Paul Krugman says Obama is the "anti-change candidate"

[BurtWorm]

I'm just reporting what he said. :hi:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?hp


...

On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that “We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.”

Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

...

[BurtWorm]

1. PS: Here's what Edwards said that Obama was responding to

<Krugman continued>



Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.

The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator — Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register — suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn’t be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because “the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington.”

Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”

[cyclezealot]

3. has not the Register been taken over by

Gannett newspapers in the past four years. That would explain their going for HIllary over Edwards, as they once did. Should Krugman think O Bama a sell out. Then we really have two options for progress. And Edwards is questionable. Leaving us with one real option. see photo to left.

[depakid]

2. "Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve. "

That's it in a nutshell, as many DU'ers have already pointed out (numerous times).

[Blarch]

9. Lets be honest now.

Edwards was the only member of the intelligence committee that didn't read the NIE on Iraq. Edwards also knew Bush was lying about Iraq. Durbin pointed out that what was told to the intel committee was different than what Bush was telling the country, Durbin knew thai, and voted against the war. Edwards also knew this, and voted for the war, didn't even need to confirm his decision by reading the NIE.

Now, with that said. If Edwards is the man, then I will support him 100%. But lets be fair, Edwards did act in a reckless way before the war.

[papau]

29. As to the need for mandates - true - indeed "naive" is gentle - others say GOPish n/t

[undeterred]

4. "the change that isn't really change"

as compared to a black candidate like Jesse Jackson... Who needs change when things have worked out so well?

I think the only candidates who will really bring change are Kucinich and maybe Edwards.

[Romulox]

5. Paul Krugman is nothing but a Hillary shill

It is disgraceful that he thinks his readers are stupid enough to let him characterize Hillary Clinton as the "change" candidate, but his concerted attack on Obama (and concomitant silence as to Clinton) says it all...

[KittyWampus]

11. Krugman doesn't mention Hillary often/favorably. He often mentions Edwards and favorably.

You don't read Krugman, apparently.

[Romulox]

13. Read his December 7 column, in which he VIGOROUSLY defends Clinton's for-profit health scheme...

edit to provide link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

[papau]

30. Yes- do read it - and note the Edwards/Clinton Medicare like option via mandate choice

[Romulox]

16. Also see his November 26 interview on "Marketplace", where he defends globalization VIGOROUSLY.

:eyes:

[papau]

31. Econ 101 was not popular I guess - FAIR trade makes for more jobs w/o the screwing

[Romulox]

43. Reading comprehension 101: Krugman didn't mention "fair trade" in his pro-globalization spiel...nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. bs.

[Romulox]

15. Touché! LOL nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. seriously for one krugman readers are not stupid. secondly he does not push hillary.

just cos some criticizes obama doesn't necessarily make them a Hillary shrill.

i wish people here were a little less divisive about the candidates.

[Romulox]

20. Read the column I linked just above your comments. He is pushing for Hillary, but HARD. nt

[Romulox]

21. And the word is "shill", not "shrill"...BIG difference. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. i'll edit my spelling, while you edit your logic nt.

[Romulox]

23. I see that you've decided reading is too tough, and moved onto ad hominems! Good work!

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. honey, you are the one who pointed out the spelling error not me.

:eyes:

[Romulox]

27. Ad hominem attack =/= pointing out a spelling error, just like "shill" =/= "shrill

Bye now!

[papau]

32. Please address the economics - note that Obama is wrong - and vote for whomever you like

[Romulox]

45. Address the economics of shilling? Big businesses give Clinton $$$, and Clinton promises stuff

It's called a quid pro quo and only children and pro-wrestling fans could believe that multinational corporations and foreign governments are giving millions to Hillary Clinton without expecting anything in return.

[papau]

48. you have no evidence of "shilling" by any Democrat - including Hillary - assertion about "looks like

is not proof of anything

[Romulox]

24. delete: dupe

[Benhurst]

28. Yeah, but you've got to admit a "Clinton shrill" is funny, given the

controversy over the use of the word shrill in connection with Senator Clinton.

:rofl:

[Romulox]

44. My guess is that the poster misread it as "shrill", and then was too embarrassed to admit mistake...

[kurth]

6. Edwards is right - they’re NOT going to voluntarily give their power away

[Solar Power]

46. More important than their power is.........PROFIT.......

THEIR PROFIT........


Krugman points out that Obama is going to sit at this so called negotiation table, everyone takes a part...Well big pharma ..will not give up its huge profits without a fight..
..And Obama is naive to think that any President can negotiate with a companies profits..I've followed these companies for many years as an investor, and if this is what he thinks, than, that one thing, is enough to get me to go to Edwards. You are going to need to fight like hell to make changes in this system...and if Obama doesn't know that, then is far stupider than he has ever presented himself.
..So the insurance companies are going to put themselves out of business to please the new Afro - American Democratic President..
..........and if you think that..well you will be waiting a long time for real reform in health care industry.
..........and maybe you can wait, but 40,000,000 people here cannot.....................S.

[bryant69]

7. So long as OBama is the most viable Anti Clinton

Being Anti Change probably won't hurt him.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ThomWV]

8. Once again Mr. Krugman gives us an excellent assessment of the situation.

[flordehinojos]

10. i said it yesterday, and i'll say it again today:

obama is george bush in make-over clothing.

[Blarch]

19. Jeeeesh.

What an absurd statement. :puke:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. nope he is not, none of them are. its entirely stupid to make these comparisons

does no one remember 2001 when al gore was supposed to be bush lite.

dont get taken in by the same stupid arguments AGAIN

[Scriptor Ignotus]

35. why not just compare obama to hitler

i mean, you've gone this far...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. we do that only with hrc. nt

[OHdem10]

12. Obama like Hilary is an Establishment Candidate. The Reality

the Establishment is wed to the System. Corporate Interests Reign.
The other Reality--it is assummed that only establishment candidates
can win.

[Romulox]

18. Exactly. Krugman is full of BS because he attempts to characterize Hillary as "change" candidate

When you couldn't fit a sheet of paper between she and Obama on 99% of the issues...

[papau]

33. On recorded Senate votes your comment is true - on health care and Soc Sec not so much

[Romulox]

42. "Everything looks bad when you remember it!" -Homer Simpson

[papau]

49. I love Homer! Edward's remains the most liberal, followed by Hillary ten Obama - but there is as yo

note only small differences relative to difference compared to any GOP option..

If Hillary's ready o day one was the main criteria Richardson would lead.

If life long producing liberal results was the criteria, Dodd would be te man,

And if closest to my views meant anything, DK would lead.

[rinsd]

39. Please show me where Krugman characterized Hillary as the change candidate.

Because I do not see it in this article or any others.

He has defended Hillary's health plan and her stance on Social Security but has not exactly be kind to her.

[Romulox]

41. I'm referring to his December 7 op-ed where he champions Hillarycare.

As an aside, it's bizarre to be surrounded by so many Paul Krugman experts who seemingly haven't read the man's columns!!! :wow:

[rinsd]

47. Again. where is she characterized as the change candidate

Your words - "Krugman is full of BS because he attempts to characterize Hillary as "change" candidate"

[msongs]

34. obama is a washington DC and corporatist insider, contrary to rumours nt

[Scriptor Ignotus]

36. but i thought he doesn't have enough "experience"??

which is it?

[Javaman]

37. The reality is this:

any candidate that takes money from health insurance corps or from pharma coups won't change a thing.

[AX10]

40. As RFK jr. said, there is an unjustifyable blind hatred of Hillary

and therefore, Obama will be the benefactor of that hate, even though Obama is not that much different from Hillary.