Even Paul Krugman has Turned Against Hillary!

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

All-stars

OK, this is pretty dumb. Hillary Clinton wants a high-level commission to analyze ways to resolve the mortgage crisis — including Alan Greenspan.

Yes, I know people still listen when Greenspan speaks — and John McCain once joked about taking Greenspan’s advice even if he’s dead. But for those in the know, AG is a key villain in the whole affair.

I mean, why not add Charles Prince, Stanley O’Neal, and Angelo Mozilo to the commission?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/all-stars/

[leftofcool]

1. Awwwwwwwww, Krugman didn't get asked to be on the panel

[Larkspur]

42. And Obama voted for the Peru Free Trade Act after the AFL-CIO

publicly opposed it. Obama used the AFL-CIO to justify his vote, not realizing that the AFL-CIO opposed the PFT.

[roguevalley]

68. if you had a clue you would be lobbying for him to be on a panel

to solve this shit that Greenspan was responsible for.

[depakid]

2. Krugman's simply taliking about policy- like he always does

This was a STUPID idea -and (as most anyone who reads his books and articles could tell you) he was bound to comment on it.

[DJ13]

3. He finally realizes his chance to be a Presidential advisor is going up in flames

:nopity:

[bicentennial_baby]

4. I'm still LOLing over the Krugman piece I found last week about NAFTA...

From the early 90s...To quote "NAFTA will have no effect on American jobs"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Cha]

20. That's good to know..Krugman is

not so brilliant after all.

[redqueen]

28. Whoa!

That's... wow.

:wow:

[bicentennial_baby]

33. Swear to GOD...I underlined it...

If you wanna see it, look for his piece "The Uncomfortable Truth About NAFTA"...Page 2. :)

[redqueen]

39. Thanks!

I'll definitely give that a read... hehehehe... wow.

[bicentennial_baby]

41. I'm doing a research paper on the environmental effects of NAFTA on Mexico

And I ran across it in my research. Needless to say, I wish I'd found it before Ohio! x(

:hi:

[redqueen]

43. Oooh are you touching on the parts of NAFTA

which required peasant farmland to be handed over to private corporations? That sure helped with illegal immigration, right there.

Ooh ooh and also the maquiladores! Those had a nice effect on the environment too.

Hah... what a nice, juicy subject.

[bicentennial_baby]

Yes, I'm really enjoying it...It's for my Economics of the Environment class

I'm such a nerd. I'm even staying in school for an extra year so I can do more work. :rofl:

My Independent Study adviser for next Fall wants me to produce a research paper that I can submit for publication in an academic journal :wow:

:)

[redqueen]

54. Yes you are!

It's part of your extreme hotness. :9

And congrats! That speaks highly of your abilities, that they're advising that course of action. Good luck!

:loveya:

[bicentennial_baby]

56. Eeek!

:blush:

Oh you!

:loveya:

And, thank you, love. :hug:

[redqueen]

67. You're very welcome!

:hug:

[Larkspur]

44. Don't forget to add Obama's support of NAFTA

He voted for the Peru Free Trade Act even though the AFL-CIO publicly opposed it.

[bicentennial_baby]

51. It's an Economics paper, not relevant

:)

[Larkspur]

5. Krugman was never a Hillary supporter

He fairly criticized both Obama and Hillary.

I voted for Obama in CT's Feb 5 primary but am not an Obama-bot. I have more respect for Krugman than I do Obama. Krugman was speaking out courageously against the Bush Admin before anyone outside of Obama's circle heard of Obama.

And while Krugman initially supported NAFTA, he is open to amending it.
I do recall that Obama entertained the notion of privatizing Social Security and that was AFTER Bush's failed sales job to convince Americans to privatize SS, so Saint Obama is not without sin too.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. GMAFB. Krugman has been majorly kissing Clinton ass this whole election season

And he's had a vendetta against Obama because the Obama campaign dared to point out inconsistencies in his statements about healthcare mandates.

While it's nice that Krugman spoke out against the Bush admin, he's been full of praise for free trade policies that are screwing us, the rest of the world, and the environment. Why he is so revered by many on the left is beyond me.

[LSK]

7. except for all the time when he was a Edwards supporter

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. Pretending to support Edwards, you mean.

Fucking weasel. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he'd just come out and admitted he was in the tank for Clinton. That would have enabled his readers to put his relentless Obama-bashing in perspective.

[LSK]

14. maybe he was on the fence a little

Not like the insane cultists on both sides in this forum.

[Larkspur]

16. You're so blind by your support for Saint Obama that you can't

believe that Krugman can remain neutral in this primary race. I think he liked aspects from all the Dem candidates but also didn't like other aspects. He's a NY Times columnist and has every right to criticize Obama and Hillary and all Democrats as well as Republicans. Unlike Obama-bots, Krugman criticizes politicians policy positions, not their persons.

Not all of us who voted for Obama are Obama-bots. I'm not inspired by Obama. He was the only one standing by Feb. 5 that opposed Hillary. That's why Obama got my vote. Honestly, I wasn't inspired by any of the Dem Prez candidates this year. I was more AGAINST Hillary than FOR anyone else.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Oh okay, was Krugman neutral or was he for Edwards? Can't have it both ways. nt

[Larkspur]

31. I think he leaned Edwards because

he supported what Edwards was saying, not because he was loyal to Edwards or because he thought he'd get a "Sweet spot" in an Edwards Admin. I supported Edwards for those reasons too.

[rinsd]

32. Of the big 3, he was most complimentary of Edwards and his more populist policies.

In Nov, he wrote about the health care plans and criticized Obama's.

Obama's campaign's response? They went after Krugman and took quotes of out context to say he was lying.

You couple that reaction with Obama supporters flooding his columns with nasty comments and what you have is a writer who began to very much dislike the candidate and his supporters.

So his bent was not so much pro-Hillary (beyond her healthcare plan) as much as growing increasingly anti-Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Paul Krugman luuuuurves free trade. Edwards was becoming increasingly outspoken against it.

Free trade is so much a guiding principle for Krugman, still to this day, that it's inconsistent for him to support Edwards, despite liking his healthcare policy. It just doesn't pass the "smell test" to me.

[Larkspur]

40. And Krugman in a recent interview with Thom Hartmann on AAR

said that he could support tougher controls on NAFTA.

Actually Krugman is in favor of global trade. He has no problem with putting and enforcing controls to benefit labor, the environment, and civil rights.

[rinsd]

49. IOW, Krugman has the same position on free trade as Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. 15 years after the fact he's for controls. Big stinkin' whoop.

Mr. Bigshot Smartypants Economist should have foreseen what has happened, since god knows plenty of people were trying to warn us about it. NAFTA got passed without those things and he was applauding it.

[rinsd]

48. Paul Krugman's economic views are much more complex than you give him credit for.

"that it's inconsistent for him to support Edwards, despite liking his healthcare policy"

Edwards Gets it Right (feb 2007) - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907E.shtml

The Substance Thing (aug 2007) - http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. 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.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

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.

Responding to the Recession (Jan 2008) - http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/14/6358/

The Edwards Effect (feb 2008) - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html

"But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built."

KRUGMAN: "Edwards Has Struck a Clear Populist Agenda" and Has Pushed the Party "in a Strongly Progressive Direction."

Usually the word Obamabot is a pejorative, but given your knee jerk ill informed opinion on Krugman, its probably apt.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. II don't use pejoratives for HRC supporters so I'd appreciate you showing me some basic courtesy.

Again, I've noticed a curious absence in Krugman's praises of Edwards of any commentary regarding Edwards' antagonism toward free trade. It's as though Krugman were willfully avoiding the topic. Odd, since it's a signature issue for Krugman and the opposition to it was something that Edwards had made an important element of his platform. I wonder what Krugman's position on Edwards would be were he the frontrunner after Iowa. I suspect we'd be seeing a lot more critical stuff about how Edwards was too hostile toward globalization.

[rinsd]

66. Ezra Klein: Obama vs Krugman

OBAMA V. KRUGMAN.

Something's really gone off the rails when the Obama campaign decides to release an oppo document on Paul Krugman. It's not only the actual attacks that are weak (most of them rely on misinterpreting one comment, then misinterpreting the next, then pretending there's a contradiction), but, seriously, it's Paul Krugman. Arguably the most progressive voice in American media. When I argued that the campaign should take the gloves off, I really didn't expect their target, in this document and in the health care fight more generally, would be progressivism. What in hell is going on over there?

Update: To say a bit more on this, the campaign's attack on Krugman raises the question they don't want to answer: What changed? When Obama's plan came out, Krugman, and me, and Jon Cohn, and all the usual suspects criticized it for lacking an individual mandate, but said that, on the overall, it was pretty good, and Obama had passed the bar. Suddenly, we're all up in arms. Why?

Well, it was one thing when Obama simply didn't have a mechanism to achieve universality. It became a whole other when he began criticizing mechanisms to achieve universality. Previously, he'd gotten some flack for buying into the conservative argument that Social Security was in crisis. Now he was constructing a conservative argument against far-reaching reform proposals. And he kept doing it. And now his campaign is misrepresenting Krugman's comments in order to imply contradiction. But Krugman hasn't contradicted himself. Where his original comments focused on Obama's plan, his newer arguments are attempting to beat back Obama's rhetoric. And Obama's rhetoric has become much, much worse than his plan. That it's ended with him having to go on the offensive against the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media is evidence of that fact.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=obama_v_krugman

[mrreowwr_kittty]

69. Aaaaand that has what to do with free trade?

As for the post, "...the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media..."? :puke:

I'm not saying Dr. Krugman is a conservative, but he ain't all that progressive either. The guy was a Reagan economic advisor, something his ardent admirers seem to conveniently forget, along with his fervent support of NAFTA.

[rinsd]

70. "Arguably the most progressive voice in American media."

But he dared speak ill of Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

71. Wev. nt

[slinkerwink]

8. yes, he was a major Clinton supporter but I guess Greenspan was too much

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Yet I have a feeling that if Hillary were the presumptive nominee right now

Krugman would be churning out Greenspan apologia until the cows came home. Like someone pointed out upthread, he realizes that his chances for a sweet spot in the Clinton admin are next to nil at this point so he's hanging Hillary out to dry.

[Larkspur]

17. Where's your proof that Krugman wanted a "Sweet spot" in the Clinton Admin?

Own it up Obama-bot!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Generally speaking, when someone prefaces a statement with "I have a feeling"

That's a clue that the person isn't offering empirical evidence to support the supposition. That's why it's called a feeling. Sometimes I overestimate the reading comprehension of my fellow DUers.

I'll try to be much more specific, and literal, since I have a feeling you're kinda slow-witted.

[Cha]

26. "ooops".. I think she's more

wrapped up in Krugman than slow witted. Who knew Krugman could emote such passion? :)

[Larkspur]

36. No, I have more RESPECT for Krugman than I do Obama

When Krugman spoke out against Bush back in 2001, he was one of the lone voices in the mainstream media doing so and he continued that critique of Bush and the Rabid Republicans after 9-11 because he saw through their corruption and would not excuse it.

Obama's willingness to sing Kumbyya with these same corrupt Republicans and corporations has earned Obama my Audacity of Cynicism.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. Paul Krugman luuuuurves him some free trade, though.

Talk about singing Kumbaya with corporations.

[Cha]

61. Really! People see what they wanna

see. Obama's not perfect but he sure as hell didn't deserve fucking paul krugman bashing him in the NYT and hilary skating along until..ooops again, she's gonna invite greenspan to whatever. Did krugman have a "What was I thinking?" moment?

[Larkspur]

81. Sorry, zidzi

I've backed you before but Krugman has never bashed Obama. He's criticized some of Obama's policies or parts of his policies, but unlike Obama-bots, Krugman has never bashed Obama the person.

[Cha]

59. Riiiight..Bad Obama Good

Krugman.

[Cha]

24. "Obama bot"? Please..can't you make

your case without calling names?

[Larkspur]

38. I have to differentiate between Obama fanatics and lukewarm obama supporters

Obama-bots is short for Obama fanatics.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

58. Because no movement has ever succeeds like the one with a lot of lukewarm supporters.

Do you guys have a slogan?

Mediocrity And Half-assed Efforts All The Way To The White House!! Ambivalence In 2008. Yes We Might!!

[Larkspur]

80. No slogan

But Obama's coalition is not all made up of Obama-bots. Those of us with the Audacity of Cynicism have voted for Obama only because he was the only alternative to Hillary. I'm more against Hillary than for Obama.

[Cha]

60. Obama BOT here and proud

of it.

[rinsd]

63. More from the land of make believe....

[depakid]

9. Hogwash

Krugman has CORRECTLY criticized some of Obama's policies as well as his naive notions about "working with" Republicans and their ilk.

Obama supporters really need to put a lid on their "pro-Hillary paranoia" about anyone who "dares" to raise a criticism. It doesn't help your credibility -or your candidate.

[ihavenobias]

23. Ironic

You bash Obama for wanting to work with Republicans when the topic at hand is Hillary wanting help from Alan Greenspan?

It's laughable.

Greenspan is one of the worst Republicans we've ever had:

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html

[depakid]

25. You must not understand the concept of irony

See post #2.

[ihavenobias]

29. I understand it just fine actually as I hadn't read post # 2 at the time I created my comment

At any rate, Obama wanting to work with certain Republicans (not everyone is as bad as Greenspan was) is a much more reasonable position than Hillary wanting to specifically have Republican Alan Greenspan work on anything.

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html

[Larkspur]

11. No I won't GYAFB

You are an Obama-bot suffering from pro-Hillary paranoia. If Krugman supported anyone, it was Edwards, not Hillary.

Krugman has been fair in criticizing Obama AND Hillary. Unlike Obama-bots, I do not blindly follow Obama. I'm basically an Anybody-but-Hillary-and-McCain voter. Like Krugman, I have reservations about the Illinois senator. Obama is the #3 recipient of $$$ from the healthcare industry; Hillary comes before him. I also find Obama a bit too neo-liberal for me. I do think that his battle with Hillary has pushed him more to the left. I'll support using Obama to help get more progressives elected so we can keep pressure on him to not fall under the spell of corporations.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Bullshit. He "supported" Edwards so he could Obama-bash with impunity.

If he'd admitted he was for Hillary from the get-go his screeds would have been less credible.

[depakid]

30. Krugman never endorsed ANYONE -nor could a rational person reading his columns think so

Krugman comments on policy and process- something I've noticed that few here who bash him have the slightest interest in- much less understanding of.

He (like many others) has simply pointed out that some of Obama's policies are lacking. End of story.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

45. Relentless bashing is more like it.

If Krugman is soooo concerned about healthcare, then why isn't he screaming about John McCain's awful plan on a regular basis? I just googled to see if he's written anything extensive about McCain's health care policy and couldn't find anything. Granted, he may have said things about it here and there, but where are the op-ed pieces lambasting McCain like the ones he did about Obama? So far there's been nary a one. Don't tell me it's because the primaries aren't over either. McCain is ahead of both our candidates in the polls so you'd think a great "liberal" like Krugman would step up and start warning people about him now. Why hasn't he?

[depakid]

53. It's only "bashing" if you don't like what's said

Not sure how well you google, but it took me 5 seconds to find this:

It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.

Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us."

But now - at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger - Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18351

Policy based arguments- AS ALWAYS.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. Not sure how well you read posts. There's not a single thing in that oped about HEALTHCARE.

Where are the Krugman opeds about John McCain's godawful HEALTHCARE plan?

I wasn't suggesting that Krugman had never written an oped about him at all. Sheesh.

[depakid]

72. Crikey!

AT THE TIME McCain was barely a blip on ANYONE'S radar screen!

I take it as a given that any Republican "plan" will amount to nothing at all productive- and may well make matters worse. It'll also be pimped dishonestly- and, while I hate to say it, if anyone tires to sell any of the three "top tier" Democrats' plans as "universal care" or imply some similar thing- they'd be dishonest too.

Of the 3, Krugman (and yours truly) liked Obama's plan the least- for a number of reasons, but the biggest ones that I recall (and agree with) are that it doesn't deal with adverse selection and it doesn't expand the risk pool far enough.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

74. AT THIS TIME McCain is the Republican nominee.

And while you make take as "given" that McCain's plan is no good, you are not representative of the general population. Since Krugman has been using healthcare as a cudgel against Obama for months now, it's time to use it on McCain.

You are correct that none of the Democratic plans are universal. That's why it's incredibly disingenuous of people like Krugman to conflate mandates with universality. Even worse, he (and Clinton) have the temerity to compare the mandated purchase of insurance to entitlements like SS and Medicare.

As for "adverse selection" and "expanding the risk pool", the Clinton/Krugman solution to both those things is the mandates. This is based on the simplistic notion that among the uninsured in this country are masses of incredibly healthy young people with buckets of disposable income. Who are gleefully foregoing the insurance they could easily afford if only Hillary would make them buy it. Notice how neither Clinton nor Krugman explain how mandates would be enforced, nor how the amount of premium a person could "afford" is determined. Notice how they forget to mention that many of the currently uninsured are those who have pre-existing conditions and can't get it. Those people would be insured along with the young healthy ones under Clinton's plan too, thus undercutting the whole adverse selection/expanded risk pool argument they make against Obama's.

Mandates are also incredibly politically stupid. As we saw when Clinton was forced to admit they might go after people's wages. Not only will the RW noise machine have a field day with it, but young single people (an important Dem constituency) will be driven away from our party.

[Selatius]

73. I don't have the links, but I remember reading Krugman said to expect nothing from the Repubs.

At best, they'd offer tax credits to help offset the cost of health insurance, but if you make too little to afford health insurance in the first place, it's likely you will find cases where people still cannot afford it.

Krugman has always favored a universal mandate requiring everybody to purchase health insurance, and he praised Edwards most especially for his proposal to set up health care markets pitting public health insurance against private entities for the simple fact that Medicare or any equivalent would always have lower overhead costs than anything in the private sector. They'd either have to match Medicare on price or lose. Krugman noted that aside from a few differences down in the details, Hillary's proposal is essentially the same as Edwards.

As far as Obama goes, Krugman said his proposal won't bring about 100 percent coverage as there is no mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance, private or public, so he would oppose anybody calling Obama's plan "universal" health care.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

75. He needs to do a little more than say "expect nothing" to maintain his credibility

Krugman used healthcare repeatedly as a cudgel with which to bash Obama. Since it's such an important issue to him, and McCain is the nominee, then why isn't he going after McCain's policies with at least as much fervor as he went after Obama's?

[Selatius]

76. Because McCain doesn't bill his proposal as getting health care to everyone.

What got Krugman's goat is that there is a perception that Obama's plan is "universal." To be sure, Krugman says that Obama's plan is better than no plan, but he also is fairly blunt in repeating that his plan won't bring 100 percent coverage regardless of Obama's speeches about universal health care.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

77. Well it gets my goat when people tell me that a mandate is universal coverage

Single payer, or Medicare for all would be universal.

And it's totally lame to suggest that it's okay for Krugman to rake Obama over the coals repeatedly over one aspect of his health plan while essentially giving McCain a free pass through omission. If Krugman really cared about healthcare, he'd be shouting from the rooftops to warn America about the danger a McCain presidency presents to any kind of healthcare reform.

[Larkspur]

82. Mccain wasn't a major factor at the time Krugman criticized Obama's plan

Krugman was evaluating the the Democratic proposals at the time because he knew the Republican position was just more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Geez! Obama-bots are so myopic.

[Selatius]

85. Single-payer is what I prefer, but in laymen's terms universal simply means everyone is covered.

A universal mandate passes muster with that definition even though I think it's nothing but a form of corporate welfare, similar to mandatory auto insurance laws where one must purchase a plan from a for-profit private entity. With the level of power big business exercises in America, a universal mandate coupled with financial aid for poor people would more likely pass than a Medicare for all bill.

The latter would more likely cause defections with Blue Dog Democrats and DLC Democrats, and they would vote with the Republicans to sink the proposal, but Edwards' health care proposal or Hillary's would more likely pass with fewer defections. Others would also come out in opposition to a single-payer health care bill like the American Medical Association. They opposed LBJ when he came out with the idea of Medicare for senior citizens.

Are those two proposals offered by Edwards and Hillary perfect? Depends on your economic ideology. I prefer France's single-payer system, so naturally I don't favor Edwards' or Hillary's proposal as highly as I favor a single-payer proposal like Kucinich offers, and what attracted my attention to Edwards proposal is that he leaves the door open to transition to single-payer at a later date simply by pitting Medicare or some equivalent against private equivalents. Of course, the public entity would beat the private entities, simply because the public entity doesn't tack on a profit mark-up on the price or expend valuable resources finding ways to cut people who are sick out of coverage.

With Obama's proposal, I would simply say it wouldn't pass the weakest definition of "universal." In my opinion, Obama is waiting for a Dem majority to push a bill like Edwards' proposition, and he'd sign onto it that rather than veto it. If that's the case, you'd get a universal mandate for now, but a transition to single-payer would be possible at a later date provided people are given a choice between purchasing the private plan or the public plan. The public plan would beat the private plans on price, giving it a competitive advantage.

[rinsd]

55. Yes so he cleverly spent a whole year praising Edwards. That wily bastard!

Edwards Gets it Right (feb 2007) - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907E.shtml

The Substance Thing (aug 2007) - http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. 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.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

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.

Responding to the Recession (Jan 2008) - http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/14/6358/

The Edwards Effect (feb 2008) - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html

"But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built."

KRUGMAN: "Edwards Has Struck a Clear Populist Agenda" and Has Pushed the Party "in a Strongly Progressive Direction."

[Cha]

22. Thanks for getting the record straight on

that, cat!

[rinsd]

52. Only blind supporters consider the record set straight sans evidence

Edwards Gets it Right (feb 2007) - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020907E.shtml

The Substance Thing (aug 2007) - http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. 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.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

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.

Responding to the Recession (Jan 2008) - http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/14/6358/

The Edwards Effect (feb 2008) - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html

"But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built."

KRUGMAN: "Edwards Has Struck a Clear Populist Agenda" and Has Pushed the Party "in a Strongly Progressive Direction."

[cooolandrew]

12. When Krugman has given up surely it is over.

[Cha]

19. About freakin' time!

:wtf: Come on Krugman..give a nice Mea Culpa:)

[redqueen]

27. Hahahahahaha

Ouch! That's gotta hurt.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. what next, will Joe Wilson wake up?

that was always a huge disappointment to me.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

79. He wants a State Department position

And he figured getting on board early with Hillary was the best way to go. Too bad he guessed wrong.

[JTFrog]

35. I had a feeling that would end the love affair. n/t

[Jim Lane]

46. Krugman's not alone in this reaction

It's amusing that so many DUers are analyzing this comment from the point of view of Krugman's supposed ulterior motives.

Here's a radical notion: Krugman wrote what he did because he believed it, not because of his political calculations. Evidence is that other progressive economists have also made the same point. Dean Baker said it was like calling for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens to head a commission on steroid abuse. (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=senator_clintons_calls_for_bar|Link>)

I'm supporting Obama and I've thought that Krugman's criticisms of Obama were within the bounds of acceptable discourse and were not motivated by his hope of an appointment in a Clinton administration.

[redqueen]

57. Well a certain DUer who speaks "as someone in the banking industry"

claimed that Greenspan helping to head that commission / committee (not sure which) would be viewed as something that would *increase* confidence on the part of investors.

So...

I agree with you, though, FWIW. But then, I'm not in the banking industry. :P

[JVS]

64. HA HA!

[AX10]

78. They disagree on something. Most people do.

This is just another cheap attempt from Obamanation to smear HRC.

[Sparkly]

83. Here's what DUers often miss: It's NOT all black and white

I get the sense people on DU have in their minds something like two camps, literally across the street from each other, and no person can be in the middle of the road -- everyone has to be on one side or the other, completely.

When Krugman criticized part of Obama's healthcare plan, people shrieked that he was a "Clinton shill."

Now that he's criticized part of her economic commission idea, people jump at the idea that he's "turned against her."

People CAN criticize and support aspects of both of their proposals without waving flags in one camp or the other.

[Blue_Roses]

84. She wants a damn commission for everything...

:eyes: