How do Obama supporters respond to this?

I like Obama a lot, but I can't help but share Paul Krugman's concerns about his policy proposals and his unnervingly right-wing rhetoric.

Today Krugman writes:

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

Read the rest here if you haven't: http://www.nytimes.com/...

I honestly would just like to hear what Obama's supporters here have to say about this.

•  Talking policy is not fair! n/t

  Let's talk about "shuck and jive", and rap songs with the word b@tch, played at n Obama event!

  snark

  by sd4david on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM PDT

  •  My thoughts: this is a diary?

    I've seen comments three times as long as this 'diary'.

    by byteb on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:45:26 AM PDT

    •  True

      It's a good question, though for those of us who are undecided, I personally would actually have liked to have seen a bit more elaboration on HRC's and JRE's positions and a comparative breakdown. I understand the diarist is asking a question, but background would still be nice even if it's only from his perspective.

      by PBnJ on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:13:52 AM PDT

  •  you dont understand

    why would Obamas policy matter? he is the messiah! infalable unquestionable! or are you a raaaaaacist?

    by Zain on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:51:50 AM PDT

    •  this is an angry, small comment.

      by pseudopod on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:54:28 AM PDT

      •  Over the top, yes

        Though I'd say all snarkiness aside, it's an attitude that has been displayed here.

        by PBnJ on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:10:24 AM PDT

        •  When you go snarky on racism

          it's trollable.

          by recusancy on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:12:09 AM PDT

          •  Hmmm... I guess I didn't read it that way

            The comment came across as anti-racist to me; the snarkiness being in exaggerating the attitude that a few people here have taken.

            chacun à son goût

            by PBnJ on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:18:18 AM PDT

    •  Uprated to Counter

      I believe those who TRed this comment misinterpreted the sarcasm.

      by karateexplosions on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM PDT

•  Yes, Krugman

  hates Obama.

  We get it.

  by JR Hawks on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:40:11 AM PDT

  •  OK so respond to the substance

    is Krugman wrong?  Why?

    by Redstateresident on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

    •  Krugman has always hated Obama

      short man syndrome or something

      by aaraujo on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:43:04 AM PDT

      •  Yes yes thats very substnative

        IN a your mother wears Army boots fashion

        by Redstateresident on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:45:07 AM PDT

        •  I cannot help the fact

          the Krugman has had a long dislike for Barack and now he has to way out of his way to justify it.

          it is a good thing that no one listens to pundits

          by aaraujo on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

          •  Evidence to support your contention? nt

            by another American on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM PDT

      •  Now there's a substantive response.

        You've really convinced me.

        by MadRuth on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:46:52 AM PDT

        •  Do the substantive comments below

          convince you?

          Obama HAS the most progressive alternative energy platform of the three Dem candidates - $150 billion of investments, 3 times what Clinton proposes.  

          Also - investment in Alternative Energy has very little to do with economic stimulus.  It's literally a non-sequitur, since the idea of stimulus is to prime consumer spending.  $5 billion in so-called "alternative energy" stimulus is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the $100/barrel oil prices, which have effectively levied a $100 billion tax on consumers.  

          Does this a substantive enough response?

          by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:10:45 AM PDT

          •  Thank you

            I did appreciate the comments below

            by Redstateresident on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:15:54 AM PDT

          •  Bzzzzzt

            We're not talkin' about anyone's energy policy here, so why are you bringing it up?

            by Terre on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:18:13 AM PDT

          •  It IS a substantive comment

            I'd feel better if it came out of Obama's mouth.  Why is it that Obama isn't talking about his policies?  When Hillary Clinton or John Edwards address crowds, they talk about their policies, which would lead people to draw the conclusion- "well, he/she really has thought about what policies their campaigns have proposed".  When Obama speaks, over and over, consistently giving 'rousing' but NON-substantive speeches, it leads one to believe that maybe he HIMSELF isn't comfortable talking about the policies that are proposed in his name.  It would help to answer the question "does he know his stuff?" if he actually TALKED about these things.
            NOT what his staff plasters on websistes, I want to hear HIM talk about it, so do MANY of my friends who are still on the fence about him.

            by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:22:46 AM PDT

            •  Obama has talked Clean Energy

              Obama on Clean Energy Future

              Washington's failure to lead on energy is the failure of a President who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming - a President who put more faith in the spin of a science fiction writer than the science facts of real experts. It's the failure of an Administration that developed America's energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and then shut it to every other viewpoint. It's a failure of leadership that has never called on the American people to do anything more than go shopping.

              And it's also a failure of our politics that pre-dates the presidency of George W. Bush. We have heard promises about energy independence from every single U.S. President since Richard Nixon - Republicans and Democrats. We've heard proposals to curb our use of fossil fuels in nearly every State of the Union address since the oil embargo of 1973. Back then we imported about a third of our oil. Now we import over half. Back then global warming was just the theory of a few scientists. Now it is a fact that threatens our very existence.

              The truth is, our energy problem has become an energy crisis because no matter how well-intentioned the promise - no matter how bold the proposal - they all fall victim to the same Washington politics that has only become more divided and dishonest; more timid and calculating; more beholden to the powerful interests that have the biggest stake in the status quo.

              There are some in this race who actually make the argument that the more time you spend immersed in the broken politics of Washington, the more likely you are to change it. I always find this a little amusing. I know that change makes for good campaign rhetoric, but when these same people had the chance to actually make change happen, they didn't lead. When they had the chance to stand up and require automakers to raise their fuel standards, they refused. When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable fuels that we can literally grow right here in America, they said no.

              Now, I know that some of these policies are difficult politically. They aren't easy. But being President of the United States isn't about doing what's easy. It's about doing what's hard. It's about doing what's right. Leadership isn't about telling people what they want to hear - it's about telling them what they need to hear.

              When I arrived in the U.S. Senate, I wanted to do whatever I could to make real progress toward energy independence. I reached across the aisle to pass a law that will give more Americans the chance to fill up their cars with clean biofuels. I passed a law that will fuel the research needed to develop a car that will get 500 miles to the gallon. I even voted for an energy bill that was far from perfect because I was able to ensure that it contained some real investments in renewable sources of energy. And I've fought to eliminate the tax giveaways to oil companies that were slipped into that bill - oil companies that have spent half a billion dollars lobbying Congress in the last ten years while their profits have risen to record highs.

              And I did something else. I knew that America hadn't raised the fuel standards for our cars in twenty years. Even though we had the technology on the shelf. Even though Japanese car companies that make more fuel-efficient cars are running circles around our own car companies. Even though we send hundreds of millions of dollars a day to some of the world's most dangerous regimes for their oil.

              So I decided to try something new. I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards that won support of lawmakers who had never supported raising fuel standards before. And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am President, there will be no more excuses - we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.

              Now I have to admit - the room was pretty quiet after that. But I said what I did because I believe America has had enough of politicians who just tell everyone what they want to hear. We have to tell people the truth. And the truth is that we can't afford to let the same old politics stand in the way of our future anymore.

              We can't afford the same kind of caution when the future of our security is at stake. We know that the money that America spends on foreign oil is funding both sides of the war on terror; that it pays for everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq. We know this money corrupts budding democracies and allows dictators from hostile regimes to threaten the international community. It even presents a target for Osama bin Laden, who has told al Qaeda to, "focus your operations on oil, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off on their own."

              We can't be afraid to stand up to the oil and auto industry when the future of our economy is at stake. When we let these companies off the hook; when we tell them they don't have to build fuel-efficient cars or transition to renewable fuels, it may boost their short-term profits, but it is killing their long-term chances for survival and threatening too many American jobs. The global market is already moving away from fossil fuels. The question is not if a renewable energy economy will thrive in the future, it's where. And if we want that place to be the United States of America, we can't afford to wait any longer.

              Most of all, we cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now. In a state like New Hampshire, the ski industry is facing shorter seasons and losing jobs. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, the periods of drought. By 2050 famine could force more than 250 million from their homes - famine that will increase the chances of war and strife in many of the world's weakest states. The polar ice caps are now melting faster than science had ever predicted. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.

              by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:42:08 AM PDT

              •  alright, see, again

                80% of that was 'rhetoric', another 15% was him talking about different bills he's been 'involved with', MAYBE 3-4% of what he said actually addressed (in a glossy-glazed over them sort of way) actual, legislative proposals. Laws/bills he would like to see passed in the future.
                I admit, getting too immersed in repeating numbers and figures and specific legal jargon like Gore did may not always move crowds as well as a well formed rousing speech, but there has to be SOME balance. Obama's still got   WAY to much verbiage, not enough WONK.  We don't need to be patronized, we need specifics.
                Look, I can't vote in this next election- I'll be LIVING in the US by then, but won't be able to VOTE till perhaps the next one- I don't have a horse in this race, I'm just trying to address issues my friends/relatives have with Obama, (people who WILL be voting, and AREN"T necc. so immersed in politics as to be regular visitors to dailykos).  Even I've been away from this site for a while, I know better than to get too involved in primary pie fights.  But this issue is something Obama's supporters/camp shouldn't take personally, they should just get their guy to speak MORE about specific plans he has for SOLUTIONS to the many issues that are of concern these days.

                by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

                •  The whole "lacks substance" critique is

                  frankly a bit racially charged.

                  Obama, an attractive figure who is also an "articulate" black man, is seen as a man who is trying to "shuck and jive" his way into the nomination, without proposing actual substance.

                  It's like when we talk about atheletes - white players are always "smart" and "gutty" and black players are "gifted" and "talented."

                  It's that same frame that I see when you attack Obama with these false claims of "lacking substance."

                  Look, I kind of agree with you that, as a matter of perception, Obama should concentrate on giving the most boring, policy-specific speeches and forums that could possibly be imagined.  That way, white voters can feel comfortable that they aren't getting fooled by some slick-talking black man who, despite his Harvard law education, simply does not or cannot understand the policy specifics of the platforms that his white handlers have put on his website.

                  Sorry, but your suggestion is highly demeaning.  If you compare policy platforms and white papers, where is Obama deficient?  The differences between the candidates are about how to effect change, not the change itself.  Why not demand that Hillary or Edwards hold white-paper conferences to discuss specifics of their plans?  

                  You're going to say that I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm attacking the very framework of your critique of Obama.  I suggest you ask your white friends why they demand more "substance" from a black man than they do of the white candidates.

                  by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM PDT

                  •  You're off target...

                    with the characterization of racism on this question. If anything, I think Obama comes across as the most intelligent among the three front runners. I think the original argument here has more to do with the differences when you compare Obama's statements of substance to Edwards's and Clinton's.

                    Personally, I like all three of them, and I will be happy to vote for any of them in the general election. Obama seems to position himself toward the center, though, and he especially made me nervous when initially discussing his health care proposal. I am inclined to vote for him, but for me to cast that vote I will need to be reassured that a vote for Obama is indeed a vote for "change" in the right direction. Paul Krugman made a strong case, in a Slate article here: http://www.slate.com/... , that this election is our best chance in a long time to move American politics back to the left. I really just want Obama to convince me that he will take full advantage of this opportunity.

                    by Gauch0 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:11:57 PM PDT

                •  The other thing, leaving aside race...

                  Is that you're espousing a candidacy based on political platforms that YOU KNOW won't be adopted.  You know that the legislative process will ultimately result in compromise and change.  No candidate will be able to pass their proposals, unleavened by the sgugestions of Congress.  

                  Obama's point is that it is a waste of time to discuss policy specifics at this stage of a campaign.  Instead, what matters is goals and broader policy outlines.  Any candidate can put together a policy team that assembles white papers on every topic.  Hell, we lost the last two elections BECAUSE we had candidates that could out-white-paper the entire world, but could not inspire the type of change that would lead to the enactment of their white papers.

                  The fact is, that voters don't care about policy specifics because they are cynical about Washington.  It's not a failure of ideas - it's a failure of leadership.  What's so hard to get?

                  by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:55:36 AM PDT

                  •  ok seriously, that was offensive

                    First of all, where the fuck do you get off assuming that I or my friends are white???  Why did you INSTANTLY make this a racial issue???  I'M NOT WHITE, NIETHER ARE MY FRIENDS!  THIS is why Obama's supporters are going to cost him his candidacy.  

                    You took a FAIR and valid question, "why is he not SPEAKING more about HIS SPECIFIC policy plans?" and made it into some RIDICULOUS insinuation that I was stating he didn't HAVE ANY.  

                    Am I going to be pissed that you put words in my mouth- FUCK YES.  Who the fuck do you think you are accusing me of ANY 'framing'.  I asked a simple FUCKING question-why doesn't he insert MORE specifics in his speeches on what he plans to do-because people are fucking ASKING. And you call me a racist??!!!  FUCK THAT.

                    And what kind of answer is "voters don't care about policy specifics because they're cynical about Washington"???????????????  WHAT THE FUCK?  Why is he running his campaign on HOPE AND CHANGE, if he, in YOUR astute opinion, doesn't actually think any of his 'hoping' or specific ideas are going to get IMPLEMENTED?!

                    This is why I hadn't come to DailyKos in MONTHS, because of morons like you hurling the term 'racial discrimination' around like its fucking candy.  I have BEEN discriminated against, I AM a fucking minority, I don't need some righteous fuck on the other end of his keyboard accusing ME of being a racist, and MINIMIZING the GRAVITY of that accusation by using it so indiscriminantly.

                    My very first diary on this fucking site was about Katrina, it made it to the rec. list because I was furious that people DIDN"T see that race played a part in the (lack of) rescue efforts... I deleted it because I was so sick of reading the responses from people who couldnt' see it.  So fuck you and your assumptions about me.  

                    You just helped your candidate ALOT, what did I get out of your assinine answers? "Obama doesn't want to bother talking about specifics, because frankly he doesn't really think any of his plans will materialize" and oh yeah, "don't ask him to talk about his plans either, or it'll be assumed that you don't think he has any-you'll be called a racist".

                    Your answers were fucking patronizing and insulting.

                    by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM PDT

                    •  I couldn't help but see the irony...

                      Don't take this as a flame, hopefulcanadian, because I have no intention of dissing you or the person you are ranting against, but I couldn't help but notice the fact that your profanity-riddled rant closed with that quote from Gandhi.

                      You have to admit, that's pretty funny.

                      by Gauch0 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM PDT

                      •  seriously- I agree.

                        LOL! I don't know what this site does to me, its just so unbelievable how some people can drift into myopic and dogmatic stances on this site sometimes.  Its like because we're speaking to one another through a computer, we start to assume the WORST person is sitting on the other end.  Its just earth-shatteringly vile to me, when people take a word like 'racist' and fling it around like its nothing.  Its SO disrespectful to people who really HAVE been on the receiving end of it.

                        Now I am going to TRY to be like the change I would like to see.... and go for a run, ignore the fact that I was ironically called a racist this afternoon, and seriously think about whether I need ANOTHER vacation from Daily Kos.  Frankly, I think I've just been around for too long...

                        Take care,
                        hopeful for change TOO Canadian

                        by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM PDT

                    •  Because it's a race-loaded question you ask.

                      Trust me, you're not the first anti-Obama-ite to question his "substance" based on the fact that he's a talented speaker.  I'm not criticizing you, per se, because I don't know you, but your personal opinions are irrelevant (and not simply because you can't vote).

                      Rather, this entire argument - which is born of an ignorance and laziness to simply LOOK AT HIS WEBSITE - reflects a framework that is race-loaded.  That you happen to play into this stereotype that diminishes the accomplishments of minorities as reflecting "talent" but not "substance," and praises the accomplishments of "whites" as only the result of a "Protestant Work Ethic," is your fault.  Accept that the frame is race-loaded, and then we can talk.

                      It would be different if you approached the subject with substance on your own - i.e., if you could point to Obama's specific platform, and talk about why they lack concrete substance.  Or if you could say, these are the speeches he gave - look how bereft of substance they are.  

                      But no, you simply, and unthinkingly, spread the false meme that Obama is where he is simply because he's "articulate" and flashy, and not because he's a Harvard Law graduate, former community organizer, civil rights attorney, and progressive Illinois State Legislator and current United States Senator.  

                      by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:35:37 PM PDT

                      •  Are you fucking kidding me????

                        Why is it so hard for him to actually DISCUSS his policy proposals???? Why the hell do voters go out to SEE politicians speak in person???  To HEAR how their candidate plans on tackling the ISSUES.  To SEE in person that he's got PLANS. Not to hear the ISSUES/PROBLEMS highlighted over and over, and then to be told to go LOOK UP what he plans on doing!  Is that LEADERSHIP?  Referring people to a website who have questions about his specific policy proposals??

                        When someone sits down infront of you at a job interview, and you ask them specifically what they will be bringing to the job, its not a RACIALLY BASED question!  You ALREADY HAVE their fucking resume, but you still ASK, because you want to hear them SAY IT.  I'm not asking him to talk policy because he's BLACK, I'm asking him because Hillary and Edwards address their policy proposals CONSTANTLY.  HE DOESN"T.

                        And you're putting words into my mouth AGAIN.  I don't think he is where he is because he's ARTICULATE.  I KNOW he went to Harvard, I KNOW he's intelligent, that doesn't EXCLUDE him from having to address POLICY.  

                        by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:55:23 PM PDT

                        •  But he DOES discuss his policy proposals,

                          You just ignore it.  Why is that?

                          Take his campaign in Nevada now.  He is hosting a Foreign Policy Roundtable with General Tony McPeak and Susan Power.

                          Obama's Foreign Policy Roundtable

                          I quoted at length a speech he gave on his Clean Energy proposals.   Which you again dismissed as simply "80%" flash not substance.

                          Where are the Great Edwards or Clinton speeches on substance?   How is the substantative policy that they promote any different from the substance of Obama's policy, which he does talk about?  

                          Why are you afraid of answering these questions?

                          by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM PDT

                          •  Here's Obama in Las Vegas on Economic Stimulus

                            Obama Unveils $120 Billion Stimulus Plan

                            LAS VEGAS - Barack Obama yesterday unveiled an economic stimulus package costing up to $120 billion that his campaign said would put money in the hands of workers and seniors, stem the foreclosure crisis, and cover state budget shortfalls.

                            more stories like this
                            Barack Obama proposes $75 billion stimulus plan
                            Today on the presidential campaign trail
                            Investors see trade, taxes as key in White House race
                            N.H. Democrats, Republicans sharply divided on healthcare, poll finds
                            Holiday ads reveal traits of presidential candidates
                            The Illinois senator is proposing that the plan be implemented before a new president takes office.

                            "We need that middle-class tax cut now more than ever - not five months from now or five weeks from now, but now," Obama said in a statement. "I'm announcing a plan to jump-start the economy by putting money in the pockets of those who need it most and will spend it quickly."

                            The plan would have to be approved by Congress and President Bush to go forward, which is not likely.

                            But Obama's campaign said it represented the kind of relief he would pursue if he were president now.

                            The Democrat from Illinois called on the government to make available a $250 tax credit to 150 million workers to offset the payroll tax paid on the first $8,100 of earnings. He urged a further $250 tax credit per worker if employment declines three months in a row.

                            He also would give a one-time, $250 payment to Social Security recipients who would not benefit from the tax credit, followed by another $250 payment if employment declines three months straight.

                            The immediate relief would cost $45 billion, plus another $45 billion if the economy weakened.

                            Obama also pledged $10 billion to increase pre-foreclosure counseling and help "responsible homeowners" refinance their mortgages or sell their homes.

                            The plan also calls for $10 billion to help states and local governments facing budget problems as a result of the housing crisis, caused by falling property values and sales tax revenue.

                            Obama also wants $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance while loosening the eligibility criteria to include many part-time and nontraditional workers.

                            Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic policy adviser to Obama, said the plan was slightly larger than the $110 billion package presented Friday by Obama's chief rival, Senator Hillary Clinton.

                            Goolsbee said Obama's plan would have a more immediate impact because checks for tax credits and Social Security payments could be issued right away, while Clinton's plan to subsidize such things as higher heating bills would require an application process.

                            "Those are things that would take many months if not a year or more before the money would get out the door," Goolsbee said.

                            by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM PDT

                          •  for the love of Christ

                            If you can't see, that in that in that speech you provided about his Clean Energy proposals, that literally 80%-90% of the sentences in that speech DID NOT address specific policy proposals, I can't have a conversation with you.
                            Evidently YOUR guy is the one who has some aversion to talking specifics, I'm not running for office-he is.  Frankly, NONE of these candidates are 'my guy/gal', but you've not done your candidate any justice today.  My fiancee (who's American) has been reading your responses, and WILL be voting in the upcoming South Carolina primary, you've frankly left us both with the following summary:
                            "asking why Obama doesn't insert more specific policy proposals in his speeches is a racist question", and "Obama doesn't want to address them anyway, because frankly, don't you know, Washington won't allow change, so discussing specifics is useless............"  good luck with that....

                            The audacity of something or other....

                            by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM PDT

                            •  So you measure policy by the % of sentences

                              Dedicated to reading the text of legislation?

                              Lol.  You don't fool me for a second - your "fiancee" was always going to vote for the white woman (who doesn't talk in specifics either).

                              by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:25:38 PM PDT

                              •  Your fucking assumptions bore me

                                You keep up that patronizing tone, and running your mouth, keep race-baiting every well-meaning person who asks a question, and you see where it gets you.  Where it gets US.  People like you make me depressed to see the political system in this country.  You fucking have to sell your goddamned soul don't you, to keep the odds stacked in your candidate's favour.  By whatever means....

                                good luck with that.

                                by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:37:20 PM PDT

                                •  Hostile, much?

                                  I never said you were racist.  I said the stupid question you asked was racist, and I pointed out why it was racist - because it is devoid of substance and plays to racist stereotypes about blacks and whites.

                                  The key thing is:  it's devoid of substance.  And you've failed to refute that Clinton/Edwards do not have more substantive platforms or speeches than Obama.  

                                  by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM PDT

                        •  For example, you base your "80%" comment

                          on a snippet from his clean energy speech, without reading the whole thing.

                          Here's another snippet where he got very specific:

                          The first step in doing this is to phase out a carbon-based economy that's causing our changing climate. As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face.

                          In addition to this cap, all polluters will have to pay based on the amount of pollution they release into the sky. The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution. It's time to make the cleaner way of doing business the more profitable way of doing business.

                          There is no doubt that this transition will be costly in the short-term. To make it easier, we will provide assistance to Americans who need help with their energy bills. We'll help families make their homes more energy efficient, and we'll help workers and factories retool their facilities so they can compete and thrive in a clean energy economy. And once we make America more energy efficient and start producing more renewable energy, we will save money and bring energy costs down in the long-run. But we must act now.

                          Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy.

                          That starts with the next generation of biofuels. We know that corn ethanol has been the most successful alternative fuel we have ever developed. I've been a champion for ethanol. In just two years, the Renewable Fuel Standard I helped pass has sparked an historic expansion of ethanol production. It has helped displace foreign oil and strengthen our rural economy. And we should fight the efforts of big oil and big agri-business to undermine this emerging industry.

                          But the truth is, corn ethanol is neither the perfect nor the permanent answer to our energy challenge. There are legitimate economic and ecological concerns about an over-reliance on corn-based ethanol. And even if we double or triple its production, it won't replace even a tenth of our demand for gasoline. That's why we must invest in the next generation of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol that can be made from things like switchgrass and woodchips. The struggling paper mills in New Hampshire would be back in business if they could use wood to produce biofuels. We should set a goal to produce the first two billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2013. And we should make sure that more local farms and local refineries have the chance to be a part of this new industry.

                          We'll also invest in clean energy sources like wind power and solar power, so that by 2025, America can meet a new standard that will require 25% of all our electricity to come from renewable sources.

                          And we must find a way to stop coal from polluting our atmosphere without pretending that our nation's most abundant energy source will just go away. It won't. It will also require taking steps to ensure that China's coal emissions are curbed as well. Already, some coal pollution from China's dirty plants is making its way to California. That's why we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world. Until those technologies are available, I will rely on the carbon cap and whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America -- including a ban on new traditional coal facilities.

                          We will also explore safer ways to use nuclear power, which right now accounts for more than 70% of our non-carbon generated electricity. We should accelerate research into technologies that will allow for the safe, secure treatment of nuclear waste. As President, I'll continue the work I began in the Senate to ensure that all nuclear material is stored, secured and accounted for -- both at home and around the world. There should be no short cuts or regulatory loopholes -- period.

                          Many of these clean energy technologies -- from biofuels to solar power to carbon sequestration -- are being developed in research labs and facilities all across America at this very moment. The problem is they might never get further than that. U.S. venture capital funding does a great job investing in research and development, but we don't do enough to take the risk out of bringing new discoveries to the wider marketplace. And so we see technologies that are invented here in America -- like wind turbines, solar panels, and compact fluorescent bulbs -- developed overseas and then sold back to American consumers.

                          This will change when I am President. I will launch a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund that will provide $10 billion a year for five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies off the ground. This venture capital fund will get new technologies from the lab to the marketplace so that in the next few years, the American economy can benefit from America's innovations.

                          The third step in my plan to combat climate change is to call on businesses, government, and the American people to make America 50% more energy efficient by 2030. This is by far the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to curb our emissions and save money at the same time. Since DuPont implemented an energy efficiency program in 1990, the company has significantly reduced its pollution and cut its energy bills by $3 billion, and cities like Keene and Portland, Oregon have led in meeting new efficiency standards. There is no reason the rest of America can't do the same.

                          We will start by dramatically improving the efficiency of our buildings, which currently account for nearly half of all carbon emissions in America today. When I am President, we'll set a goal of making our new buildings 50% more efficient within several years. The federal government will lead by making all of its buildings carbon neutral by 2025. And I will set a national goal of making all new buildings in America carbon neutral by 2030.

                          We will also start replacing our outdated power grid with a digital smart grid so that we don't lose precious energy and billions of dollars like we did in the 2003 New York City blackout. We'll follow the lead of states like California and change the way utilities make money so that their profits aren't tied to how much energy we use, but how much energy we save. Finally, we know that if every home in America replaced just five incandescent light bulbs with five compact fluorescent bulbs, it would eliminate the need for twenty-one power plants. We'll do one better. I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs -- a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.

                          Now, none of these steps will happen overnight. They will take time, they will take sacrifice, and they will take a sustained commitment from the American people. As President, I will lead this commitment. I will not be outlining these goals in my State of the Union and then walk away when they become too difficult. I will report to the American people every year on the State of our Energy Future, and let you know the progress we've made toward an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, toward replacing over a third of our oil consumption by 2030, and toward improving our energy efficiency 50% by 2030. I will also make America's energy security a fundamental tenet of our national security by preparing our military to deal with threats posed by climate change.

                          And there is one step I will take as soon as possible.

                          From the moment I take office, I will invite the world back to Washington and let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again. That we are ready to rejoin the community of nations in taking on the greatest challenge of this generation.

                          I will personally reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations in both the developed and developing world and ask them to join America in creating a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. It will complement -- and ultimately merge with -- the much larger negotiation process underway at the UN to develop a post-Kyoto framework. I will be in constant contact with these leaders to develop concrete, feasible emissions targets that all of us will meet. We will also work to build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, just like the OPEC nations strategize on supply.

                          Does that make you happy?

                          by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM PDT

                          •  I'd be much happier

                            if your first reaction hadn't been to call me a racist.  You have a good day, this conversation has frankly left me quite disillusioned with his campaign/supporters.... its ironic that I came up with my tag name after I'd lived in Chicago for two years, and had first come to know of Obama.  I'd been feeling down, because racism and racial tensions are SO much more palpable in the US than in Canada, I had frankly been feeling pretty crappy about my decision to move there.  I discovered Daily Kos, and then I'd met someone who brought my attention to Obama.  I've followed his career with great interest and 'hope' ever since.  Now, I'm frankly feeling pretty shitty about where his supporters/campaign is taking his message, how they're 'defending' him- by using race.  Oh well, such is American politics.

                            by hopefulcanadian on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:28:56 PM PDT

                            •  I never called you a racist, friend.

                              Get over it.  I said your question is race-loaded.

                              by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM PDT

                        •  By the way, Here's Media Matters debunking

                          the insinuation that Obama is all style, no substance (and has not given enough policy speeches).

                          Media Matters on Obama

                          by Greuben on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM PDT

          •  Oh nebbermind

            The paragraph the diarist quoted is about energy.  I thought it was on the whole article, which is about the "recession."

            If you haven't read the whole piece, you might want to.  It's not just about Obama anyway.

            by Terre on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:22:46 AM PDT

      •  Man.

        Please don't be rude.  Paul Krugman is brilliant, but you and he may disagree on this issue.

        Why is everyone so freaking RUDE?

        by kate mckinnon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM PDT

        •  Kate

          please don't post things like this.  You don't know what it does to me.  The incredible temptation to write F' you comes over me and it takes all my strength to resist.

          Note it really isn't you it is the supreme irony of such a pleasant request followed up by that statement and the desire to be ironic nearly overtakes me.

          LOL.

          by newfie on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:57:12 AM PDT

          •  uh

            you confuse me.

            Is it that I think Paul Krugman is brilliant that makes you insane?  Or that I asked you not to be rude?  I doubt I agree with everything he says.

            Many of us disagree deeply on many issues.  But you know, we all need each other.  And we will especially need each other in November.  It just doesn't pay to be so...  aggressive, in a way that alienates people.   Hostility isn't going to win anyone to see things your way.

            Krugman has been on the whole a very astute critic of the Bush economy.   This has value, whether or not he likes Obama.

            by kate mckinnon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:38:10 AM PDT

            •  Oh

              first put your snark goggles on.  It was your very reasonable request for the quelling of rudeness that would bring out the urge to be rude to you anyway (not really - that's the snark part).

              by newfie on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM PDT

              •  ah, snark goggles.

                gotcha.
                Snark is in disappointingly low quantities these days.
                I'm glad I didn't REALLY make you mad.

                by kate mckinnon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM PDT

                •  Nope

                  my madness is purely hereditory.

                  by newfie on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:09:03 PM PDT

      •  If Krugman were taller...

        ...would that make alternate energy proposals magically appear in Obama's stimulus plan?

        by phenry on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:02:47 AM PDT

        •  Can you tell me

          why we need alternate energy proposals in a stimulus plan?

          by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

          •  Sure

            Green energy will CREATE jobs in America. A large part of oil revenues go overseas, which hurts the American worker.
            FDR got us out of the depression by putting people to work fixing the country. If we pay someone to insulate your house, it saves energy $, and the worker spends his/her pay and stimulates the economy.
            In a recession/slowdown people in the aggregate are AFRAID or unable to spend their money. So the government spends money, or "primes the pump".

            by sd4david on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:27:28 AM PDT

            •  That's an energy policy

              That's not stimulus if for no other reason than it wouldn't act quickly enough to stimulate the economy against this upcoming recession.

              You won't find any disagreement among Obama supporters and the logic of funding alternative energies, it's the question of whether this defines the "progressivity" of a short-term economic stimulus package that's in doubt.

              by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:32:14 AM PDT

              •  It's BOTH. It will stimulate the economy. n/t.

                by sd4david on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:59:29 AM PDT

    •  If Krugman hadn't been so over-the-top

      so far people would give this more attention.  As far as the "substance" Krugman makes two points: (1) Obama doesn't include "alternative energy initiatives" in the plan, (2) Obama's plan is less targeted as far as tax cuts.  I think (1) is a specious point since all of these candidates have energy proposals to look at and Krugman ignores the fact that Obama does propose.  I think (2) could use more discussion than one sentence from Krugman and if he wanted to do more than fire off another Obama bash he would have explained more.

      by play jurist on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:46:00 AM PDT

      •  But if he had explained more

        he would have been forced to concede how tiny the differences really are.  Much simpler to assume that most people don't understand economics -- that way he can say whatever he wants.

        by Pegasus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:48:30 AM PDT

        •  Krugman has defined his differences on mandates

          in considerable detail.  The Obama campaign website's responses to Krugman's critiques were not helpful.  Things kind of went downhill from there.

          Today's column really doesn't have sufficient detail to make a fair assessment.  When you try to cover the economic views of that many candidates in that short of a space, such a problem becomes almost inevitable.

          I'd love to see Krugman address this topic in more detail.  

          by RFK Lives on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:06:59 AM PDT

    •  Is Krugman wrong?

      Is he ever right?

      The guy assumes the only right answer is to be to the left of Dennis Kucinich on every economic issue.

      I disagree.  This country would be in economic ruin if this bozo was calling the shots.

      But I can't blame him for making Obama the target of his obsessions.  Obama's a hot commodity right now and Paul, well, nobody cares about him.

      by JR Hawks on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:55:30 AM PDT

      •  Your usual overstatement

        Krugman is always right.  He said the Iraq war was a crappy idea, so was he wrong then?

        This country would be in great economic shape if Krugman were calling the shots.  When you have to work until 75 before you can retire because social security is ruined, you'll be wishing you had paid attention to the smartest economist around.

        by Montague on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:04:34 AM PDT

        •  Isn't Krugman

          the guy claiming that Social Security is in a lock solid great position and Obama is a right wing tool for suggesting that we look at raising the payroll cap to bolster it so we don't have to work til we are 75?

          Krugman is a partisan in this election cycle. Everything he writes until the nomination will be affected by this...

          Obama's clean energy plan has been rated highly by environmental groups, Paul.

          For him, the entire domestic policy arguement hinges on one thing... mandates.. he is for them, obama is not. end of analysis by krugman.

          by Hawkjt on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:28:15 AM PDT

        •  LOL

          Through sound planning, I've put myself in a position where I won't even need social security.

          Don't assume everyone is as financially irresponsible as you.

          And your argument that Krugman is always right...well, that's beyond laughable.

          by JR Hawks on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:40:15 AM PDT

          •  Oh, let's see... Obama is always right

            Actually I'm well set for retirement, with or without Social Security.  Thank you for asking.  But I'm concerned about people who are less well off than I am.  

            by Montague on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:07:09 AM PDT

      •  Plenty of us "care about" the NYT writer...

        ... don't know who you are but I'm listening...I hope you stop wasting my time.  

        by kck on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:05:05 AM PDT

        •  Plenty of elitists

          read the NYT.

          That I will grant you.

          by JR Hawks on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:40:52 AM PDT

          •  Then move on where you feel a sense of belonging.

            OT, but, I like the word "elitist". The GOP has attempted to tarnish the name of experts in their fields, of working hard to attain expertise, all is subordinate to politics for Republicans.

            I am a novice in some areas, a journeyman in others, and in the elite in only a few areas of life. Thank God, I do, for that.

            You, are a bore. Buhbye.

            by kck on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:12:09 AM PDT

    •  depends on who you are listening to...

      Former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, who spoke to reporters on behalf of the Obama campaign, said that by relying on tax cuts and Social Security bonuses, the Obama plan would have a greater stimulus effect than the Clinton proposal. He said that was because it would get money into the hands of people more quickly.

      by teharper428 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:08:36 AM PDT

      •  TAx cuts

        the magical answer to everything

        by Redstateresident on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:17:47 AM PDT

    •  I don't bother to read Krugman any more

      because no matter what Obama is going to propose Krugman tears it apart.  I am beginning to really wonder what Krugman's motive are.

      by ronnied on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM PDT

•  Edwards is the true progressive

  in this race.  Look at the issues and the policy proposals and see for yourself.

  by bear83 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:40:29 AM PDT

  •  Then look at his

    record and go, "Whaaa?"

    by nisleib on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:41:41 AM PDT

    •  Obama and Hilary record

      voted for nafta deals
      kept funding the war

      by BBelle on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:24:42 AM PDT

•  Um, since none of these will be enacted

  I tend to yawn at them.

  Similarly, I yawn at anything Paul "Anyone But Obama" Krugman says about the primaries.

  by Geekesque on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:40:39 AM PDT

  •  You'd yawn at anything that questions Obama.

    This is as close as you'll come to saying that, so you have my congratulations!  

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:43:00 AM PDT

    •  No.

      I thought it was important to engage on his first and second attacks on Obama.  This being attack #14, Krugman is clearly looking for excuses to go after him.

      by Geekesque on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:18 AM PDT

      •  If it's right once, it's right 14 times n/t

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM PDT

        •  If it's right once. It isn't. n/t

          by dgil on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM PDT

    •  This is true

      It's part of the cult of personality to be dismissive of anyone who has a bad thing to say about one's candidate.  Even when Krugman isn't backing my candidate, I still listen to what he has to say.

      by Montague on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM PDT

  •  I respect his views on economic policy. eom

    by HairyTrueMan on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM PDT

  •  This begs the question...

    What are you basing your vote on, then? Even if the candidates' policy proposals may never be enacted, aren't they the best indications we have of how they would approach issues of substance as president?

    by Gauch0 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:45:05 AM PDT

    •  Their ability to get stuff enacted.

      Also, Obama has plenty of green-friendly proposals already out there.  That he fails to include them in a meaningless pander proposal that has 0.00% chance of being enacted really is of little consequence.

      by Geekesque on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:48:06 AM PDT

•  Thanks For The "Concern".

  I'm more of an anybody-but-Hillary person though.

  Obama's perceived weaknesses, or those of any other of the remaining Dems, are very minor compared to the flaws of War Candidate Clinton and her scorched-earth campaign strategy.

  by bincbom on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:43:17 AM PDT

  •  thanks for the concern part 2

    And the differences between Dems, INCLUDING HILLARY, are very minor compared to the flat-earthers over on the GOP side.

    by Leggy Starlitz on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:13:14 AM PDT

•  i don't really care what prof krugman...

  has to say anymore about this race.

  he is a great voice for progressives but in this election if obama is good enough for barabara lee he's good enough for me...

  i think maybe there's something personal going on here that we don't know about...

  by maxnyc on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:43:19 AM PDT

  •  Personal? No way.

    Krugman strongly favors economic parity.  So he calls it as he sees it.

    by Montague on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:08:01 AM PDT

•  Krugman has a weird animus toward Obama,

  but even given that, this was a pretty weak swipe.  He tried to draw distinctions that weren't there between Obama and the other two.  

  The only real distinction there is between the proposals is w/r/t alternative energy investment.  My guess is that on that count, Obama felt it would be redundant given his proposal to invest heavily in green tech.

  by Pegasus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:43:59 AM PDT

•  I have a lot of respect for Krugman

  For the most part I appreciate his analyses, though I thought his semantic critiques of Obama were at the end of the day quibbles. However if this true than I am disappointed and would like to see a more progressive energy plan from Obama. Am I going to not support Obama, no. None of the candidates are perfect. I am not a single issue voter though I am supportive of progressive energy policy. So that what an Obama supporter has to say.

  by Sansouci on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:44:27 AM PDT

  •  It's about stimulus package, not energy.

    I'm waiting for Krugman's article on how Edwards is "betraying progressive principles" by supporting pollution permit handouts instead of %100 auctions.  In any case, Obama does have incentives for alternative energy in his energy plan.  Including them in a stimulus package would be redundant.

    by play jurist on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:48:02 AM PDT

    •  Edwards plan is simply phased

      Which isn't all bad.  The end goal is the same.

      by kate mckinnon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

      •  Obama

        has also said repeatedly that he wants his plan to be enacted pre-November. So unless John is putting forward a plan he thinks other legislators will adopt, comparison between these plans is apples and oranges.

        by Daaaaave on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:55:16 AM PDT

      •  Should be %100 auction,

        not a few handouts and then an auction.

        by play jurist on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:57:30 AM PDT

        •  these issues

          are very important, and really support the idea of extending our debate, and keeping all three of our candidates standing through the convention.

          Forcing more debate and closer scrutiny will make our candidates be better Democrats.  This is true!

          by kate mckinnon on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM PDT

  •  Maybe the answer...

    is for this community to press Obama to take a stronger stance on issues that are important to progressives, and to make it clear that he is going to be a champion of progressive ideas. As they say in football, it's never a good idea to leave it to the referees.

    While I by no means think that everyone here should be in awe of Krugman, it disturbs me how many of the responses here are basically painting Krugman as an Obama-hater, instead of really addressing the substance of Krugman's arguments. It smacks a little too much of those who painted all of us as Bush-bashers until very recently, instead of recognizing the merit to the arguments.

    by Gauch0 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM PDT

    •  There's some responding-to-Krugman

      fatigue among Obama's supporters (or at least there is for me).  He's done stuff like this so many times that it barely even registers for me any more.  He's the Boy Who Cried Obama.

      But eventually somebody will get around to posting a decent refutation, I would guess.

      by Pegasus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM PDT

    •  I'm not oainting Krugman as an Obama hater

      I'm pointedly saying he is a MSM hit job mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign.

      by dgil on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:14:35 AM PDT

  •  Please

    read my comment below which outlines Obama's policies.

    I would really like to ask all the Kossaks on this site to PLEASE go and read the candidate's policy proposals before you offer an opinion or react to a smear.

    A well informed discussion will benefit us all and put a stop to all of this nonsense.

    Thank you.

    by Helenann on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:01:00 AM PDT

    •  It wouldn't help

      I can read the proposals but I'm not an economist.  I trust Krugman to do the analysis.

      That said, your suggestion that people read the proposals is a good one and should be the same for everyone complaining about any candidate.

      by Montague on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:10:39 AM PDT

      •  Paul Krugman

        is a well respected economist but it has become clear that he is using his columns and his blog to go after Obama in a way that is not reflective of the candidate or his positions.

        Paul Krugman is not always right.  And his apparent bias against Barack Obama is blinding him from seeing the man and his ideas.  I think he is wrong about health care mandates (please see my diary here comparing Obama and Clinton's plans) and he is wrong about energy.

        Obama has an outstanding energy team advising him and his proposals are thoughtful and important.

        The point is that all of the candidates have laid out good plans.  And there are some differences. But that does not mean one is bad and the other is good.

        In the end, all of these ideas will be on the table and it is the next President along with the Congress who will make the policy.

        At the end of the primary, we will have only one candidate.  ALL of them are committed to finding alternative energy sources and slowing global warming.  They all have good ideas.

        I think it would be much more productive and helpful to the American people if Krugman could point out what those good ideas are so that when we elect a new President, all of the best ideas are out there.

        Let's restore some dignity to this campaign.  Barack Obama could well be our next President.  If we do not start to have a more respectful debate and help the American people understand that all of the candidates have good ideas and in the end they will all be considered, it might help break the tension.  

        To me what is most telling is not the little details in their policy proposals but how they conduct themselves and their campaigns, which is a window into how they will govern.

        What style politics do you long for?

        Divisive?
        Angry?
        Inclusive?

        The choice is yours.

        by Helenann on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM PDT

        •  I'm all for the restoration of dignity

          And I'm all for a Democrat in the WH because, yes, they all have far better policies and ideas than any Republican in the race.

          Inclusive politics sounds nice but is not necessarily so, because the Republicans will not end their bitter partisanship just because there's a "uniter" in the WH.  I believe they will roll right over anyone not prepared to fight like a dog, not merely during the election but afterwards as well.

          Divisive politics sounds not so nice but in fact I believe it's what is needed right now, until some balance is restored into our political system.  Bill Clinton was about compromise and look where that got us.  The center has been forcibly moved rightward.  So if Obama wants to compromise, that won't fix enough to restore the strength of the middle class.  This is not to say that Hillary is going to compromise less than Obama - I don't want to make that guess - but she has plenty of fight in her and I like that.  Edwards also has plenty of fight in him, but I don't think he's going to become the nominee.

          Incidentally, I believe we are taking one hell of a chance with either Obama or Clinton in the general election.  A white man would be a shoo-in at this point, but it remains to be seen whether the country is truly ready to go for a woman or an ethnic minority in that job.  Democrats are ready, sure, but it takes more than Dems to win a national election.  That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't go for it - we have to do it sometime and it will be spectacular if it works.

          I'll look for your diary about health plans and give it a read.  I've already read Krugman's analysis of the mandate issue - in his book because, sadly, op-ed columns don't give one enough room for analysis - and I agree with the points he makes.

          I don't think Krugman has a bias against Obama; I think that, like myself, Krugman is a wonkish intellectual who distrusts the cult of personality and prefers the nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic (it's possible to be an intellectual populist :).  This is not a slam at Obama.  I never listened to a single speech that Bill Clinton ever made because I don't like silver-tongued orators.  I feel the same way about JFK.  I'm just not swayed by that and all too often other people are swayed by it.  Some extremely reasonable Democrats told me that Bush's SOTU speech in 2002 was superb.  I finally checked it out online and it sure as hell didn't impress me.  I have listened to a couple of Obama's speeches and they don't have the effect on me that they have on other people.

          I really shouldn't speak for Krugman, but that's my guess.  He's really unhappy at Obama for using Republican talking points about Social Security, amongst other things.   And so am I.  

          by Montague on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM PDT

          •  Republican talking points??

            I don't know why you are buying into this rhetoric.

            Obama wants to raise the cap for Social Security taxes for those with incomes above $97,000.  This is the most sensible policy there is and an easy fix to the Trust Fund problem.  NO ONE who makes less than $97000 would pay one more cent of tax. No one.

            People who make more than $97,000 a year are the top 6% of the income distribution in the US.  This is not the "middle class," as Mrs. Clinton has claimed.

            If we raised it above $100,000, it would generate lots of revenue and would not harm the low to middle income families in this country.

            This is not a Republican talking point!!!  This is common sense.  And I don't think the Republicans are talking about raising SS taxes.  They want to privatize SS.

            So please get your facts straight before you start echoing this ridiculous charge of Re