It is symbolic that Krugman's article the day after the caucus is on the “Far East”. I just find it comical, actually. Brooks wrote a very good piece and appears to be more in touch with what Americans wants than Krugman.
Brief thought on Krugman
- Friday, Jan 4 2008
- DrinksGreenTea
- 6 Comments
- 0 New!
About the Author(s)
DrinksGreenTea
6 Comments
if you really believe
that Brooks is more in touch with reality than Krugman, you are a poor excuse for a Democrat or a progressive. Brooks is a fraud.
Taking on Krugman was idiotic. Obama got away with it because few Iowans read the NYTimes, but it was still idiotic. Krugman was right on the substance of the argument, but even if he’d been wrong, picking a fight with him and goading him to write more against your candidate was just stupid.
I was just talking with an Obama precinct captain over lunch, and even he admitted that he doesn’t know what Obama wants to do as president. He figures Obama will probably appoint good people. He decided to volunteer for Obama because “Americans are always looking for a savior,” and Obama seemed to fit the bill.
This is why people like me are not convinced that Obama has any big goals beyond building the Barack Obama movement.
desmoinesdem Fri 4 Jan 2:38 PM
Odd statement
from the Obama precinct captain. It doesn’t sound like he’s very enlightened. I think those of us who have followed the candidates have a pretty good idea what all the D candidates want to do.
rf Fri 4 Jan 11:40 PM
I can't agree with that
I have real doubts about what Obama wants to do. I fear that if elected, he will try to stand above parties and promote some kind of compromise agenda, based on the fantasy that the GOP will go along.
I don’t see Obama’s long-term commitment to building the Democratic Party or the progressive movement. I truly don’t see it. I hear a lot of self-actualizing, empowering language from him that seeks to promote himself as better than the bad Democrats who are supposedly intolerant of people of faith, beholden to “special interests,” or whatever.
When some Obama supporters are eager to tear down progressives like Krugman, solely because they criticized Dear Leader, I become even more concerned.
desmoinesdem Sat 5 Jan 3:29 AM
Krugman, Shrugman
I think Krugman’s attacks on Obama seemed somewhat odd and not necessarily based on policy. Going harshly after Obama’s health plan on relatively minor differences and style was pretty strange. If he was a true progressive on this and concerned about issues, he should have attacked Hillary, Obama and Edwards for their refusal to advocate for a single payer system. That is my biggest disappointment with Obama – even though I understand why they are all shying away from it. On this, Kucinich is the only real progressive if you ask me.
Clearly, we have a fundamental difference on the issue of building the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. A big part of my attraction to Obama is that he is actually acknowledging some of the shortfalls of traditional D orthodoxy. To me, he is calling many things like they are. I have long complained about D’s lack of self-evaluation and re-evaluation. I think being a progressive means you are looking forward. Unfortunately, many of today’s progressives are still fixated on the sixties stuff. I cannot intellectually accept the idea that somehow my party has found all the answers and that those answers have been set in stone for four decades.
The typical “progressive” reaction to Obama and people like me is that we are using R talking points. Again, I have a huge problem with that line of thinking. Implied in that is that the R’s or conservatives never have a point. The reality is, sometimes they do have a point. My party is not infallible. I think many of today’s progressives are anything but.
rf Sun 6 Jan 12:06 AM
Congress would never pass single-payer
but the Edwards and Clinton plans would create the potential to evolve in the direction of single-payer. I understand that something similar is already happening in Washington state. Once there is a reasonably priced public option, people sign up for it in droves.
Obama’s plan is inferior in this area.
desmoinesdem Sun 6 Jan 1:08 PM
Look
I think RF replied almost exactly as I would have if I had been watching this thread. I understand Krugman is the all-enlightened progressive. Sure. But, there is something more to being progressive than just thinking that we need a mandate for universal healthcare. The substance of his argument was that one little detail, and he blew it up for four editorials, saying basically the same thing over and over in different words. He even called Obama the “anti-change” candidate. I just find it odd that Krugman would totally abandon someone with the transformative characteristics of Barack Obama.
RF is right. Sometimes there is something more important than following the Democratic party line. I choose to vote for the best candidate, not the one who wear’s the same color shirt as me. Ignorance and toeing the party line is how people like George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton get elected.
The recognition that there are some issues that do not get addressed by toeing the party line is an important self-actualization problem to overcome. Having a two party system is good because it narrows the choice and minimizes the possibility for large fractures and minority tyranny. However, that does not mean that those parties are inherently perfect and the best choice.
I do not think Senator Obama is a perfect candidate. However, I believe that when our children are growing up, they will look back at Senator Obama and think about how great their country is and how our country has been endowed with exceptional leaders at exceptionally important times (e.g., Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, MLK). Of course, as they become educated to the realities of the world, the imperfections become evident. Nevertheless, that vision of our country as a beacon of hope, as a leader of the free world, as a leader of morality in the world, will stick.
If we keep electing politicians who are not for change; who campaign only for power and legacy (e.g., Hillary and Bush), disillusionment with the politics of our country becomes a problem. Socialization becomes more difficult. Nationalism fails. Division reigns and domestic crises occur.
Hillary Clinton is not completely imperfect. I am just saying that she does not change the country and the world’s opinion of our country on day One the way that Barack Obama would. Obama, by virtue of election, changes the image of our country. It says to other countries that we are about more than hereditary endowment and global dominance. We are about empathy with the other and sympathy for the less fortunate.
John Edwards is a great candidate, but he is not perfect. He has some of the great hopes that Senator Obama has, but although he would not be as inherently politically divisive as Hillary, he would likely become that way. Senator Obama is intelligent, articulate, inspiring, and by virtue of his character, experiences, and ethnicity is also going to change the image of our country.
Obama has already done much to change the political conversation (see Hillary’s adoption of all of Obama’s talking points on change etc.). But, it will not be enough for him to change the campaign rhetoric of Hillary Clinton. Any challenger could have done that. What needs to be changed is the conversation that is institutionalized in Washington and the broader conversation that our global others have about America.
I do not fear Hillary Clinton, I fear those who toe their party line in ignorance of the possibility for a better future.
drinksgreentea Sun 13 Jan 5:56 PM