View Story | 265 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
just how I like it done... /not
by rigso on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:15:07 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
valid, because your candidate is PERFECT in each and every way, 24/7/365!
John McCain says he'd be happy to see our troops in Iraq for another hundred years. I just can't agree with that.
by Barry in MIA on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:16:54 PM PDT
Is a polygamist!!
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:30:57 PM PDT
Shilling for another candidate and acting objective is certainly not worth condoning, even if it is Krugman.
Don't let them define Obama (NOT a muslim, NO whitey remark): Fight the Smears
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:45:41 PM PDT
He doesn't like Obama. That is not evidence that he is shilling.
If you have evidence, link it.
"Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:51:35 PM PDT
Why can Obama-philes not accept the fact that not everyone thinks their guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread? He will not get 100% support - get over it! Seriously, alot of us just don't see what the big attraction is - - that's life.
by Barry in MIA on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:55:22 PM PDT
The attraction is definately not Progressive vision and fighting spirit!! It is not policies either. It is astounding to hear Democrats talking about how we should already be finding ways to placate the Repugs. Astounding and disgusting.
Support Ryan for Kentucky!! http://www.actblue.com/page/americansforryan
by RDemocrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:04:59 PM PDT
Love the sig line. I wonder who Steve endorses!!
by RDemocrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:05:34 PM PDT
Not liking a candidate is one thing, doing a weekly hit job is another. If there were a journalist who put out a weekly tirade about your candidate, there would be non-stop bitching.
As is it is, Hillary whines constantly about how mean the media are to her.
by smartdemmg on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:15:39 PM PDT
Article in Newsweek that TPM has linked..
Johnathan Alter makes excellent points. Would make an excellent diary (unfortunately, I don't have time to do this today).
by griz4u on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:34:51 PM PDT
And TPM linked it and you found it. So where's the issue?
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:43:40 PM PDT
Just that the article says he is.
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:44:10 PM PDT
this cycle, there is no other word for it.
As I state elsewhere, on the substantive point (such as it is) of Krugman's, it is really not at all clear whether mandates or making it affordable gets you more enrollment. Given that, for a fellow faculty member to get all worked up about one and vituperatively attack the other, is just plain idiotic.
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:45:25 PM PDT
journalist and/or a columnist to make distinctions between candidates. Few do that anymore because they want to be part of the cocktail weenie club.
Krugman did not start out as a NY Times columnist talking much about politics. His view has evolved as the really ugly side of capitalism has taken a firm hold on not only our economy, but on our national psyche. Greed is going at full throttle. And he senses the urgency of our dilemma. It's very urgent.
Krugman was the first columnist in the establishment media to go after Bush big time. If you read his book, the conclusion he comes to about how our nation became radically fractured was a surprise to him. He had believed like most orthodox economists that technological change and globalization CAUSED the increasing income disparity. But now he believes that it was politics and politicians through a concerted effort to unmake the New Deal that caused the class war.
I think the guy has been pretty studious in discussing the various health care plans. That Krugman has come to look more fondly on Keynesian economics which was very pragmatic and lent itself to giving working people a feeling of worth is what many of us have discovered over the last 6 years. By seeing the extremes of the Friedman Gospel of Greed, many of us have seen that a lite version of it that we got in the 1990's is not the way to go at this moment in time. Maybe some other time, but not now.
"It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca
by MontanaMaven on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:04:28 PM PDT
He has broken the one golden rule and critisized Obama!!
by RDemocrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:06:30 PM PDT
Criticize anyone: but make an objective, substantive point.
Mandate vs making it affordable is not an issue that can be settled by argumentation: we simply have no evidence to determine the efficacy of the two approaches.
Getting all prissy about one or the other side absent evidence amounts to one thing, besides being stupid: questionable motivation for doing it.
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:58:29 PM PDT
the candidates, then he should do that and leave all this "tonal" and "Republican talking points" nonsense out of it.
He lost his cred as a liberal with me the minute he leaned to Edwards: if you are objective about it, there is only one feasible candidate who has walked the walk on all liberal issues big and small and that is Obama.
A true liberal should want to put up a man who stood up against the war back when it mattered and even today says that he "wants to change the mind-set that took us to war, not merely end this war" to take on the rethugs effectively; not hold up straw man arguments about inane mandates of arcane health care plans which are not substantively different for a caring liberal.
I will tell you this much: if Edwards loses the election in another campaign of "he was for it before he was against it", his mandated health care plan is not going to matter one damn whit.
by DraftChickenHawks on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:55:18 PM PDT
along with Clark, RFK JR, John Lewis, ........
Hillary, Commander in Chief AND CEO of the Free World.
by kitsapdem on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:32:32 PM PDT
The substance and merits of his kitchen-sink attacks (entirely lacking in some cases) are incidental.
So yes, Krugman is attacking the messenger (Obama) who threatens his preferred candidate, and deserves to be called on it.
The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence
by RonK Seattle on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:20:13 PM PDT
Obama's willingness to buy into Social Security "crisis" talk bothered me way before I heard about the Krugman thing.
Obama embodies symbolic transformation for the obvious reasons, but his policy agenda is way too much like David Broder wearing cool shades.
The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli
by al Fubar on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:36:28 PM PDT
by rigso on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:40:19 PM PDT
candidate. They really think our biggest problems are our partisanship.
Please help Hillary with a small donation
by masslib on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:56:12 PM PDT
... on some substantive points -- but Krugman is attacking indiscriminately, with and without substantive argument.
It's a hack job, and nobody on any side of the question should swallow it.
by RonK Seattle on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:32:04 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 265 comments