Letters to the Editor
-
Krugman not getting Obama
Why does Krugman consistently ignore Obama's big ideas in the columnist's quest to understand the "magic."
One of the main reasons I support Obama is that he has drawn attention to divisive politics as the real enemy of progress in this country. It is why people don't trust our government - they will say anything - and why people don't understand, and are too divided to rally around, important federal initiatives - election reform, healthcare and education reform (NCLB travesty) are just a few examples. To hear mainstream news and official commentary on any of those challenges is to hear the same shallow often offensive sound bites shouted back and forth ad nausea. The level of national discourse is nothing short of depressing for me.
That is a big problem that only seems clear and surmountable after Obama articulated it so well.
Leaders should think big and hire policy wonks.
Krugman may not think as big as Obama, but he is smart enough to take the question further than "what is the magic all about?" Krugman, a Clinton supporter, should read the recent article by his fellow Times columnist, Kristof, on selective listening/reasoning: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17kristof.html.
But what troubles me most about Krugman's fantastically simple description of the Obama "magic" is the inherent insult to the intelligence of Obama's supporters. Of course, many will get angry when reading this. It's just another divisive simplification, the sort that Obama wants to move beyond.
-
@thalman
Obama's message may have been one of ending divisiveness, but his campaign has evidenced the usual split between theory and practice, at times to a rather extraordinary degree. In short: Obama is nothing new under the sun and unfortunately, that was the original, entire thrust of his campaign. This leaves him nowhere to go, really.
-
Yawn: Salon hates Obama
and looks for any excuse to regurgitate the crap of other anti-Obama hacks.
What else is new?
-
@cythera45
What's gone wrong is that working class voters can smell bullshit quicker and more accurately than starry-eyed kids and rich liberal idiots.
Then how do you explain George Bush? While the haves and the have-mores certainly contributed, I do believe a lot of working class voters voted directly against their own interest and checked the box next to this imbecile's name, to disastrous effect.
That aside, I'm not sure how you see Hillary's campaign as being bullshit-free. Sniper fire ring a bell?
As for matching words with actions, Hillary talks a good game about restoring the constitution and the rule of law. But where was she when the most important vote in this regard was taking place in the Senate, regarding telecom immunity? She apparently had a scheduling conflict. (McCain, always the good authoritarian, voted in favor of telecom immunity, so at least his words and rhetoric match.)
I understand your comment wasn't meant to be thoughtful or intelligent. Maybe I've just wasted my time.
-
Koppelman, You Should SURELY Know Better
I don't understand, Alex, why you are quoting KRUGMAN for analysis of this race. He clearly has gulped the Clinton Kool-Aid and cannot in the least be seen as objective.
Hillary is smart and wonky. Great. She impresses people with her knowledge and potential solutions. Wonderful. But she and her campaign only remind people of the worst aspects of politics and politicians. She turns people OFF with her self centeredness, negativity, divisiveness, her ME FIRST attitude, and scorched earth campaign.
"Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site."
Did Krugman read them? Analyze them? LINK to them so people who were unfamiliar with his site read Obama's proposals for themselves? Krugman is so blinded by his hatred of Obama that outside of Obama's health care plan, he can't even bother to investigate whether Obama's policies are good ones. Instead, he castigates Obama for having a personality, for being able to INSPIRE people (since when is this a bad thing?), for asking people to rise above petty politics that do absolutely nothing to improve their lives.
What Krugman fails to understand is that while policies lend legitimacy, personality gets people elected. Obama has both strong policies and a warm, inspiring personality. Krugman, on the other hand, just has a bug up his ass. Maybe he'll realize what a dick he's been after the elections are over.
-
@cythera45
What's gone wrong is that working class voters can smell bullshit quicker and more accurately than starry-eyed kids and rich liberal idiots.
That aside, I'm not sure how you see Hillary's campaign as being bullshit-free. Sniper fire ring a bell?
To say nothing of her ever-evolving positions on NAFTA and other trade agreements.
There's a reason she's losing big to McCain in Michigan (where Obama leads McCain by a solid margin).
-
Re: We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For
It means stop waiting for someone else to change things and help change things yourself.
Isn't that special?
-
Superficial analysis
Krugman hinted at the "residual support for Bill Clinton" well enough ("the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had"). Obama's problem is that he ditched the Clintons; so he can't claim anything good from Bill Clinton's presidency for the Democrats.
"the argument that recent attacks coming from the Clinton campaign account for her popularity in the demographic " hasn't been made by krugman, sorry.
@thalman
One may "get Obama" and still think it will not work. That's the pleasant wording...
For one thing, as KateTex observed, theory and his campaign reality differ a lot. See the comment on Clinton's presidency above - he has been as divisive as Bush with "old partisan" and "new enlightend" politics (old and new Europe anyone?). He did this from the start to attack Clinton at a very personal level.
So, he can't win over power hungry, fear mongering Hillary to eat grass with the sheep. What makes you think the approach might work with power hungry, fear mongering Republicans?
If you have a ideological divide like "low debts" vs "low taxes", you cannot just meet in the middle somewhere. When they had lost their mayorities, Republicans redefined themselves by their ideals (one of the big advantages of opposition - you don't get a chance to try them out and see them fail). They don't want a Dem president to succeed (at least not big and without them publicly correcting his faults), because that would erode their own claim to power. Remember the "Contract with America"?
It is a sad truth that partisanship increased to a dangerous level now, but covering debates by TV won't fix this. Partisanship eroded checks and balances, big time. But I see no really promising remedy here. For one thing it would mean to forego some of the president's powers, and even Obama didn't promise that...