Must-Read: Obama vs. Krugman

Quick diary here.  American Prospect co-founder and editor-in-chief, Robert Kuttner has some high praise for Barack Obama's economic speech, given yesterday in New York.

Kuttner:  Obama v. Krugman

This is a must-read article.  Please take the time to read the whole thing (its not long).

On Obama:

Astounding! I wish I had written the speech. It is this kind of leadership and truth-telling that is the predicate for the shift in public opinion required to produce legislative change. A radical, appropriately nuanced, and deeply public-minded description of what has occurred, the speech was Roosevelt quality: the president as teacher-in-chief. Those who felt that Obama was capable of real growth that will transcend the campaign's early and somewhat feeble domestic policy proposals should feel vindicated.

On Clinton:

If you read Clinton's March 24 speech on the housing crisis and how to fix it -- supposedly more robust than Obama's remedy -- she offers the same Frank-Dodd bill. She does not locate the mortgage crisis in the deeper financial one. And her idea of turning, for wise men, to Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan -- more than anyone the people who gave us this crisis -- is appalling.

And in response to today's column by Paul Krugman:

But Krugman, ordinarily an ornament of fair-minded progressive economics commentary, writes almost as if he has become part of the Clinton campaign. His latest characterization of Obama's proposals in commenting on the New York speech -- "cautious and relatively orthodox" -- was preposterous.

Kuttner is no Obama slappy, having at times been very critical of him.  This praise of his economic plan is big.  And for team Clinton-Krugman: ouch.  

•  Tips

  for solid economic proposals.

  by ManahManah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

  •  Kuttner

    doesn't praise Obama's plan because Obama didn't really offer a plan.

    Part of what he did is propose a way too-modest stimulus package, offer some help for homeowner via the Dodd-Frank bill (which Clinton also supports), and make vague calls for smarter regulation.

    Most of what Obama did is to diagnose the problem, and in this he did quite a good job connecting the dots.

    But that's Obama's thing: he's good and even bold when it comes to describing a problem; less bold and even cautious when it comes to proposing a solution.

    Therein lies the difference between Kuttner and Krugman. Kuttner praises Obama's description of the problem; Krugman isn't impressed because he believes the progressivism of a pol should be gauged by the policies s/he commits to.

    But if Obama follows through on the logic laid out in his speech, he could offer some good policies.

    by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

    •  Obama differs from HRC

      by calling for sweeping financial regulation.  This is a step that Krugman called for on Monday as "the key issue".  Its also something that HRC hasn't broached.

      The "breakthrough" was in Obama's regulation plan, not the forclosure crisis.

      by ManahManah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM PDT

      •  I read the speech

        There was no "plan" for regulation, only vague calls for more or at least smarter regulation. While this is welcome, it's not a plan.

        by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM PDT

        •  Maybe we should wait and see

          what the economic landscape looks like a year from now before proposing specific legislation to address it?  Just a thought.

          by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM PDT

          •  He outlined types of regulation needed.

            which is all he could reasonably do at this time.

            It was a good outline for action.

            A real plan will involve developing legislation and a strategy for pushing it through. That comes next year this time.

            I'm wondering if Hillary hasn't offered Krugman an important position in her administration. He is acting like someone who is part of her campaign.

            by FishOutofWater on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM PDT

            •  He doesn't just want to change policy.

              He wants to change the mindset that got us into these policies.  

              That is what he presented, and it is a necessary, tone-setting first step.  Tone is everything, because it will shape the environment in which the actual legislation is authored.  And probably not authored by Obama, but by those economics he identifies as having the correct frame of mind and the proper experience.

              It's a new day.  Sniping about policy in this regard is missing the point.

              by spotDawa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM PDT

              •  economics? economists. lol

                by spotDawa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for this insight

      You could probably build a good diary around this premise.

      I think that's a large part of why I find Obama so appealing compared to "typical" politicians. A typical politician gives the impression of having started at a desired result - some policy they want to implement or a position to support - and, starting from there, build up a rationalization, offering background and supporting facts only as necessary to buttress their overall thesis, and ignoring any facts or background that get in the way. The solution is decided in advance; the argument is made solely for the purpose of getting other people on board with your desired solution.

      Obama, by contrast - well, you said it:

      Most of what Obama did is to diagnose the problem, and in this he did quite a good job connecting the dots.

      But that's Obama's thing: he's good and even bold when it comes to describing a problem

      He recognizes - and this is a key recognition - that understanding a problem is the necessary first step to solving it. Furthermore, he seems to take the position that it's not enough that he understand the problem and come up with a solution. If only he and his advisors and allies in DC understand the rationale behind the solution they come up with, it'll be a pretty hard sell to actually get legislation passed, and a hard sell to get the general population to support what he's doing. Instead, he wants to make sure that the general public understands the true nature and background of the problem before he moves onto how it should be solved.

      So the decision not to make a bold and aggressive prescription for a solution to the problem, I think, is a deliberate one. He's saying - look, a lot of you are going to disagree with any particular suggestion I make as to what we should do, but let's defer that issue for a minute and make sure we're all on the same page as to what the problem is we're trying to solve. We might disagree on how to solve it, but if we all recognize the same problem, then we all understand we're on the same side, ultimately, in that we all want it solved.

      Since the office of the President isn't a legislative position and all he will have is a bully pulpit, taking a stance of "here's a diagnosis of the problem and some general guidelines as to what I think some of the ingredients of the solution are" is, I think, a much better approach for a President than a "we need to do A, B, C, D and E - don't worry your little minds about WHY we need to do those things, just pass the legislation and all will be well because I say so" approach. Or, for that matter, McCain's "I don't really understand what's going on here, so... just keep doing what you're doing and I'm sure everything will work itself out" approach :)

      by sab39 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM PDT

      •  thanks for this

        I've felt this for a while, but hadn't seen many people articulate it.

        by mertmh on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM PDT

      •  It's also the classic executive bahavior...

        ...of one who has no f'ing ideas of what to do. We'll see...

        by kck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM PDT

        •  There you have it:

          It's also the classic executive bahavior...
          ...of one who has no f'ing ideas of what to do. We'll see...

          Too often, the executive thinks it's his/her job to come up with all the solutions, without actually understanding all sides of an issue.

          I'd rather see an Executive (in the "Executive Branch") who knows what questions to ask in order to fully understand the problem. Then, work with a team of ADVISORS who offer up myriad solutions and then the Executive chooses what s/he thinks is the best, or combination of the best solutions.

          As I see it, the Executive is the "big picture" person, who's job it is to educate everyone and make clear that everyone's particular issues are being addressed, in order to get everyone on board. (When I say "everyone, I mean virtually everyone or many peoples--it's obviously impossible to address EVERYONEs issues)

          sab39 laid it out beautifully, as to what makes Obama a great (hopeful) President.

          by Samwoman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM PDT

          •  I agree, but also, what I said is true

            To be an effective exec you need to know how you're doing, what to watch, who to trust, where you are on goal...and in your areas of expertise, a clear vision. Hillary is by all means still being high level and not in any way too operational. The other end of the spectrum is Bush who slept in the Katrina briefing. This is not black and white...

            by kck on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM PDT

    •  Agreed, and with Krugman also. But I like Obama's

      ...proposal to regulate at the activity level rather than at the company level. Not a new idea, a business solution out of the 80's, but never applied to regulatory practices as it should be.

      by kck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:35:52 PM PDT

    •  I think you hit the mark on Obama.....

      with your "bold description" vs "cautious solution" observation. I have mentioned this dichotomy since the beginning of his campaign--I speculated that it might be the main cause if he ultimately lost the primary election--the fact that his history of action did not match the soaring height of his rhetoric, and people would be let down.

      Obama detractors cite this as evidence of insincerity, but I totally disagree. Having followed his career--that's just the way he is. He refuses to take the easy way out, or respond in slogans. He addresses complex issues with complex solutions and that tends to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Plus, he is pragmatic and tends to focus on achievable solutions rather than orthodoxy.

      So, the question is--how does this translate into an effective Presidency (or does it?). It seems that no candidate (ever) has the perfect combination of knowledge and skills--they all have strengths and weaknesses. Clinton has demonstrated a prodigious talent for mastering facts and a dogged focus on the  various details of an issue. IMO, however, she lacks a broader understanding of interacting factors (knows every detail about the tree, but doesn't even realize she is in a forest), lacks a broader vision outside of her personal ambition, and is tone-deaf politically.

      I guess I come down on the side of preferring the leader with the superior vision and insight. To me "implementers" are a dime a dozen in Washington--inspirational leaders only come along once in a generation.

      As Kuttman pointed out, Obama has a tremendous capacity for growth--in that, he resembles JF Kennedy more than anything else. That's another reason why I support him.

      by Azdak on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:50 PM PDT

•  Thank you for this. I've been curious about

  the reaction to the Econ speech Obama gave yesterday after hearing CNN's response immediately following as: "Obama basically said the same thing that Secretary Paulsen said (read: 'nothin' to see here folks, move along.')."

  by Samwoman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

  •  It got decent coverage

    It got decent coverage in PA.  A lot of these things play with much more substance locally.  That's the target audience, but it does become part of the larger narrative.  Hey, if I had my way MSM would only be talking about the obvious brilliance of Barack Obama 24/7.  But alas, we settle for what we get.  

    by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM PDT

•  No idea what's up

  I have absolutely no idea what has gotten into Paul Krugman!  If you prefer her (for some unknown reason), fine.  But to savage Obama is weirdly over the top.  And he's been doing it for months.  

  To ignore Hillary's corporatist ties is inexcusable.  The minutiae of their programs is not reason enough to practically slander the guy.  It's way out of balance, from someone whose balance I've long respected.

  What do we call these otherwise good men like Krugman and Joe Wilson, who turn into Karen Hughes clones for Hillary?  I'm perplexed.

  by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM PDT

  •  Well said,

    but for some reason I can't rec you. there's no button thingi

    by notquitedelilah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:07 PM PDT

    •  I'm real new

      I'm real new to blogging, and have no idea how to get a "rec" box.  Fill out a profile, maybe?  

      Can I ask a really stupid question:  how do I access other profiles so I can get a feel for how to write one.  

      At 57 years old, I'm still learning.....

      by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM PDT

      •  *

        Post a diary, and you'll get the rec box.

        Click on the name at the bottom of the comment to go to a person's profile.

        Hope that helps.

        by Progressive Traditionalist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:02:09 PM PDT

        •  No

          I was able to rec diaries and comments for a long time before I ever posted my own first diary.

          by Catte Nappe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:33 PM PDT

          •  You do have a rec box now

            I just rec'd you.

            by notquitedelilah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM PDT

            •  There's been a lot of site maintenance lately

              Often when that happens my buttons come and go.

              by Catte Nappe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18:36 PM PDT

            •  Well, thank you, notquitedelilah!

              This old broad needs all the help she can get.  

              You mean all my sage advice the last few weeks has been overlooked?  Ah, well.....

              Thanks again.

              by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:28 PM PDT

              •  No, your comments should have gotten thru

                It's just the recommend/hide buttons that tend to go away when ct is doing his maintenance.  You won't have a hide button for awhile, though, because you have to earn trusted user status to get one.  But don't despair if you don't -- some of us have been here several times daily for four years and have only sporadically had the ability to vote to hide other people's injudicious comments.  One can be very happy here, I think, without needing to obsess over whether there's a hide button to use -- and believe me, from what I've seen, there are indeed people who obsess over it.  Welcome 57!

                by worldwideellen on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM PDT

        •  Make sure you are logged in

          Sometimes the whole system logs everyone out. When you open dKos, look up on the right, under Home, to be sure your name is there. If not, scroll down a bit and hit log in. Once you are in, go to the diary you want to see, and you will be able to recommend comments. You do not have to be a trusted user to rec., only to troll rate. Try it. It's easy.

          by martyc35 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM PDT

      •  click a posters name

        and it will take you to his profile.

        Its easy, nothing to be done here.  You can list your favorite blogs and other people will be able to see them when you post a diary.
        You can add a signature that appears at the bottom of your post box, mine is a shakespear quote.

        Welcome to Dkos. I hope o see you around often.

        You can also go to the FAQ section it s really helpful.

        by notquitedelilah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM PDT

        •  Thanks again

          I, too have Shakespeare quotes to use.  

          Thanks again.

          by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:39:35 PM PDT

  •  Obama has become Krugman's white whale

    "He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it."
    ~Melville

    by Pav on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:51:29 PM PDT

    •  But why Obama?

      Isn't it just weird?  

      by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM PDT

      •  Some progressives have a real problem feeling...

        comfortable with anything mainstream. It can be too threatening to actually have to commit to someone or something--easier to stay on the sideline and throw rocks.

        by Azdak on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM PDT

        •  I think it's a complex

          Some have a deep seated belief that the country is, by nature, bitterly divided. As a result, anyone who is wildly popular throughout a broad spectrum of people is naturally suspect because to get that support he must have sold out.

          by Pav on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM PDT

  •  BHO is the more moderate.

    Krugs wants a more liberal candidate.  Fairly simple.

    by burrow owl on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM PDT

    •  except he is backing clinton

      who is not a more liberal candidate.

      by Liberal Youth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

      •  Krugman is not backing Clinton..

        She is the more liberal IMO (note the econ plans), but Krugman doesn't seem to like her enough to endorse her. He seemed to like John Edwards the most as a person (as I did) but Krugman endorsed HRC's health plan as the best of the 3 (and my #1 reason for supporting HRC) although JRE's was his 2'nd choice.

        I think Krugman can be trusted at his word, even if you disagree. He is way more devoted to the issues than the candidates.

        by kck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:50:00 PM PDT

        •  see i look to more

          than her current plans because those may not look anything near what they are now before they get out of the senate. her votes on flag burning and some other social issues including faith based programs mark her as less liberal on that part of the spectrum imo.

          also i do think krugman is devoted to issues but i think he seems to miss other things that are going to be important going forward regarding technology. Obama is way better regarding tech issues imo. he has also been more open about his records and such. that issue is more about a persons willingness to open up to scrutiny and have high transparency.

          by Liberal Youth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:00:20 PM PDT

          •  Thank you for the polite thoughts.

            On your last count, I agree in principle. But Obama's not been open to the press regarding himself, he has been open with Senate activity and worked for Senate transparency, for which I was approving.  But the jury is still out as to how successful he can be with what degree of openness with an adversarial press. His reputation is that he gives no time for the press, not unlike Hillary, opposite to McCain.

            His local paper published complaints that he was less than open with them (which I have no problem with) which precipitated his recent sit down with the Tribune and now they're satisfied. Hillary's treatment of the press (i.e., secrecy) is partially a function of her treatment by the press and partly her experience. We'll see how that all plays out in the future. The press must be adversarial but they don't know how to do that without also being sensational and titillating for ratings for which they seem to prefer ruining to informing.

            As an IT exec, I liked Obama's strategy paper, albeit not all of the details (i.e., telecom IP stds relies on too much cooperation over regulation). It's a nice feature to get an IT strategy from a Presidential candidate. Novel, not quite part of the qualifications, but I liked it...I like and respect him. I just find him less ready. We'll see...I've voted for plenty of fine losers: McCarthy, McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Gore.

            by kck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:55:49 PM PDT

      •  Clinton is considerably more liberal. nt.

        by burrow owl on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:16:27 PM PDT

    •  Except that there's no way

      in hell of portraying Hillary as the "more liberal" candidate, economically or otherwise.

      The author refrains from identifying her with Bill's policies but I don't know why.  I haven't seen one iota of evidence to suggest she would differ at all from Bill, on any issue.

      by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM PDT

  •  Krugman is always on solid ground with economics

    ... but on politics, not so much. He's still cool for the most part, but sometimes I think he lets his focus on the candidates' personalities get the better of his judgment when it comes to who can actually get progressive policies enacted by Congress.

    And his column a couple of months ago about how the Obama campaign was the one slinging Hillary hate and dividing the party was really, seriously, reality challenged.

    by philimus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM PDT

    •  What I hate about Krugman

      is his attempts to equate the terms "progressive" and "liberal."
      Two different things.

      With Obama & Clinton we have two fairly old school third wayers-- centrist economically, mid-left socially.

      by Progressive Traditionalist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM PDT

  •  Everything you said

    pretty much applies to all Hillary supporters right now!

    They have lost all semblance of rationality!

    by oscarsmom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:11:55 PM PDT

•  Krugman's off the rails

  Just goes to show how much the primary infighting is warping our views.

  by Bindle on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM PDT

•  Krugman is fine by me.

  I like him because he doesn't bend with every passing breeze, unlike so very many pundits.

  by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM PDT

•  thank you,

  Krugman is human, and like everyone else has biases that cloud his judgement.
  For him to prefer a third Clinton administration, an administration that first gave us deregulation of financial Institutions, NAFTA and the WTO is laughable.

  On this issue he has no credibility with me.

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:49 PM PDT

•  I am not sweating

  Krugman anymore. He probably has a Clinton bias but so it goes. Free country. He has no impact on voters, that is pretty clear at this point.

  I am just letting it go and hope that he will support Obama come the fall. If he is on the McCain bandwagon in the fall, I will concede he has a real personal issue with Obama.

  by Hawkjt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM PDT

•  This primary season...

  has made it much more clear to me that the politics of personal destruction happens on both sides of the aisle. I'm beginning to understand why the Republicans went after Joe Wilson and Eliot Spitzer, for that matter, even though they should all be thrown in jail for outing Valerie Plame. They all play the same game and it's destroying our government.

  by Robin in PA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:45:08 PM PDT

•  I was pretty certain that Krugman's

  column today was going to focus on Obama's speech, because of the venue, introduction by Bloomberg, and the long series of substantive and explicit policies in it (Krugman had criticized Obama for lack of specificity).

  But no.  Same old Krugman, writing like Obama ran over his dog and Clinton slipped him an envelope full of cash.

  by Pangloss on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, me too.

    Just days ago in his last column, Krugman called financial regulation "the key issue".  He expressed doubt that either candidate would tackle it sufficiently.  Well, Obama hit a home run on the issue and Krugman barely recognizes it before taking aim at him on other things.  Bizarre.

    by ManahManah on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM PDT

    •  Wish I could rec again for the sig line... n/t

      by Sinocco on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:11:54 PM PDT

•  Too bad there's no argument in that argument.

  Kuttner's praise is limited primarily to Obama's historical and justificatory exegesis (which really was splendid), and doesn't address Krugman's points.  I suspect that that's because Kuttner knows Krugman is right.

  by burrow owl on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:55:49 PM PDT

•  Krugman's orthodoxy

  is better than most, but he's having a helluva time keeping up with the unorthodox approaches Obama offers.  He doesn't know how to fit them into his list of acceptable constructs, so he thinks they must be wrong.  He's proven to be a terribly inflexible thinker these last few months, but that doesn't make him bad and hopefully he'll see past his predeterminations at some point.

  by huckleberry on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM PDT

  •  unorthodox?

    Krugman's problem with Obama stems from his stance on the SSA coming from the right-wing construct. Rightly so. It's our most sacred institution and on that subject and it is disgusting that Obama has expressed any degree of the non-sensical conservative blather on the subject.    

    by blameau on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM PDT

    •  Precisely

      he's got specific terms he wants to hear and ones he doesn't, and his ears pricked with Obama's wrong framing of Social Security.  His value is as an economist, but his political lenses have kept him from delivering on that value in this race.  

      I don't like how Obama talks about Social Security that much either, frankly (though I'm not ready to jump off a cliff about it).  However, for Krugman to fail as badly as he did to understand Obama's economic speech this week is telling.  He wants to hear familiar programs for familiar problems, which is what Clinton is offering him.  He's unwilling to expand from his orthodoxy.

      by huckleberry on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM PDT

      •  At some point, it helps to acknowledge that there

        might be more than one way to achieve a solution to a problem. I agree with you that Krugman at times seems more committed to enforcing purity troll standards than actually achieving positive changes.

        I find the whole "using right wing talking points" statement to be one of the more shallow and tedious arguments used around here.

        by Azdak on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM PDT

•  Surprised (but not shocked) by Krugman's response

  I was pretty sure Krugman would finally have something positive to say about Obama after yesterday's speech - I thought it was brilliant.

  Reading Krugman this morning, I wondered if he had even seen the same speech I did - or if maybe my own partisan filters were responsible for a biased, overenthusiastic response.

  Thanks for the link to Kuttner's column - I feel much better now.

  by Sinocco on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM PDT

  •  here's what I don't get

    If he wants to compare the two candidates and has decided that Obama is the more moderate, okay. (I question that, frankly; and even Krugman in his blog went off on Hillary turning the mortgage crisis over to Greenspan and Rubin)

    But Hillary ain't no revolutionary here.  So why trash Obama so viciously and praise Hillary so much?  

    Don't get it.  

    by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM PDT

•  After reading the comments so far,

  I'm inclined to say it has to be the Social Security issue for Krugman. Anyone who followed K through all of W's machinations on SS has to know how passionate he is about it.  Once Obama has the nomination, a full-scale people's lobby to straighten him out on SS must begin. Krugman is still right on that issue, but there is no reason to believe Obama can't learn. He shows every sign of being a quick learner:-).

  by martyc35 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM PDT