The Price of Popularity

Paul Krugman warns about the mounting attention Democrats are getting from big ticket donors in yesterday's New York Times (echoed last week in Slate). His thesis is simple: as the Democrats solidify their popularity for this November and beyond, companies are likely to re-direct their lobbying efforts to the democratic side of the field. Krugman worries about the implications of this for the progressive agendas of the presidential candidates.

Although Krugman offers only one example:

…yesterday ABC News reported on its Web site that the Clinton campaign is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing — at the offices of the Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, which lobbies for the agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto…

it does raise serious concerns about the price of popularity.

Many people concerned with middle class issues will cite the Clinton presidency's failure to address many of the issues affecting the middle class, including his failure to pass universal health care, his emphasis on cutting welfare benefits, and the administration's failure to properly reform the tax code.

Does this mounting popularity mean an end to hard line positions on global warming? Will this be another Kyoto protocol? Do corporate benefits threaten to undermine new thrusts towards universal health care? What does this mounting popularity mean?