's older.

    When we had that candidate the Economist called him the "bastard child of Pat Buchanan and Huey Long."  

    And the Creative class laughed along with them.


    Parent

    Guess what? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    I still think he is what I said months ago, and more so.  He proves it every day.  

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:11:53 PM EST
    Obama hardly says "Clinton was better than Bush, but..."

    His constant theme was that the Clinton/Bush years were one long period when the middle class fell through the cracks.

    You may want to hear the claim that Clinton was better than Bush because it seems obvious to you, but Obama seldom, if ever, adds that qualifier.

    Parent

    i lived through the '90s myself (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by english teacher on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    and i blame the republicans in congress for the fact that serious problems weren't addressed.  it would be nice to hear obama do the same.  at least that way, he would sound like he knew what the hell he was talking about.  

    Parent
    Ah, Michael Moore (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    that paragon of cold, hard facts.

    Parent
    If you've conceded the factual analysis (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    And wish the change the subject to Krugman's punditry, that's cool.


    Parent
    If the Clinton Years (none / 0) (#48)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    and not the economic growth of the 1944-1972 are THE Model, God help the poor, because our economy will not.

    Clinton was able to move the ball only slightly. Our economy even under Clinton's excellent stewardship was more built for creating Millionaires and Billionaires than creating a Living Wage and good benefits (paid vacations, universal health care, the right to strike without being replaced) for average workers.

    Obama is no Saint or Savior, and Obama should stop running down Bill Clinton. Obama hates The Clinton's and they hate him. That happens.

    But the Clinton Years were not the best model for the Democratic Party. Clinton's accomplishments were far superior to Bush, but the Middle Class and especially the old Industrial Working Class have been in a full scale retreat for the last 36 years.

    As Democrats we should dream big: Living Wages, Full Benefits.

    Only in America would so many people work for so little without rising up. Every time France tries to take things away from workers or young people, they riot.

    In America, we say, "Oh dear! Can't anyone do anything about this? Oh, well...."

    How the hell does Obama's Reagan model... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    ...do any better than Clinton?

    Parent
    Only slightly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    But far better than Bush.

    If Obama can do HALF of what Clinton did for the poor I'll call him a success.

    I hate your rhetoric.

    I hate that "at least dems screw the poor with lubricant" BS that comes from the left.

    I hate that part of the left.

    Only slightly but far better than BS.

    Go home.

    End rant.

    Now for the fact:

    The only year the poverty rate for families (since 1959) has ever gone below 9% is the year 2000.

    In 1972 it was 9.3%.

    So be angry at the rant, I'm an emotional person.

    Don't be angry at the fact.


    Parent

    But I Would Put The 90's Model (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    up against any other.  Record for any economic expansion in history; over 20 million jobs created, 5 million families from poverty to prosperity... Someone else on here has a better list; wish I could find it.  But I look around my home town, and I see more kinds of people participating in the economy than before.

    Remember, Clinton inherated a economy with stagnant job growth, massive deficits, rising debt, slow GDP growth.  In 8 short years, things turned, and the govn't was running annual surpluses.

    The fundamentals must be sound for everyone to thrive.  Clinton handed off an economy that, with the right stewerdship, could have delivered many of the gifts you want.  But the fat cats got ahold of it and rolled back much of the progress, if not all of it.  

    Either way, the 90's were unparalleled by any other economic period.

    Parent

    No, the 1944-1972 (none / 0) (#92)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    period was unparalleled for economic growth for the most individuals.

    Bill Clinton tried. But workers lost real income growth since 1972. Obviously not all workers, but what we think of as the Middle Class and whatever remains of actual manufacturing jobs in so-called Working Class has been hit hard.

     I am not an economist but you don't need a Ph.D. to know that if 30-40% of jobs are in the Service Sector, un-unionized and poorly-paid, there are too many people working for too little.

    here is a Free pdf that shows the charts with statistics:

    ksghome.harvard.edu/~RLawrence/Lawrence%20for%20Brandeis.pdf

    Parent

    Wrong Again (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03:04 PM EST
    Clinton presided over the longest period of economic growth in the country's history.  Wages at the bottom of the economic scale kept up with growth, even acknowledge by your own reference.  Wages grew in proportion to output faster.  Unemployment was a record low levels ( through the 44-72 period, it spiked over 7% several times. ) Jobs were created at a faster rate, over 20 million.  Millions made the transition from poverty to prosperity.  Record deficits transformed into surpluses.

    Clinton still shines compared to any other time.

    Parent

    Typo, BTD (none / 0) (#61)
    by lambert on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    I think you meant:

    "creative class" [cough]

    right?

    Although I've been experimenting with creative classists (no quotes).

    How about Creativists? (none / 0) (#83)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    It smacks of the pseudo-religious surroundings in Obama land.

    Parent
    the quotes (none / 0) (#104)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    are meant to disown the statement by highlighting it over the rest of the text.

    If it was the first time he was using it would be unclear, but his repeated usage makes it clear he isn't introducing/highlighting a new term.  

    He's repeated highlighting a term to emphasize its absurdity.  Sort of like:

    It's no surprise how "compassionate conservatives" feel about condoms in prison.

    Parent

    Destroy both parties (none / 0) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    to bring about something new... both parties are tanking.  Apparently Obama is taking the party back to a time of FDR and Kennedy... (ha!)

    Have we seen the end of the two party system?

    [Senator Obama has turned the Democratic primary into a full-fledged movement within the party. His wing now appears to make up a majority of Democrats in the country.]

    That Is Strange (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    If Obama's wing now appears to make up a majority of Democrats in the country, why do the exit polls show that Clinton gets the majority of the votes from the Democratic voters.

    Parent
    newsflash (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:53:38 PM EST

    Huff Post: "Hillary slams Democratic activists"
    by John Aravosis

    Developing story over at the Huffington Post. I hear you won't be pleased when you find out what she said. Stay tuned...

    **

    bout freakin time she slammed them.
    they need a good slammin.

    there is an open thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:58:46 PM EST
    in which we can discuss this--but my first question is, democratic activists are the so-called "progressive" bloggers?  You know, the ones she stood up for by voting against the censure and the ones her top advisor defended on the O'Stupid Factor...

    Parent
    It's moveon.org she slammed (none / 0) (#113)
    by gish720 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    She said they intimidated her voters at some of the caucus especially in Nevada and Texas, she said they are against her and she said they've been against the war in Afghanistan.  I heard it on Dan Abrams...it came out on Huffington Post

    Parent
    The Greatest Economic Boom? (none / 0) (#96)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST
    That is a claim that requires many asterisks.

    Our politicians should run to bring an improvement in the real income of Americans.

    Much of the "dot.com Boom" was lost in 2000.

    Our Economic problems are real. We cannot go back to Industrial America, but to say that everyone did well in the 90's is simply untrue.

    Neither Obama nor Clinton have any plan that will help workers make a living wage. McCain couldn't care less about the Middle Class.

    Republicans believe the Market solves all problems, which it does by making a vigorous class of Billionaires and Millionaires at the same time as it makes an enormous class of people who are just barely holding on.

    During the great boom, starting in the last two years of WW Two up until 1972, ordinary Americans became Middle Class.

    With the collapse of the Industrial Economy came The Information Age. A much higher per-centage of income goes to big earners and to Hedge Funds and share holders.

    It is ironic that we all believe that "Education" will save our way of life.

    No one's saying EVERYONE (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:01:59 PM EST
    Did well.

    I notice you don't have any solutions.

    Just complaints.  You support Obama?


    Parent

    why in the last 2 years of WW II (none / 0) (#106)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    until 1972 would large numbers of people become middle class.  could it be that there was pent up demand like none ever seen arising from the depression and the early war years starting in 1929?

    Gee whiz, could you go buy a clue?


    Parent

    Not so much (none / 0) (#114)
    by dell on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:59:24 PM EST
    You cite Krugman for the proposition that there was a very good economic record under Bill Clinton.

    I beg to differ with the underlying proposition.  Check this out:
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/bartels-bash/

    Or do you contend that the source is unreliable?

    Why don't HRC and some of her (none / 0) (#119)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM EST
    supporters, such as Krugman, not understand what it means to change the trajectory of American politics.

    Ever since Reagan we've seen that the Republican philosophy has dominated American politics.  Yes, there was the first two years of the Clinton administration where important fiscal policies were enacted with a Democratic congress.  But, it was not long before Newt and his friends were in power.  That is the point that BO is trying to make, but HRC supporters seem to have a psychological block that prevents them from seeing this.  All the disastrous problems we currently have are the result of Republican's being dominant since Reagan.  Having control for two years is not a victory, it's a failure.  Then, Newt was able to push his "contract with America."  And, after Clinton, why was it so easy for Bush to undue everything?  Again, it's because the R philosophy has been dominant.

    Did HRC ever try to pass legislation where she need to win people over and build coalitions?  No.  Were either of her campaigns difficult challenges?  No.  Her current campaign is the first time since the health care debacle that she's been in a real fight (never mind her propaganda about a record of being a fighter.)  Did she learn anything from the health care debacle.  No.  She's being belligerent and attacking, she doesn't (and never will) understand the nuance required to persuade.

    Imo, Democrats are navel gazing weaklings who seem to be drawn to political fratricide.  I have always considered myself a Republican.  I even campaigned for McCain in the 2000 primary.  But, I did vote for Gore and Kerry (I even predicted Bush would attack Iraq before he was elected.)  I've also always voted for women, as a policy, no matter what their party was (where I live, WA, this means I've voted for a lot of women Ds; for local, state wide, and national offices: we have a lot of women running for office around here.)  So, although I consider myself an R, I've voted D at least 80% of the time.  I've always had an uneasy feeling about Ds (wolves [Rs] v. wolves in sheep's clothing [Ds], as X put it.)  Early last year, before, I was paying attention, I assumed that I'd vote for HRC for president.  But, once I started looking at the contenders I realized that BO was much better.  

    Now I'm learning more about Democratic activists, thanks to blogs.  And, I'm finding that Democrats are extremely weak and fearful, even more than the characterization that I had always envisioned, and disliked.  All of this fretting about what the other side will do is mind numbing.  It's an odd way to run a political party.

    If Ds want to spend energy pretending that R philosophy hasn't been dominant, then they will never be able to recognize reality, and they'll certainly never be able to change a reality that they can't even see.

    Myself, I chose change.

    undo not undue n/t (none / 0) (#121)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:08:18 PM EST
    undo not undue n/t (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:07:56 PM EST


    Obama is engaging in Deceitful Campaign (none / 0) (#122)
    by awang on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:31:34 PM EST
    The democratic party has clearly been hijacked by the extreme leftwing. For left-leaning independents, this is very frustrating. The extreme righwing nuts of the Republican party took control of the party and they gave us George W. Bush. The democratic party is in danger of repeating the same mistake---not electing the most capable person into the white house. Our country needs Clinton NOW. There is no time for the empty "hope" talks. In Wednesday debate, it was obvious that while Hillary has provided detailed and substantive proposals, Obama spent most of his time describing this country's problems that we already know. He provided little insight on the solutions to these problems. Obama, I am afraid, is quite hollow in terms of his plan to lead this country to a better future. We need to alarm the democratic party that many independent voters could turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I think this scenario is quite real and it has not been talked about enough in the main stream media. Take a look. http://ivotemccainifobamaisnominated.blogspot.com/ (I vote for McCain if Obama is nominated)


    Well, I remember the Clinton years and (none / 0) (#124)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    how the republicans turned the tables--I think some of the republicans screaming their collective heads off over gays in the military was turned into a pr nightmare for Clinton and the press helped that along.  Hillary was used as a whipping post and the health care fight, was another republican pr victory. I do think Hillary learned from that mistake. She had much sharper edges back in those days. But the event that put the knife in was the raising of taxes on the upper income group that the republicans said would cause a recession, which it did not and Obama wants to do the same thing.  I noticed a couple of Sundays ago when Dick Durbin was on CNN talking about Obama's agenda and he got the usual tax and spend riff from the republican  speaking across from him on the TV, I noticed right then and there that Durbin didn't come back with how it had been very successful under Clinton because they've lost those talking points. How smart was that?