In his Monday column, Paul Krugman begins by reminding readers how evasive Bush was on specifics and how he failed to offer real numbers in his 2000 campaign, suggesting the press should have focussed on that rather than anectodes about what a swell guy Bush was.
He then applauds John Edwards especially and also Barack Obama for coming up with serious, specific plans on Health Care, Poverty, etc. contrasting this with the Republicans who spend all their time posturing about how tough they are rather than offering substantive programs. Krugman then turns his attention to Hillary (and YearlyKos).
Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.
Krugman then recalls Hillary's February debate remark -- "Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term" -- before citing her comments at YearlyKos on Saturday.
On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: "Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president." But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.
And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?
Krugman's conclusion is not kind to Hillary:
All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It’s easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.
To me the most damning thing about Hillary's campaign so far is that she has used Rupert Murdoch as a fundraiser. This is the man behind Fox News, the mouthpiece and megaphone of the Republican Party and its efforts to marginalize and demonize Democrats. Does ANYONE think Murdoch is raising $$$ for Hillary out of the goodness of his heart? Can you imagine ANYONE you would want our nominee to be beholden to less than Rupert? I honestly don't understand how ANY progressive can support a candidate who takes money from him (as well as health industry lobbyists, etc.).
Note for those who don't have TimesSelect, a free version of Krugman's new column should be up on the Economist's View site very soon: http://economistsview.typepad.com/...