Mr. Rosenberg, I also believe Clinton and Edward's health plans are preferable to Obama's. Like you this does not seem to me to be the only issue in this campaign. But your criticism of Krugman for using every column he writes to bash Obama over this would carry more weight if you acknowledged that Krugman has equally bashed Clinton over her consistently more hawklike approach to Iraq and foreign policy generally, What's that? Krugman essentially never deals with this? oh. nevermind.

Here is from November 2007, Daily News:

"BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Sunday, November 25th 2007, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Is Hillary Clinton the hawk masquerading as the dove? Some Democrats who know her security advisers fear her war in Iraq will be just as bloody as George Bush's.

Party critics foresee an aggressive Clinton administration pressing the fight in Iraq - and possibly in Iran, too.

Their dark concerns stem from the stable of hawkish advisers Clinton has recruited for her war council, who helped craft her recent saber-rattling over Iran and Iraq, as well as from her muscular voting record on national security.

By contrast, Barack Obama's war council consists of ex-Clintonistas who were opposed to invading Iraq.

"A lot of Obama's advisers thought this was a stupid war in 2002, and a lot of Hillary's advisers thought it was a good idea in 2002," said one Democrat with a national security résumé. "That's the original sin which causes people to make some choices."

"The campaign's advisers reflect a broad spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party," countered Clinton national security guru Lee Feinstein. "The candidate makes her own decisions about her foreign policy positions."

Clinton's wise men are well-known for having been gung-ho about the invasion of Iraq, but highly critical of Bush's bungled occupation. Most, like Sandy Berger and Richard Holbrooke, were top national security aides to her husband, President Bill Clinton. One prominent adviser who opposed the war is former Gen. Wesley Clark.

Richard Clarke, Tony Lake and Susan Rice all worked for Bill Clinton's National Security Council, but they opposed invading Iraq - and they now advise Obama.

The candidates haven't been clear about how fast they'll bring G.I.s home, but Clinton is viewed skeptically by some insiders.

"I don't think anyone in the party thinks she'll significantly reduce the occupation in Iraq," said a Democratic operative who is not aligned with any campaign.

This all rings true to Boston University foreign policy expert Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army officer who doubts Clinton will put a tourniquet on the bleeding. "She is not a peace candidate," said the anti-war scholar, whose soldier son was killed fighting in Iraq this year. "To vote for Hillary Clinton is to vote for a very hawkish Democrat."

Clinton recently wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that she'll keep troops in Iraq to target "Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region." But she didn't explain who those "other" terrorists are.

Another Foreign Affairs essay, co-written in 2004 by Feinstein, is also drawing scrutiny. It argues Bush's controversial doctrine of "preemptive" war - attacking an enemy before it attacks the U.S. - "does not go far enough."

Feinstein, a former Defense and State department official, supported ousting Saddam in 2003 and believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since then he has championed the concept of a "duty to prevent," which justifies preemptive strikes. He said the U.S. should try to build coalitions, but that it can attack without allies' support.

Clinton's camp insists her voting record matches Obama's on national security. But she voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, before he was elected to the Senate.

In September, Clinton cast a vote - which Obama skipped - to label Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terror group, giving Bush license to designate them sponsors of terrorism.

"She could be voted 'most likely to bomb the hell out of Iran' among the Democratic field," a party insider said.

Countered Feinstein: "Like many other Democrats ... Sen. Clinton voted for this resolution because she believes a combination of diplomacy and economic pressure is the best way to avert a war and end Iran's nuclear program."

Well, a couple of thoughts in response, MJ.

First, for Krugman (as for many here) policy differences are very serious stuff, worthy of going into battle for or against fully equipped. Do you think his steady drumbeat of criticism of Bush over the years is based on personality? I don't. I think it's based on passionate disagreement on policy.

Second, I think you underestimate the role of the president in what we all can hope will be the upcoming health care battle, whenever that takes place.

As the one with by far the best bully pulpit the president has a powerful opportunity to frame the discussion--and, if she or he so chooses, to engage the public as the debate plays out, providing status reports that can include debunking false claims opponents are making. The president could, for example, use Saturday radio addresses to do this. Or deliver nationally televised "checkin" public addresses, say, every two months. ("I want to report to you, as I've said I would, on how things are going with the battle for health care for all Americans...") I think the public would welcome that even if and as much of the MSM would get sarcastic and cynical and dismissive about it.

In addition, as you know, often when major legislation is discussed among the key players in Congress, the president is represented in these meetings by staff who weigh in on the various issues. Congress, by the very nature of the process leading to the passage of complex legislation, is capable of passing something that when you take it as a whole simply does not work (take the Medicare drug bill the Republicans rammed through as an example. Please, take it. But only after you arrange for its repeal within the context of the comprehensive overhaul the entire system desperately needs.) This may be because no single member of Congress understands the entire piece of legislation.

When we're talking about a bill that would affect 15% of the US economy I certainly hope that one role the president's representative would play in ongoing discussions is to make sure anything Congress would ultimately pass would be workable as policy! If it is not, and cannot be fixed through the regulatory or implementation processes, the president *should* veto it! A bill that would throw the current situation into even greater turmoil should not find its way into law. The potential to cause injury or death to our fellow citizens is simply too great when it comes to health care. This is a sensible "conservative" (or cautious, if you prefer) way of engaging the health care issue: in other words, be very careful and thorough as you proceed with a policy overhaul this massive, affecting so many people in such profound ways.

After all, if the president signs a big bill into law and it is fatally flawed and turns into a disaster it's the president who is first and foremost on the line. "If it was unworkable, why did you sign it?" is a very reasonable criticism to make if such a situation were to come to pass. I think Democrats as a rule simply understand government and how to make it work far better than Republicans do as a rule. So I would feel more optimistic that a bill passed by a Democratic Congress would in fact be workable. But I can also imagine it being otherwise.

As someone who prefers Obama to Hillary, at first I was a bit mystified by the tenor of Krugman's animus towards Obama. And to some degree I still am. I think he can be the same pull-no-punches Krugman without being quite so caustic. But, you know, I think he cares about how it all comes out, I really do. And I love him for it. And I also think you overstate your case.

Krugman is making two big mistakes. The first has to do with his influence as a columnist. By constantly attacking Obama, he is turning off the 50% of Democrats who favor Obama as our nominee. People like me can no longer read him without thinking "What's up with this guy?

Are you kidding? Do you not see the irony here? Here's a little exercise: substitute "TPM" for "Krugman", and replace "Obama" with "Clinton".

Still work for you?

MJ,

I no longer think that Krugman understands how our system works.

You and I have some understanding of politics and the political process, in all its imperfections. It is inherently unpredictable but winds up giving the widest possible scope for government decisions that effect a lot of people.

Krugman comes from a very different world. Economics today is a branch of mathematics that works towards certainty of prediction and avoids messy, unpredictable situations like the plague. It long ago ceased to be Political-economics and ceded the whole political thing to the politicians, and academically, to the Political Scientists.

As a discipline now Economics can sometimes provide insight into possible political decisions, but economics itself is simply too limited to provide a real guide to how government should work. Government can't ignore economics, but when it allows economic thinking to drive its decisions to the exclusion of qualitative factors is is almost invariably wrong.

Krugman sees Obama's proposals as the end-state of the process. That's what economists do. They design ideal end-states for hypothetical situations. Those of us more familiar and comfortable with the political process understand completely that those proposals are only a starting point.

So when you read Krugman, just remember that he is an economist who writes well and clearly (a rare skill) but that does not mean that he has any real understanding of how our political institutions work - or more important, why they work the way they do.

Read Krugman for his strengths, and be aware of his limitations. His readers have to be aware of those limitations, because he is not.

As a side note, most Libertarians that I know have a similar emotional need for a goal with a predictable ending and avoid messy situations like the plague.

MJ:

You can still read Krugman and just giggle when he states things that you think are silly, lopsided, dogmatic, or absurdly black and white. Trust me it works. In fact, this post is prima facie evidence that this strategy works.

/c

Krugman's problem is that he has become a full-blown pundit, living in pundit-world, talking to pundit-people, drinking pundit-postum with his peanut-butter-pundit-puffs breakfast cereal. He has lost the necessary critical distance that it takes to make effective and fair-minded analysis.
Krugman used to be an economist, but now he is way too deep in the columnist game. Indeed, the same can be said about Frank Rich, who used to be a sharp cultural critic but is now too deep in the game himself. It is all getting pretty tedious and predictable.

The problem with your essay is that Krugman has been right over and over for years about everything related to the economy, the Bush administration, etc. He's sharp as hell and now he sees through the vagaries and somewhat meekly progressive Obama policy platform. And he won't be silenced because Obamaites can't stand any criticsm of their leader.

Now I like Obama a lot & think he'll make a great president and hope to vote for him in November. But too many of his supporters (like you) seem so enraptured about him that they accept his not-so-bold approach to actual policies that affect actual people. Krugman sees through this and calls it like it is, just as he has been doing accurately for years with regards to the Bush administration.

So take off your blinders, accept that your candidate is good, but not perfect, and that maybe he should actually adjust his policies to reflect expert advice and true progressivism.

Evidently you might not recognize evenhandedness when you see it.

I do like your commenting name.

are you a rightwing troll or a Clinton troll?

Krugman is entitled not to support Obama. But there is more to it than that. He is snide and nasty and acts as if Obama has slighted him in some way. He seems petty.

If we were arguing about health care as being between a slow strip-tease and a quick full monty, there may be a case to be made for going for it. We are talking about health care, however, which will be held hostage by political practicalities in even the best case scenario. Obama seems to favor the strip tease of incrementalism. Take off a little bit here and a little bit there, and before long...voila! Clinton - with Krugman's apparent backing - seems to be going for the whole kit and kaboodle which, I would argue, is almost as unrealistic now as it was in 1993.

Neither is going for the ultimate full monty - a single payer system. (That's where the stripper walks out alone and naked at the beginning of the act.) So quite honestly I don't see what the fuss is about. We're either going for health care or we're not. The subtleties are far less important than the goal. And in this instance, both Obama and Clinton share virtaully the same goal. It's merely a question of style and Krugman seems to prefer Hillary's over Barack's. Big deal.

There's some serious Kool-Aid drinking going on here and I'm surprised to be seeing folks like Krugman and Joe Wilson spending so much time hanging around the punch bowl.

Let me answer the MJ's question, "What's up with this guy", Paul Krugman.
Paul Krugman doesn't understand that Obama words are just words. Krugaman is not the target audience. The target audience is "less discerning voters".
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804u/obamas-glamour

Obama’s glamour also accounts for some of his campaign’s other stumbles. Plenty of candidates attract supporters who disagree with them on some issues. Obama is unusual, however. He attracts supporters who not only disagree with his stated positions but assume he does too. They project their own views onto him and figure he is just saying what other, less discerning voters want to hear. So when Obama’s chief economic adviser supposedly told a Canadian official that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, the candidate didn’t want to revise NAFTA, reporters found the story credible. After all, nobody that thoughtful and sophisticated could really oppose free trade.

Unlike Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, the two glamorous presidents who shaped 20th-century American politics, Obama has left his political philosophy a mystery. His call for “a broad majority of Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill—who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal” is not a statement of principles. It’s an invitation to the audience to entertain their own fantasies of what national renewal would look like.

MJ
I had exactly the same feeling as you when I read the Krugman column.
Does anyone else remember the South Carolina debate when Hillary actually attacked Obama for his previous support of single payer? Shouldn't Krugman call her on that for the same reason he's down on Obama? Echoing a Republican talking point and pushing the health care debate to the right?
I really want to see what my former hero Krugman does when Obama's the nominee.

The truth is both of these health care plans suck. Instead of subsidizing insurance companies or giving individuals subsidies to buy health insurance we should just give them health insurance.

Wow. I just disagreed with Paul Krugman and lightning didn't strike me dead.

And M.J., I too am disappointed with Krugman. His last column taking a dig at Obama's response to the latest fiscal crisis was really bad. All you needed to do was turn to page A-16 so see how low Krugman has fallen.

I have different problem with Krugman. He's boring. Not because of the detail in his columns but because of the repetition. He was boring long before the primary started. When Bush was elected, Krugman's column became an extended, repetitive tirade. Like some know-it-all relative who delivers the same lecture every Thanksgiving, you know before you even see the headline that a Krugman column will be some variation on one of 5 topics:

1) The folly of the Iraq War
2) Bush's mismanagement of the economy
3) The inferiority of Obama's health care plan
4) The fragility (or resilience) of the economy. (He's almost always bearish in a bull market and bullish in a bear market.)
5) The folly of social security privatization -- obsolete since the plan was dropped.

These topics may evolve somewhat once the general election campaign starts in earnest. But I can promise you that Krugman will still confine himself to repeating the same self-righteous, heavy-handed arguments concerning a small set of topics, day after day. I used to think highly of him, and I valued his fierce responses to G.W., so I kept reading his column out of some sense of loyalty, but I just can't take it anymore. I now read Krugman only when there's nothing left in the paper.

I agree I don't think MJ recognizes balance when he sees it.

Bottom line- Obama concedes universal healthcare and single payer right from the beginning (a point Krugman made in an earlier column). Obama isn't going to spend political capital on either of those things. Hillary on the other hand knows the only way to get to single payer is to include a mandate (and she won't and can't accept anything less).

Once there is a mandate and you get congress to finally pass it(by giving them unimportant things) the only other thing you need in the bill to get to single payer is the idea that any company, any small business and any citizen can buy into the government plan. Once you have that you simply need to make sure that the government plan is the best and the cheapest. Viola capitalism immediately works to drive this country to single payer by choice. Hillary knows we can't start there or we will never make it. Obama doesn't get it as is obvious from his plan.

Obama isn't the progressive people think he is just as Mtnrad admits. Mtnrad may be ok with that but I am not. Hence Hillary is my gal. There are plenty of sites for MJ to go to to get his daily dose of uncritical Obama support and Hillary bashing so please leave me the great Paul Krugman.

Here's my question:

Why is it that when you critique someone's policy, you are automatically considered to be bashing them? I like Obama, I'm fine with him getting the nomination, but Krugman is right on about some of his policies. I don't remember Krugman saying anything about Obama being a baby-molester, a cold-hearted hypocrite, or anything even vaguely resembling something like that. What he did say is that Obama is using some strong-arm tactics in the fight against Hillary (and, to be fair, she's using them right back), that he's using right-wing talking points to support health reform that is not really reform (a statement I agree with), and that it will get lots worse if he gets the nomination (and it will). Just ask Max Clelland.

It's my position that Reagan didn't win the 1980 election by having superior positions - most of them had very few specifics and lots of vague platitudes. He won by making the word 'Liberal' a bad word and then mercilessly tagging Carter with it. I know this is a simplification of what happened, but most of our elections since have been about name-calling and not about who's got the best solution for getting this country out of the mess it's in. Obama's health plan basically keeps health care in the hands of the people who have created the mess in the first place and is not as good as Hillary's or [the real winner here] Edwards's. (Or is that Edwards'?)

And your article proves the point he makes about Obama followers, which is that they interpret any critique of his positions as an attack. C'mon - get out of the schoolyard. That's wrong, and it's playing by the Reagan Rules of Winning Elections instead of concentrating on the solutions. Divide and Conquer is how Democrats have lost 25 years of elections. Stop playing that game and let's talk about finally getting some Sunshine in America...

If you're talking about the NYT editorial page, you're right. But science writer Nicholas Wade is really good. His articles on where (domestic) cats come from are excellent and his book "Before the Dawn" about what has been learned in the last five or so years from DNA about the evolution and spread of human beings is simply outstanding.

I'll read any science article he writes.

Mr. Rosenberg,

I deeply respect the brave and ethical stances you have taken vis-a-vis the Iraq war, and the terrible lockdown AEI, and friends and other Likud aligned hardliners have imposed on American Foreign Policy. These policies have not been good for America and have most certainly not been good for Israel. All of us hope for a healthly and peaceful Israel. So much praise to you.

However I am going to strongly disagree with your criticism of Krugman here, as well as your blanket charateristic dismissal of Hillary's willingness to fight for what she believes in.

While I admire Obama for finally bringing up the question, if only by proxy in Cleveland, about whether we can be friends with Israel and not take the Likud line, (Of course we can. And we will.) I think there are profound differences on the domestic front that need to be addressed. And I think Obama's whole approach in declaring he will not re-fight the wars of the 90s is a giant disaster. We absolutely need universal health care coverage, we need stronger unions, we need higher taxes on the top 1%, and a sensible foreign policy that does not spend us into bankruptcy. It is precisely these differences that have prevented the Edward's from endorsing Obama. The disagreements between Elizabeth and Obama are profound, and she is too much of a gentle woman to bring this to the public attention.

That you would ascribe personal malice to Krugman is very disturbing. Here is a man, the only man in Main Stream Print who was loudly against Bush and his excesses at the time they were occurring. Here is a man who has nothing in his heart but the good of the country. Here is a man who has mapped out economically what is required for a restoration of the middle class. And a man that has been cast aside by the Obama movement only because his thesis points out the power of racial politics in keeping Republican control of the South and other parts of this nation.

And this is the key problem with the whole Obama platform, it presumes too much. We are not in a post racial America, we are not living in a functioning democracy, we are not living in the society in which men are disagreeing on principle. If we have learned nothing these last 8 years, we should clearly see that there is a large faction of people in this country, for whom principle is second to power. And they have run this country into the ground. And they will not make concessions even when forced. And if we are honest this is the same situation with a small faction of likud-types. And can you really blame them given the life or death consequences of some compromises they face?

So while I admire and support the alternative lobbying structure to outweigh AEI and friends whose bulwark you are helping to erect, and I admire the stance that Obama has taken to support this on the foreign policy side. It's not ready yet. And the other side is not simply going to disappear when they leave office. Much as the demographic story has told us, Obama's time is in the future, in 8 years when the under 35s are under 45 and some of the old guard are gone he wins everywhere hands down. And the same is true with this new lobbying organization- it takes time to build and function. But if we move too soon, without recognizing the complexity of reality, if we attempt to "will to power" our dreams, no matter how noble, without doing the hard long work necessary to engage and address minds opposed to our own, we risk our stuctures collapsing dramatically before their time.

I'm sure all of us still mourn the untimely death of Rabin, and the vast opprotunities that have been lost in the wake of his death. As much as his death was a tragedy, it probably would not have occurred if too much change had not been imposed too quickly. I think of his death both symbolically and as the true beginning of the modern Bush/Cheney era. Much of the misjudgemnet in this campaign, particularly the discarding of Krugman comes directly from an over anxiousness that is filling space that should be devoted to addressing and rectifying the fundamental issues that Krugman brings to the table in good faith. Is it that Elizabeth Edward's views should similarly be discarded because of her disagreements with Obama?

I gather that TPM is now officially Obamaniac. For successive weeks now I have read assorted TPM hacks express outrage over Krugman. Today, in a column which is nearly entirely spent demolishing McCain's non-healthcare proposal, Krugman does at its very end mention that Clinton's plan approaches universality to a degree that Obama's does not. This, MJ Rosenberg, is what is known as a "fact", and to demand thunderbolts from heaven be rained down upon he who dares to utter it is hardly worthy of someone who would claim journalistic credentials. You are supposed to be in favor of the presentation of facts. Is it beyond your comprehension to entertain the possibility that Krugman criticizes Obama's healthcare plan in hopes of the latter dropping its voluntary nature?

I must have missed the MJ Rosenberg article wherein he explained that St. Barack is perfect in every respect, and that no criticism of any of his (sorry...His) planks can be valid. I did catch last week's TPM offering where the author, Taplin, assaulted Krugman for failing to include Pres. Clinton in his recitation of the fools who brought upon us the subprime mortgage crisis, when in fact Krugman did indeed nail Clinton in that very same column.

This Edwards supporter admits to liking Obama's looks electorally at least as much as I do Clinton's, but I also gotta align with Krugman on Obama's healthcare plan. The idea that only those in need of healthcare should bother buying insurance for it is a recipe for a disaster as large as what American healthcare is right now, and if anybody can get Obama to imagine healthcare universality, that person will be a hero, even if it is a TPM-pronounced demon from hell such as Krugman.

Now you know how I react whenever I see something written by M.J. Rosenberg.

I think the problem with Krugman with respect to Obama is that because many of the policies are similiar he finds something that is different and makes a mountain out of a molehill. For example, both the Clinton and Obama plans include employer mandates meaning that employers are required to obtain insurance for their employees. More people would be affected by this type of mandate than the individual mandate. They both allow for community rating and the option to join the public insurance fund. The difference between Obama and Clinton is tactical rather than substantive. Obama is not opposed to mandates but he feels that is putting the cart before the carrot.
Another problem with Krugman is that he conflates mandates with universal coverage. They are not the same. Massachusetts is an example of this, in which 20% of the population has received an exemptiion to obtain insurance because they are so poor.

Personally I think that a single payer plan would be a better option it is much simpler than what is being offered by the two candidates.

Hillary supporters (such as myself) have had to bend over backwards several times to defend transparently ridiculous arguments coming from the campaign, such as certain states don't count or that Hillary is a fabulous general election candidate, which she isn't. And I admit to some intellectual dissonance when trying to keep up with the spin. But I've never wavered in who Hillary actually is: a ruthless fighter who is extremely progressive on domestic issues but a go-with-the-flow establishment figure on foreign policy. It's not ideal for me but I at least see where she's coming from.

Obama, on the other hand, is still a complete mystery to me. I know he has plenty of policy papers. I've read them. But I honestly don't like his kumbayah crap in every single speech and to me he sounds like Bloomberg or Schwarzzenager -- two moderates who dump on their party because their party is beholden to extremists and incredibly unpopular. However, that is not true of the Democratic party and I wish he would say so.

I've heard simultaneous arguments made that Obama is a fighter for progressive values but also a moderate who can appeal to the middle. Sorry folks, it's one or the other. The reason his supporters can't agree on a narrative is because there is no narrative except "change we can believe in." In a way, every attack on Obama IS personal because his entire candidacy can be summed up as "haven't the last 20 years sucked? -- Barack Obama can do better!" with "better" never actually defined. I resent him equating Gingrich/Bush with the Clintons because it reeks of above-the-fray "pox on both your houses" laziness that I THOUGHT the netroots existed to combat.

Most seem to miss Krugman's main problem with Obama's plan and approach: Obama attacks Hillary from the right ("government shouldn't mandate you to get healthcare" etc). Krugman astutely points out that this will make it very difficult for Obama to refute Republicans when they attack his plan.

Obama consistently puts forward less progressive economic and health care policies. It's not clear to me why he is viewed as the liberal in this race.

Of course, people for whom this is not an academic exercise, the working class, are actually for Hillary because her proposals are actually liberal.

Well you just stick with Maureen Dowd. She'll whisper all the sweet things you want to hear.
Oh, and read Democratic Underground. 100% Obama, and a real high level of discourse.
I'm sure you must like the company you are in.
Who wants to be around people who think, anyway?
You won't want to do that when Obama is president.
You won't want to remember that you had a chance to get rid of George Bush style presidency, but it's better this way. Yes. Half-assed, weak policies, just like his nuke bill.
But by god you got what you wanted, didn't you?

A question for the "Hillary as liberal lion" crowd:

Do you see any problem with her attacking Obama for saying he thought single payer would be the best way to go if we were starting from scratch? Do you see any problem with her calling raising the payroll tax ceiling a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class?" Do you see a problem with Krugman constantly harping on the mandates issue while free-passing Hillary on these more basic points?

For all the sturm und drang over Obama as manchurian candidate for either Reaganites or blacks (!)--some kind of empty vessel that only "fanboys" and "kids" like-- let's ask if we're looking squarely at Clinton. To my mind, she is as much the one benefiting from a kind of undeserved and naive hopefullness as he is. And he is.

I voted Obama because I think he is pragmatically the best choice for the party overall in terms of policy, chances, and downticket. I don't like the whole DLC idea, and I desperately do not want to reward that AUMF vote. But I will support and fight for whoever the nominee is, and will stick up for Clinton on any issue where she's speaking for the left against the right.