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.