A few days ago Artios posted the following description of the candidates:
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
Similiarly, Krugman has slowly been hammering at Obama with multiple articles against him and then this interview and article which explicitly calls him an "anti-change candidate":
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
Krugman and Atrios (and for that matter Jerome Armstrong) seem to be intentionally misunderstanding what Barack stands for ... (more)
It is simply not enough to "fight" the system as Edwards would do, but one must gather a ground swell of Americans to support change. This is what the "movement" is about. And this "movement", plain and simply cannot only include Democrats, it must also include Independents and Republicans voters. The historical precendent for this is undeniable (see here and here).
Does that mean that one has to be moderate or reach across the aisle? No, I agree with Krugman that the Republican establishment is a bunch of extremists (for the funniest analysis of this see Lincoln Chafee's interview with John Stewart). But there are real life Republicans and Independents out there who are rather nice people (if misguided). Demonizing them, is little different than them demonizing us. Obama's goal has always been to reach across America, not across the aisle.
But the problem with Krugman is that he is being intellectually dishonest. I agree with him that Healthcare is the wedge for a social democrat state. Its political implications are huge. The fact of the matter is housing in this country is cheap (depending where one chooses to live), food in this country is cheap, education can be free (though higher ed is becoming an issue), and clothing can be cheap as well. The real economic issue for Americans is healthcare (and possibly soon transportation). It is the uncontrollable cost. It is the crisis cost, it hits when are struggling and hits harder when you are down. It is a huge indicator of your ability to work and the quality of your education.
Hillary's team suggests that it is ok to bring up Republican talking points about Barack's character, but making objective arguments against her policy is not allowed? Is there anyone of us that believes that mandates are going to play well? And they aren't even that important. The goal should be that mandates are not necessary. If you do a good enough job fixing the healthcare system, mandates should not be necessary. If there are a few million people getting a free ride, when the rest of the system is implemented, go ahead and mandate them - but it is much more palatable to mandate a few 20 something males to buy insurance than to buy a Wii. Than to start making working class Americans choose between food on the table and not yet affordable health insurance.
I understand Krugman's belief that having these people add to the health insurance system brings down overall price. But he is therefore using the health insurance system as a redistribution of wealth rather than actually reducing cost in the system. That seems far less likely to sell.
But the intellectual dishonesty is even more apparent when it comes to Social Security. I agree it was mistake for Barack to use the word "crisis". But as can be seen by the policy he suggests he believes it is far more manageable. His policy described below, does far more to defuse the debate than Hillary's blue ribbon bi-partisan commission, which is far more likely to lead to a suggestion of private accounts:
Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security.
In the end I like all three of our candidates (though, as one would guess, I support Obama). I think Edwards response to the mandates question was honest and direct. I cannot say I feel the same about Hillary's reponse to Social Security issues. I also don't see these arguments necessarily being about electability. I think all of our candidates are electable. The question is who do we believe can deliver on change. I personally believe that Obama and Edwards are the most likely to push for the change we want on domestic and foreign policy, which unlike Krugman (see above) I do believe is still important.
There are those that would say the "populist" message appeals across the political spectrum (though I think we underestimate the negatives of populism). I agree with this and I think that Edwards message does have cross party appeal. But the stridency of his message, can turn people off. If I work for a health insurance company (as an adminstrative assistant), will his attacks hurt my job? It's not as easy to distinguish "us" versus "them" as Edwards seems to imply.
But unlike Atrios, I do not believe it is a decision between the candidate that will use his personality to create change versus the candidate that will fight to create change. I believe it is between the candidate that believes people must be united to change and the person who believes that fighting is necessary to change. At a time when we have an opportunity to reach out to moderate voters (not moderate leaders - I am not sure these exist), I believe that the history of Lincoln, TR, FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson shows us that unity leads to change, not stridency.
I understand those who disagree with this belief, since none of us knows which approach to change will definitely work. I do not agree with those that do not believe that Obama stands for change and I disagree with those, like Atrios, that misrepresent Obama's approach.
"The system sucks, we can change it"