Why Krugman?

You have to ask why would Obama throw Krugman under a bus?  Why? Obama seems to be serious about policy.  He is progressive on many issues.  Presumably, too, a lot of his voters read Krugman and share his views.  

And it's the Democratic primary.  Obama's not going to get primary voters to switch from Edwards or Clinton by knifing Krugman.  It didn't help rally the liberal blogosphere.

So what did it do? Who was the audience for the bizarre display of trying to stomp a progressive icon for making a reasoned policy critique of the candidate's plan?

Perhaps it was the Washington establishment?  The MSM establishment?  Both?  After all, Krugman is hated in the MSM.  Just hated.  He's joked about it here.  And the National Review confirmed it here.

Perhaps, just perhaps, was Obama signalling to the powers that be that he is one of them?  And that they can safely embrace him.  That he's electable. Was this his Sister Souljah moment?

Why do you think he did it?

And yes, I'm still undecided.  But I'm leaning against Obama in the primary.

•  Why'd he do it?

  by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:51:11 AM PDT

  •  My Guess

    He needed to send a signal to media commentators that he is not a dirty liberal.

    by bink on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:55:46 AM PDT

  •  Show me a link

    where Obama "threw Krugman under the bus"

    If you are going to make the charge, back it up.

    by bawbie on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:04:09 AM PDT

    •  Links below.

      You may not like my description of what they indicate.  

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:12:48 AM PDT

  •  Krugman questioned his

    policies on SS and Healthcare.  can't be having that.  Obama's atempting to TR his ass off the NYT, so to speak.

    by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:37:08 AM PDT

•  Did what???

  ...why is it a big deal? Please post me a link to see what Obama did. One of the link you had up there is Krugman's own testament so doesn't count. The other one is an obvious site.

  by RedMask on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:57:10 AM PDT

  •  Obama contradicted Krugman.

    That's not allowed.  Who knew?

    by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:57:42 AM PDT

  •  Links

    here.

    And here.

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:02:20 AM PDT

    •  So

      comparing Krugman quotes against Krugman quotes is "throwing him under the bus" by your definition?

      Get real.  This is such a nothing story.

      Talk about the actual policy debate if you want something substantial.  All the "bashing" and "throwing under the bus" talk is garbage.

      by bawbie on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:05:48 AM PDT

      •  You strike me as very naive.

        If that's what you believe.

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:11:43 AM PDT

        •  Naive?

          What am I being "naive" about?

          You think that a campaign posting a webpage contrasting quotes from an Op/Ed writer is "throwing him under the bus".

          I think maybe you are being a bit oversensitive.

          by bawbie on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:19:23 AM PDT

      •  Oh. And this is an actual policy debate

        when last I looked.  That's my point.  Obama didn't respond on a policy level.  His campaign responded by trying to show that Krugman was inconsistent or lying.

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:22:27 AM PDT

        •  "Aid and comfort to the enemies" isn't

          a policy debate, it's character assassination.

          Sorry, but screw Paul Krugman when he engages in gutter-level RIGHTWING TALKING POINTS like that.

          by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:27:46 AM PDT

          •  I've looked for that on google. Can't find it.

            Link please?

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:31:51 AM PDT

            •  Link.

              The title alone is hilarious for its irony and cynical dishonesty:

              Mandates and Mudslinging

              Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

              by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:34:20 AM PDT

            •  here you go

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              I imagine these are the reasons Obama people got personal with Krugman:

              Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against "socialized medicine": he doesn’t want the government to "force" people to have insurance, to "penalize" people who don’t participate.

              Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

              by Stroszek on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:35:43 AM PDT

          •  "enemies of reform", please, is the quote...

            your retort is slightly misleading, IMHO.

            by Glorfindel on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:53:54 AM PDT

            •  Oh, so he's just a traitor to the cause of reform

              It's just a policy-based criticism then, very mild.

              by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:58:04 AM PDT

        •  Krugman invited it

          his recent editorials on Obama have been full of speculation about Obama's motivations (the "he feels a need to impress the establishment crowd" smacked of Dowdish pseudo-psychoanalysis), comparisons to Rudy Giuliani, and insinuations that he's on the same side as "the enemies of reform." That's hardly a polite policy debate, and while Obama's response wasn't especially classy, Krugman hardly came into this spat with a lily white shirt.

          by Stroszek on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:32:58 AM PDT

    •  OMG LOOK AT THE KNIFE BLOOD RAGE KILL KITTY KILL

      No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it...But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not." [First Read, 11/30/07]

      http://www.barackobama.com/...

      Then it goes on to recite Krugman's own columns.

      If "he changed tone" is a knife attack, I wonder what HRC campaign workers circulating the emails on Obama are.

      by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:06:18 AM PDT

    •  Oops

      The first link failed:

      Krugman has been hitting Obama pretty hard lately, and I can understand why the Obama campaign has hit back.

      I loved the second link. Thank you.

      by RedMask on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:09:56 AM PDT

    •  That Kevin Drum quote isn't bad

      From your link:

      The brewing war between Barack Obama and Paul Krugman continues here. Krugman has been hitting Obama pretty hard lately, and I can understand why the Obama campaign has hit back: Krugman is extremely influential among likely Obama voters, and they can't afford to just let his grumbles sit there unanswered. What's more, Krugman isn't some kind of progressive Delphic oracle. It's OK to fight back against him.

      And know that Krugman quotes are being distributed by Hilary in New Hampshire flyers, it is even more O.K. to fight back against Krugman.

      by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:22:01 AM PDT

•  "Won't sombody think of the Krugmen?"

  I've been a fan of Krugman, mostly because he's done what HRC and JRE failed to do...stand up and take on the Iraq war and complain about democrats, like JRE and HRC, giving up.

  Now, it's as if the man has actually done nothign but disagree with Obama.

  He's got to be as surprised by his elevation to mythic status as the Saint of Mandates, and the pretense that he supports HRC, and the disappearence of all the good he's done, as anyone.
  But it's the primary season, where a mild critique of my enemy is my saint.

  by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:57:14 AM PDT

  •  Krugman has done a hell of a lot.

    I don't think I was saying otherwise.  I'm interested in why Obama knifed him.  

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:58:18 AM PDT

    •  "Knifed him". What ARE you talking about?

      Do you even know?

      I think somebody has been spending too much time on hillaryis44.com and joined the Hyperbole race.

      by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:00:27 AM PDT

    •  Because he knew that the Krugamn quotes were

      about to be featured in a flurry of anti-Obama flyers Hillary was about to distribute in Hew Hampshire.

      The Krugman quotes were tailor made to be used in an anti-Obama hit campaign.

      Oh, and Krugman and Hillary are both WRONG about the usefulness of the compulsory purchase of private insurance in reaching the goal of universal affordable medical care.

      by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:01:37 AM PDT

      •  I think you've confused how causality works

        Just because HRC wants to use the quotes doesn't mean -- even remotely -- that Krugman wrote them for her.  

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:03:24 AM PDT

        •  Krugman trashed Obama, so a little

          pushback was perfectly reasonable and expected, since Krugman is now tied to the Clinton campaign through their pursuit of a common cause--defeating Barack Obama.

          by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:06:41 AM PDT

        •  Obama 's campaign smoked out the casuality

          and the lack of a conscious conspiracy is irrelevant.

          Good team players know where the other is heading and Krugman and Hillary can cooperate without formal interchange.

          It is all part of the game.

          It is the idea that Paul Krugman is some sort of Delphic oracle above all criticism that is absurd.

          by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:30:35 AM PDT

          •  So: You have no evidence, just suspicion...

            Not much to go on...

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:17:49 AM PDT

      •  I'd love to see your evidence of this.

        I'm not kidding.  

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:06:38 AM PDT

        •  There is a group of bloggers that

          consistently run with the talking points put out by the Clinton campaign.

          Read Taylor Marsh, the Left Coaster, our own Alegre, etc etc.  When they start taking up the cause of Paul Krugman, you can be sure that Hillary will follow.

          by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:08:39 AM PDT

          •  That's a far cry from Krugman writes for HRC, no?

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:10:08 AM PDT

            •  The point being that Clinton was going to use

              Krugman's attacks on Obama as fodder for the campaign.

              When Krugman decided to be a participant in the primary race instead of a commentator, he ceased being a civilian.

              by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:11:35 AM PDT

              •  That's not on Krugman

                For instance, if Bush quoted Darwin that doesn't make Darwin a Republican and it isn't Darwin's fault.  

                by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:14:36 AM PDT

                •  "Aid and comfort to the enemies" is a very

                  good indication of what his intentions were.

                  If you don't want to get dirty, don't play in the sandbox.

                  by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:24:03 AM PDT

                  •  you are attempting

                    to punch above your weight. It's not pretty.

                    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

                    Obama's been found out.

                    by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:56:10 AM PDT

                    •  Digby is not infallible. Couldn't even

                      spell Souljah right.

                      by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:58:55 AM PDT

                      •  How is that relevant?

                        She doesn't spell check?  Look Digby has a lot of interesting insights.  It clearly doesn't make her right all the time -- but it also doesn't make her wrong either.

                        You've made the case that the attack on Krugman was just a response to Krugman's over the top language in his columns.  You've also said that it is the result of some secret shilling by Krugman.

                        I find the first explanation credible.  I don't find the second one convincing at all based on my reading of Krugman's columns over the years.

                        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:03:29 AM PDT

                        •  Krugman's objective behavior at this stage in the

                          primary race places him in the anti-Obama camp.

                          Whether it's born of personal animosity or some VHCWC (Vast Hillary Clinton Wing Conspiracy) is pretty much besides the point.

                          He's a player, not an observer, and should be treated accordingly.

                          by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:28:29 AM PDT

                          •  You baffle me.

                            Truly.  If someone is not in the Obama camp, s/he's against Obama? If you're not with us, you're against us?

                            That's Bush redux.

                            If you are saying that Obama needs to win the primary any way he can, go ahead.  That's a perfectly understandable position.  

                            But it is not necessarily one that reflects well on Obama as an agent of change or a new kind of politics.  It is just more of the same.  

                            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:35:01 AM PDT

                            •  No.

                              One can be an observer, an analyst, and can point out specific policy disagreements.

                              Krugman lays heavily into trashing Obama's character and fitness: "Played for a sucker," "mudslinging," "rightwing talking points," "like Rudy Giuliani," "giving aid and comfort to the enemies."

                              Most columnists are not "for" any candidate.

                              What separates Krugman is that he is very much against Barack Obama, much like many Kossacks are against Hillary Clinton.

                              by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

                              •  Is he right?

                                I mean, that's the million dollar question.  

                                I don't trust politicians.  They don't deserve trust.  They deserve careful scrutiny.  

                                Because they don't get where they do by being nice, ethical or moral.  They get where they do by being more ruthless and effective than the person they are running against.

                                There are occasional exceptions, but not many.  

                                This has been true since the dawn of politics.  Think about Cicero, for instance.  Or Pericles.  

                                And Obama is not a reluctant politician.  He has been a politician since he competed to be head of the Harvard Law Review -- probably even before.  

                                So is Krugman right?  That's the question.  

                                Krugman is not a politician.  He's just an economiwst.  And he's been deadly right about a lot of things over the past decade.  He's been right before a lot of other people.

                                Could he be wrong? Of course.

                                But the best way to counter Krugman, to show that he's not right about Obama -- unless you are just preaching to the folks who hate and resent him for having been right for the past 8 years about Bush and his policies -- is to refute him on the substance.  

                                by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:53:50 AM PDT

                •  How many times have we got to see it?

                  Clinton surrogates litter the landscape of the media. Gergen, Carville, Rosen, Begala, Smeal, Olberman, etc. etc.  Krugman is another one.  

                  by Lois on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:26:56 AM PDT

                  •  Evidence?

                    Come on.  Gergen, Carville, and Begala were on her husband's payroll.  So I have no problem believing that they would shill.

                    But Olberman was a sportscaster before he went into political commentary. And Krugman's a prof at Princeton who writes for the NYT.

                    Really.  

                    If you have evidence, show me. Peddle the paranoia elsewhere.  

                    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:34:20 AM PDT

                  •  Krugman not so much.

                    Carville, Begala certainly...

                    by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:49:25 AM PDT

        •  I am content with this Kevin Drum quote

          The brewing war between Barack Obama and Paul Krugman continues here. Krugman has been hitting Obama pretty hard lately, and I can understand why the Obama campaign has hit back: Krugman is extremely influential among likely Obama voters, and they can't afford to just let his grumbles sit there unanswered. What's more, Krugman isn't some kind of progressive Delphic oracle. It's OK to fight back against him.

          Krugman is a big boy.

          I can agree that the initial Obama response could have been more effective.

          But anyway, as for "proof" this is not a courtroom. Politic campaigns are run on instinct. And Obama's campaign correctly predicted that Hillary's campaign would use the Krugman quotes against him

          As it has. See Jake Tapper.

          So what is your problem, anyway? Paul Krugman is a big boy with a NY Times column.

          by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:27:39 AM PDT

•  Because Krugman has attacked him in more

  columns in the past two months than he has attacked any other Democrat all year.

  Krugman has gone after Obama with 50% of his columns for the past month.

  Krugman accused him of treason to the cause of reform, and falsely accused him of mudslinging and using rightwing talking points.

  Krugman threw himself into the primary contest as a partisan combatant.

  by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:57:54 AM PDT

  •  The exact quote that got me going was:

    Obama "provides aid and comfort to our enemies".

    by bawbie on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:06:51 AM PDT

    •  I lost respect Krugman after that quote.

      He's just a very well-educated polemicist.

      by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:09:21 AM PDT

•  It bothers me

  that Obama is openly talking of capitulation with the oppressing party.  We demand real, substantial change but compromising with sleazy republicans will not enact this change.

  I didn't care for his attempt to run Edwards through the wash over the maytag plant closing.   I don't like his attack on Krugman either.

  Then there is the business of cuddling up to a so-called ex-gay fundamentalist bible thumper.  

  Obama was my second choice up until a few weeks ago.  I had high hopes for him.

  by pkbarbiedoll on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:58:41 AM PDT

•  Jake Tapper knows why

  Link

  Now her target is Obama's character and leadership as seen through the health care debate.

  You may quibble with the substance of the debate, and as we've covered in this blog, there are questions to ask both of Clinton and Obama when it comes to their claims about their plans.

  What many will clearly find very interesting is the fact that almost all the attacks on Obama from the Clinton lit are from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

  Krugman's quotes were written to be featured by Hillary in a snowstorm of attack literature.

  Wheels within wheels . . .

  by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:58:45 AM PDT

  •  Krugman is an Anybody But Obama type.

    His main goal is to derail Obama.

    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:00:51 AM PDT

    •  Ummm....

      Krugman is an Anybody But Obama type. His main goal is to derail Obama.

      I don't always agree with you, Geekesque, but this is the first outright insane comment I've ever seen from you.

      You Obama folks ought to cut your losses on Krugman-gate, rather than digging a deeper hole.

      by flubber on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:11:41 AM PDT

      •  Which explains why Obama has been the recipient

        of more criticism from Krugman than Edwards and Clinton combined.

        Uh huh.

        That's why Krugman didn't criticize Clinton for her Kyl-Lieberman vote, and why Krugman has bashed Obama repeatedly for having John Edwards's position on Social Security, while not uttering a single critical word about John Edwards.

        by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:13:38 AM PDT

        •  This is what kills me.

          Perhaps the criticism is warranted.  Perhaps it's not merely to score political points.  Perhaps there are real policy issues at stake.

          I don't think anyone who calls her or himself a progressive could credibly have said that Krugman's criticisms of Bush in 1999 and 2000 were merely partisan bashing.  They were pithy and witty attacks grounded in a real disagreement about policy.

          As were Krugman's pieces on Social Security when Bush raised it last time.  

          So:  Why is it different now?  

          So far I have seen no evidence of bad faith by Krugman.  No indication or real evidence that he's shilling for Clinton, Edwards or anyone else.  

          by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:18:33 AM PDT

          •  Did Krugman write this?

            Obama "provides aid and comfort to our enemies".

            by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:19:36 AM PDT

            •  Did he? Can't find it on google.

              Link please.

              by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:26:06 AM PDT

              •  Will you delete the diary if I find it?

                by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

                •  Trouble is that is a sentence fragment.

                  Obama's arguments are clearly going to be fodder for Republican talking points.

                  by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:34:11 AM PDT

                  •  Mandates are NOT obviously the right answer

                    Compulsory purchase of health insurance offers K Street a back door to force us all to buy crappy coverage at inflated prices.

                    I am open to discuss mandates -- reasonable progressives can disagree -- but tell me that Paul Krugman says anyone who opposes mandates is a traitor to the progressive cause and I will respond with great vehemence.

                    by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:41:12 AM PDT

                    •  Krugman makes a crucial error:

                      Mandates are what the insurance companies want.

                      Does he really think that Republicans and insurance companies are going to be negotiating against each other.

                      by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:45:19 AM PDT

                      •  Krugman seeks to impose a litmus test on

                        progressives. Favor mandates or you are a traitor.

                        We need to reject the litmus test approach.

                        by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:54:08 AM PDT

                •  No. Though it might be an explanation for

                  why Obama went after him.  Which is what I'm after here.  

                  by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:35:47 AM PDT

                  •  November 30th -- NY Times -- in context

                    I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security "crisis." Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

                    What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that "my plan begins by covering every American," it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

                    Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

                    I believe mandates offer K Street a back door to force us to buy crappy insurance at inflated prices.

                    If Paul Krugman want to tell me that makes me "not a progressive" and that the conversation is over, my answer is: Fuck Paul Krugman.

                    But if we can agree that progressives can reasonably disagree about mandates, well okay, lets talk some more.

                    How about that?

                    by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:38:52 AM PDT

                    •  can we?

                      Obama is clearly attacking a policy that has a very good chance of being part of the democratic president's platform.

                      Obama's arguments provide very convenient fodder for any Republican to feed on.   "Even your Senator disagreed about mandates..."  

                      by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:48:17 AM PDT

                      •  Mandates must not be a litmus test issue

                        Otherwise I will be very angry with who ever uses mandates as a litmus test.

                        To say that is an issue needing discussion and that reasonable progressives can differ? I am okay with that.

                        by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:56:13 AM PDT

                    •  That was very helpful. Thanks.

                      by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:48:26 AM PDT

              •  Better yet, add this Krugman quote in an update

                by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:32:53 AM PDT

                •  Won't promise. Of course it is one explanation

                  for the Obama campaign's reaction to Krugman.

                  by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:36:36 AM PDT

                  •  Krugman is using mandates as a litmus test

                    of what it means to be progressive.

                    That should be rejected. Forcefully.

                    by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:52:59 AM PDT

                    •  This is Obama's strategy--brown nose Broder...

                      http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

                      Digby noticed.

                      by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:54:51 AM PDT

                      •  Don't change the subject

                        Mandates MUST not be a litmus test.

                        Krugman making mandates a litmus test undermines Democratic unity.

                        I will discuss mandates. I will not agree that conversation is over.

                        by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:58:08 AM PDT

          •  "Aid and comfort to the enemies" is the

            kind of language I expect from Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter.

            by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:23:12 AM PDT

        •  Uh huh, indeed.

          Which explains why Obama has been the recipient of more criticism from Krugman than Edwards and Clinton combined.

          Obama has been the recipient of more criticism from Krugman because Obama has been attacking in a misleading way two things that Krugman holds dear: Social Security and universal healthcare.

          -----

          Krugman has bashed Obama repeatedly for having John Edwards's position on Social Security, while not uttering a single critical word about John Edwards.

          I assume you are aware of the differences in Obama's and Edwards' approaches to SS.

          Obama and Edwards are both in favor of raising the cap as a first response to SS insolvency.  And they're both correct.

          But Obama has gone much further than Edwards in implying that SS has short-term shortfalls which must be addressed.

          -----

          Personally, Obama's approach to SS doesn't bother me, while his approach to universal healthcare does.

          But I think it's in keeping with everything Krugman has been writing for years that both of Obama's approaches would piss off Krugman.

          To misquote the Godfather, it's not personal, it's policy.

          by flubber on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:19:44 AM PDT

          •  Edwards talks about a 'looming crisis'

            in Social Security.

            Paul Krugman didn't have a problem with it.

            by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:22:33 AM PDT

            •  But

              If Edwards had used the exact same rhetoric that Obama had used about SS, I think it's obvious that Krugman would have slammed him too.

              -----

              Look, you're perfectly entitled to think Krugman is wrong on the merits, but you're way off the rails if you don't understand this isn't personal for Krugman, it's about policy.
              

              by flubber on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:25:58 AM PDT

              •  That's what you're not getting.

                Edwards did talk about a 'looming crisis.'

                In October of this year.

                It's on his website.

                Krugman has made it crystal clear that Edwards is his #1 choice this year.  Apparently Clinton is his #2 choice.

                by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:29:01 AM PDT

                •  Happy To Hear It

                  Krugman has made it crystal clear that Edwards is his #1 choice this year.

                  I wasn't aware that he'd endorsed.  But I'm happy to receive his endorsement.

                  -----

                  Obama has received benefits this campaign in adopting rhetoric designed to please Tim Russert on large government programs.

                  But there is also a downside in that he's bound to piss off progressives with the exact same rhetoric.

                  Team Obama have made their bed.  Trying to demonize someone with the cred of Paul Krugman isn't going to make the bed anymore comfortable.

                  As someone who'd like to see Obama as Edwards' Vice President, I hope Team Obama cuts their losses on this particular quagmire.

                  by flubber on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:43:07 AM PDT

                  •  I don't think they should have engaged him

                    so publicly.  Whispering campaign would have been better.  

                    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:44:09 AM PDT

                  •  Obama is the candidate

                    of Broder, Russert , Tweety.  These guys are the dishonest hacks. Certainly not Krugman.

                    by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:45:21 AM PDT

        •  Geek

          aren't Edwards and Hillary's health plans fairly similar to each other and different from Obama's in certain respects?

          If he likes their plans, and they are similar, why wouldn't he be more critical of Obama's plan?

          Are you sure its not you guys who are supportin a Messiah?

          by bam bam on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:31:08 AM PDT

          •  What the fuck is up with the

            "messiah" talking point from Clintonites?

            That's getting creepy.

            by bawbie on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:35:55 AM PDT

          •  It's his use of character assassination. eom

            by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:36:35 AM PDT

      •  I have to agree.

        Krugman's main goal is to derail Obama? Please.  

        Have you even been reading his columns for the last 8 years?

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:28:48 AM PDT

        •  Obama amounts to nothing ore than a pothole.

          by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:34:40 AM PDT

      •  see

        2006 about Ahmedinejad.

        by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:31:50 AM PDT

  •  HRC 08 made up battle between Obama and Krugman.

    Hers is shot, so she lets Krugman be her proxy in a made up battle in which Krugman is described as attacking Obama and Obama is described as' knifing" Krugman.

    And the diarist can't link the bad man knifing poor helpless krugman.

    It's got the benefit of attacking Obama as negative while Obama doesn't nothing.

    by Inland on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:03:21 AM PDT

    •  Links?

      Evidence? I'm really, really curious.

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:09:23 AM PDT

      •  This might be one link to answer your question

        Link

        Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure, yet.

        by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:18:21 AM PDT

        •  You're accusing me of bad faith by posting here

          Wow.  

          by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:54:21 AM PDT

•  No one cares about Paul Krugman. Probably Paul's

  mama don't even care about Paul Krugman. Obama could walk up to the guy and slap him in the face and no one would care. So I wouldn't bother to beat that dead horse.

  Obama's got a better then 50 percent chance of winning the primary (he has ever since Oprah began supporting him and Florida and Michigan were stripped) and being mean to Paul Krugman or whatever isn't going to derail that by even a tiny fraction.

  by tigercourse on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:02:45 AM PDT

  •  people will notice.

    Krugzilla kept the candle lit for a long time. Some voters have a memory.

    by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:26:26 AM PDT

    •  Krugzilla?? Amazing. NYT's columnist

      Paul Krugman has been among the most consistent liberal voices in media. Remember, it was the wonderful, late Molly Ivans and Mr. Krugman who warned us about who the real George W. Bush was way back in 2000. They were essentially the only folks in the mainstream who had this guy's number. Tell me salo, have you actually read this man's writing? I suspect not.

      by Bouwerie Boy on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:37:28 AM PDT

    •  Memory and candles

      I'm an Edwards supporter and a long-time Krugman fan.  I DEFINITELY noticed.  If Edwards is out by the time of my primary (please no!!!), this makes me much more likely to vote Clinton over Obama.  The rhetoric by Obama supporters against Krugman certainly is not helping.

      by jcitybone on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:37:39 AM PDT

  •  Strange

    No one but Obama supporters seem to see it that way.

    And even many of them are disturbed by it.
    If taken alone, it is an aberration, but when coupled with some of the other stuff out there, is might appear to be a concern.

    I'm good with it.
    I'm sure the Obama camp weighed the costs and benefits of the move before they played it.
    They are big kids.
    They call the plays, they take their chances.

    I don't expect a serious Presidential contender to be a boy/girl scout.

    If you can't play rough, you can't do the job.
    I just think it might spoil the fun for some of the faithful, knowing Obama can play just as dirty as Hillary, et. al.

    by Niniane on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:37:27 AM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      That's very interesting.

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:38:52 AM PDT

•  OK wait a sec.

  Obama should have just countered Krugman on the substance of the health care debate, rather than attacking his credibility. Ok, no argument there. It showed poor taste. But "throwing Krugman under a bus?" Jeez louise. I think Krugman will survive. Some how...he will...manage...gasp.

  by the new on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:03:38 AM PDT

  •  How did Obama attack his credibility? eom

    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:05:47 AM PDT

    •  By

      saying Krugman was inconsistent and switching in his criticisms, the implication being that it was done for political reasons. Not a big deal, I admit, but Obama could have just stuck to the policy arguments, which frankly I felt were kind of weak for Krugman.

      by the new on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:12:08 AM PDT

      •  Let's look at Obama's REAL words....

        not the ones in the alternative universe that exists in many people's heads (Krugman included, it would appear):

        From Obama's website:

        First Read reported, "No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it...But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not

        I am not trying to whitewash Obama, but I just can't see how this constitutes a "personal attack". If anything, it sounds like they pulled their punches to specifically avoid attacking Krugman too hard.

        The only evidence I can find for a "personal attack" is Krugman's own words:

        And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here.

        Awfully thin-skinned for a "fighting progressive"....

        by Azdak on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:56:30 AM PDT

•  The diarist's language

  is over the top.

  by nolalily on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:04:17 AM PDT

•  And by the way, I think we need to dial back the

  use of "throw under a bus".

  by tigercourse on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:05:52 AM PDT

  •  Nah. In the wonderful world of Washington

    The message was loud and clear.  I really would be shocked if the Obama campaign's selective quotes from Krugman wasn't leaked to a whole mess of press folks to get the word out.

    I have no evidence of this, obviously.  Or I'd link it.  But someone should ask how the media got a hold of this...

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:08:30 AM PDT

    •  If Obama threw Krugman under the bus, Krugman

      waterboarded Obama, then set him on fire, and then decapitated him.

      by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:10:33 AM PDT

      •  Dear NY Times

        Dear Sir,

        Paul Krugman is a torturer, and a nasty piece of work. And  a hack. Vote Obama.

        Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells.

        by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:30:44 AM PDT

        •  No, he just has a very Bushian attitude towards

          dissent.  If you disagree with Paul Krugman on mandates, you're a rightwing traitor.

          by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:37:18 AM PDT

          •  Hehehe. That's funny. In light of:

            Now that he's become a de facto (1+ / 0-)
            Clinton supporter through his rhetoric, he made pushback a necessity.
            Krugman showed his naked animosity towards Obama and essentially threw in with Clinton.  That has its consequences.
            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.
            by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:26:50 AM EST
            [ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll  ]

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:52:47 AM PDT

          •  Digby weighs in.

            http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

            People will bein to notice the pattern.

            by Salo on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:53:53 AM PDT

            •  Krugman is a sacred cow and a demigod to

              a lot of bloggers, so they leap to his defense without hesitation.

              I don't believe in sacred cows.

              by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:57:13 AM PDT

              •  Except perhaps Obama?

                No.  I'm not calling him a cow.  Just commenting on the pattern of your comments here.  

                by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:59:26 AM PDT

                •  I've been critical of Obama over some issues in

                  the past--over Coal-to Liquid, his need to reboot his Iraq policy over the summer, and the horrid Donnie McDumbass fiasco.

                  I do not, however, subscribe to the prevailing blogger view that it is per se unacceptable to go after anyone, whether it be Obama or Krugman.

                  by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:34:41 AM PDT

                  •  Neither do I.

                    Hit Krugman on the merits, by all means.  Call him out for using inflammatory rehtoric that undermines his position.  But otherwise, you've just fallen to his level.  

                    by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:36:21 AM PDT

                    •  I don't think the Obama campaign did

                      anything close to what Krugman did.

                      A simple "Krugman then/Krugman now" comparison is not a vicious attack.

                      by Geekesque on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:38:32 AM PDT

    •  Hillary's selective quotes from Krugman

      are now being passed out on flyers to the people of New Hampshire.

      Or so Jake Tapper reports.

      by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:23:54 AM PDT

      •  I don't think you understand causality.

        Just because something happens after doesn't mean it was caused by something prior.  And it certainly doesn't mean it was intended by the author of the prior act.

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:40:14 AM PDT

        •  Obama is very good at reading tea leaves

          Krugman was framing the mandate issue as a litmus test for being "progressive" -- which I believe is simply wring and wrong headed.

          Remember: Obama read the Iraq & Iran tea leaves better than Hillary as well.

          by Bill White on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:59:59 AM PDT

          •  Bizarre non sequitur.

            I suppose you're implying that Obama could tell that Krugman was working for Clinton because he can read tea leaves?  

            Your evidence is that Obama read the tea leaves better on Iraq than Clinton?

            What the hell are you talking about?

            I thought we left that behind when Nancy Reagan left the White House.  

            I would have absolutely no problem with an Obama resonse that said:

            "1.  Krugman is wrong to say that my plan is inferior to Edwards' and Clinton's because it doesn't have mandates.  Here's why I think mandates are not necessary or a bad idea.....

            2. Krugman's rhetoric isn't contributing to any serious dialogue or discussion of the health care issues that divide me from my rivals because ....."

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:11:40 AM PDT

    •  The quote were "leaked" ....

      by PUBLISHING THEM ON THE WEBSITE.

      So devious.

      So underhanded.

      by Azdak on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:58:21 AM PDT

      •  Do you track everything on O's website?

        by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:00:20 AM PDT

        •  No--I have "people" on Dkos....

          who do that for me ;-)

          But I am not in the media covering Obama's campaign, either. It IS their job to track everything on Obama's website.

          I suspect that the "fact check" was sent out as a press release or otherwise distributed among those following the campaign.

          by Azdak on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:05:04 AM PDT

          •  Well. That is interesting.

            And not inconsistent with the Souljah idea.

            by Bartimaeus Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:15:24 AM PDT

            •  Once again, the logic escapes me....

              Krugman criticizes Obama's health care plan.

              Obama people write a response--given that Krugman criticized Obama publicly, they want the response to also be, you know, public.

              Obama people hand out response and post it on website.

              Sister Soujah??????

              That is a breathtaking leap, logically. Aren't there a few steps missing?

              by Azdak on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:20:38 AM PDT

              •  I'm not sure.