yo

so?

lo yo yo
(everybody’s doin’)

Krugman must have been promised the Fed or something. Brutal.

If the energy policies that Carter had started putting into place in the late ’70’s were still in effect we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. Reagan was the devil and this country is in deep denial. Still.

Whoa, the Devil! Go’ne wit you bad self Rev!

Has Paul Krugman commented on the effectiveness of the McCain and Clinton proposals for a gas tax holiday? If so, did he mention any potential effects on the Democratic Party of Clinton adopting a proposal previously announced by McCain?

Well, the devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape, and one may smile, and smile, and be a villain… Did Shakespeare ever meet Reagan? Didn’t Ronnie sit behind him in third grade?

Good Morning Scarecrow,
Thanks to Marion we got a head start on Krugman this morning.
His complaints make no sense

as you say…

Republicans should never be given credit, and that idea, we are told, emerged from Democrats during the Carter era, when his administration first sanctioned emission trading systems. Well, maybe, maybe not, but so what?
…
And if Obama wants to cite that as a decent “Republican” idea as a way of getting broader support from those still clinging to denial for one of the things that need to be done on global warming, it doesn’t strike me as helpful to criticize the effort.

IV met him twice,sent him prezzies when he wrote good columns back in the dark days befor Keith,but if he was promised something by the CLINTONs and is trying to hurt our grass roots guy,i say fukem….

yes. Krugman said first in his blog (see my previous post) and again at the bottom of his column today, that the gas-tax proposal is a bad idea. He’s “disappointed” that Clinton supports it.

Looks like Krugman is getting his talking points from Sidney Blumenthal,
another example of what a dense pack of zombies the Clintons have to do
the background buzz work for their campaign… the Clinton campaign has
taken on a distinct Jonestown flavor of late and I hope they have the
kool-aid party soon.

No, I don’t believe Krugman has. It was, surprisingly, Thomas Friedman who called them out. Who’d a thunk it…

Wouldnt it be nice if all ideas could be discussed and debated. Put out there for the American people without the greed and mismanagement we have had.

The obtuseness of this post is surprising on a progressive blog. Obama, in his desire to advance his unity theme, often advances incorrect, revisionist history about progress that has been achieved under Republican vs. Democratic administrations. It’s becoming his signature move. Progressives should call him on this, whether they support him or Clinton. How hard to understand is that?

Carter had five different energy bills, a couple of which were not good ideas. The Fuel Use Act produced a mess we had to undue a decade later. PURPA, which midwifed competitive generation industry, was a mixed bag. Other stuff on promoting conservation/demand-side efficiency and renewable was goods, and we ran with it. Reagan tried to kill everything worthwhile, but we kept going at the state level.

Always check your mirrors before pulling out into traffic.

He was a strong Edwards supporter to begin with. It seems like he has myopia re health care. That seems to be his one and only focus in which case it explains why he would shift to Clinton. Problem is there’s lots more to the whole package than health care and she sucks on the rest of it . . . . like war for instance.

Krugman should know better. Disappointing that he doesn’t.

Look, there are reasons for disagreements. Stick to the policies/merits and take the ad hominen elsewhere.

i used to like Sidney,what the hell is up to at TPM,somebody said he is issuing bullshit smears against Obama there….@#$%^&*argh,better dems,puleaaaaaaaaaase

I was in MA at the time dealing with energy policies that were strongly mandated at the beginning—until Reagan trashed it all and then it became an official after thought. Much of the country was way behind CA and even MA but had the codes not been dropped we would be much further along with conservation and alternative energy. All of the funding etc. for the development of alternatives got cut off at the knees. Makes me crazy.

Not hard to understand. I agree with the broader point about not using Repub talking ponts, but there are instances where giving credit is defensible, and I believe this is one of them.

Oh yes and Hillary never does that. Oh please! Her gun-toting, whiskey-swilling, “I’m a $100 million dollar commoner”, duck hunting, and, “I’ve been under sniper fire and am combat ready!”, image is all truth to you Hillary supporters, huh? If I’m not mistaken, those I’ve encountered online who support her USE ALL NEOCON talking points and act like the victim when they’re asked a direct question. It’s getting tiresome. Real change is NOT VOTING FOR A NEOCON. That leaves Hillary Clinton & John McCain out. The End.

Seriously whats up with the smears?

You want to talk about candidates re-writing history?

Take a look at Hillary on NAFTA.

That’s some SERIOUS re-writing.

RevDeb, don’t be pointing out facts this morning. You’ll make the Hillary supporters cry. LOL

Okay, going to work now. ;-)

ditto

Marion — it was on Krugman’s blog a few days ago; also, read the bottom of his column today:

To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.

Pretty typical – “but, but, but SHE does it too!” Same goes for RevDeb. No criticism of Obama is fair. I get it. Moving on.

I like Krugman a lot, and he was quite correct when he said that Obama should lay off the right-wing attacks on Hillary’s healthcare plan. But he has gotten his pride and academic tenacity involved in this, and has forgotten Voltaire’s warning that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

On a similar line, on Wednesday afternoon on her radio show, Rachel Maddow mentioned that she had once interviewed Obama, and it hadn’t gone well at all. She even mentioned it more than once. Does anyone know what that’s all about?

Too true, it seems that a olt of otherwise talented people have become
highly engaged to say the least. Too bad, Blumenthal is a fine writer
and has a body of work very much worth the reading. Same type of smear
work has come from Sean Wilentz and Joe Wilson as well, so it seems a
widespread phenomenon… could be obtuseness is contagious after all.

i haven’t read krugman yet, but i have read the transcript of obama’s interview on fox. and i gotta say, it pissed me off too. i’ll post some more quotes, but please see the link for the entire interview.

OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

WALLACE: Such as.

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they’re going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I think that on issues of education, I have been very clear about the fact, and sometimes I have gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this, that we should be experimenting with charter schools.

I’m typical? Wow. I bet you also chant, “Yes we can!”, because the Hillarybots aren’t capable of thinking for themselves. LOL

Hey, you can love Hillary all you want. You’re in good company: republicans, neocons, Rush Limbaugh and others support you!

Okay, really going to work now. LOL

Folks around here know that I’m not an Obama cheerleader. But stuff that Hillary has done in this campaign has been beyond what I consider kosher. Just because IOKIYAR in campaigns doesn’t mean that dems should stoop that low.

Most folks probably don’t read his blog (well, we do…) and an afterthought at the bottom of a column doesn’t strike me as being as strong a statement as Friedman made, right up front.

on the topic of global food shortages, the author of the WP series on it is up on CSPAN right now

more quotes from obama’s fox appearance:

OBAMA: No, look, I think this is fair. I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

During the Roberts –

WALLACE: John Roberts, Supreme Court.

OBAMA: John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

OBAMA: On partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother.

OBAMA: And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we are always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

WALLACE: And we are back for one final segment with Senator Barack Obama. Senator, this week President Bush named David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, to be the head of Central Command, which controls overseas military operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. Will you vote to confirm his nomination?
OBAMA: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.

WALLACE: Senator Obama, thank you so much for talking with us
OBAMA: I enjoyed it.
WALLACE: Don’t be a stranger.
OBAMA: I won’t.

creepy.

One thing that can be said about the folks here is that unlike reich wing blogs who defend their propagandists no matter what they say, we are equal opportunity critics.

Who would have thought we’d have one post singing praises to Friedman (do remember the F.U.) and then rag on Krugman? But then again we have a standard of trying to uphold things like, well, the rule of law, economic justice, ecological responsibility . . . stuff like that.

This remains a healthy place for analysis and conversation.

maybe krugman doens’t think obama will get us out of iraq any sooner than clinton?

maybe healthcare is his most important issue?

… look, i don’t agree with him – i think you know how much i despise the both clintons – but i don’t transfer that to their supporters. i haven’t seen anything from krugman to make me think it’s not a genuinely and thoughtfully held position.

don’t know if it makes sense, but i can despise a candidate and respect their supporters – so long as the support is not dishonest.

yea but i think he was looking for a few Fox voters,but that is stoopit,for it will never happen….i like the “perfect” quote…he aint perfect,but he is “good” imo

Krugman and Blumenthal and a lot of other HRC supporters were out there in public banging on the bushies when no one else was. They have earned our respect and should get it, even if we disagree on who should be the Dem candidate. And at least those two know a lot more about things than I do, and I want a real good reason to disagree with them on policy, not a bunch of tin foil hat speculation about what HRC promised them.

Both these candidates that we have been given are corporate trash. They both toe the corporate line on any number of issues, health care, industry regulation, unending “war”, banking. Whatever. Why the heck progressives are arguing about which side of a blank piece of paper to look at is beyond me. Forget about the corporate candidates and support progressives at every elective level.

yea,well Hills healthcare program….sukkks tooooooooo

well said

HILL BELONGS TO BIG PHARMA lest we forget

Who would have thought we’d have one post singing praises to Friedman (do remember the F.U.)

Who could forget the Friedman Unit? But even a blind hog finds an acorn from time to time…

Why the heck progressives are arguing about which side of a blank piece of paper to look at is beyond me.

i think this is possibly the most insightful comment i’ve read on the entire event we call the democratic presidential primary.

wow.

The final two graphs of his piece, which it’s clear that some posters here didn’t read, are:

“To be clear, both Democratic candidates have been saying things they shouldn’t; Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have endorsed the bad idea of a gas tax holiday.

But I think Mr. Obama is doing much more harm to the Democratic cause by echoing Republican attack lines on such issues as insurance mandates and Social Security. And now he’s demonstrating his post-partisanship by giving Republicans credit for good ideas they never had.”

This is clearly his theme. The column is a reasonable critique of a what has become a pattern of Obama’s. Yet you want to equate him with MoDo. I just don’t understand why you would do that unless you were trying to delegitimize criticism of Obama. Krugman and Dowd are night and day, in substance and in tone. This was poor.

The post, and several of the comments here, really seem to suggest that criticism of Obama is always wrong and unfair. That’s silly. Neither candidate is perfect, by a long shot.

I said nothing of any promises made to them by anyone, I think they, like
most people are capable of getting it wrong on occasion, especially in
an atmosphere as charged as it seems to be at the lake today. They are
just people after all.

I agree both are worthy our respect. I just don’t think this particular point was helpful.

For myself, I think that one the great ills affecting the country for the past few decades is the tendancy to latch on to some ideology rather than rationalism and pragmatism. I think either Obama or Clinton would, like FDR, use the most basic problem solving approach of considering alternative solutions and selecting the most promising, and that either would revise a policy as necessary. Therefore, I have no problem with either one suggesting that, like a clock, any Republican policy may have been right a couple of times a day. I would be more appalled if either suggested they wanted to replace the Republican idiologies with some exact set of socialist theories.

please read this insightful post,about Big Pharma,i dont want a mandate for insurance companies to make windfalls

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..707/505753

You are too kind

Not as creepy as what’s percolating out about Clinton’s campaign tactics. That does give me pause. That she’s demanding Congress go on the record for or against the gas tax holiday? That sounds right out of the Republican let’s force everybody to vote on Iraq right before the 2002 election playbook.

Add that to the historic pattern of her health care debacle, and the whole issue of trust and honesty and entitlement.

I just see nothing but destructiveness coming out of the Clinton camp wrapped in promises ribboned by neocon tactics. The swift-boating of Obama by Blumenthal and company. The triangulating against the Democratic Congress–didn’t we learn our lesson about how much the Clintons care about the Democratic party back in the 90s?

As Scarecrow said,

It’s not just about getting elected; the point is to govern.

We’re seeing in campaign tactics how these candidates will govern.

Prairie Today: War Games & War Games…Redux

no disagreement here. We need to pour more of our energies into the Blue America candidates and find more like them.

As for the blank sheet of paper, my thinking is that we have more of a chance to write our own priorities on one of those sides than on the other. Whomever gets elected will have to be pushed to do the right thing. So who will we have a better chance at pushing?

For myself, I think that one the great ills affecting the country for the past few decades is the tendancy to latch on to some ideology rather than rationalism and pragmatism

i’m with you here. right on.

my problem with what obama said wasn’t so much that the republicans might be right and should at least be listened to. my problem is what he said they were right about. that is where i disagree.

This is clearly his theme. The column is a reasonable critique of a what has become a pattern of Obama’s. Yet you want to equate him with MoDo. I just don’t understand why you would do that unless you were trying to delegitimize criticism of Obama. Krugman and Dowd are night and day, in substance and in tone. This was poor.

The post, and several of the comments here, really seem to suggest that criticism of Obama is always wrong and unfair. That’s silly. Neither candidate is perfect, by a long shot.

waa?
I didn’t get any sense from Scarecrow’s post that Obama can’t be criticized or that Krugman is the new MoDo. His criticism of Krugman was specific, clear, and to the point.

Hill had a GREAT chance to promote universal healthcare,when Bill was in the white house for 8 YEARS,she failed dismally,i say …give somebody else a chance

Both these candidates that we have been given are corporate trash. They both toe the corporate line on any number of issues, health care, industry regulation, unending “war”, banking. Whatever. Why the heck progressives are arguing about which side of a blank piece of paper to look at is beyond me. Forget about the corporate candidates and support progressives at every elective level.

I certainly agree that neither of them is a progressive.

That said, both of them are way better people than McCain.

On domestic policies, I like Hillary’s stuff a bit better. But on foreign policy, I prefer someone who is not a neocon, which Hillary is.

so VERY wise you are

please do not think that my criticism of obama is an endorsement of clinton or even any kind of comparison. i was judging obama’s statements on their own merits (or at least trying to).

I just see nothing but destructiveness coming out of the Clinton camp wrapped in promises ribboned by neocon tactics. The swift-boating of Obama by Blumenthal and company. The triangulating against the Democratic Congress–didn’t we learn our lesson about how much the Clintons care about the Democratic party back in the 90s?

SPOT ON

please LOOK at the venue

so you thought NAFTA was a good idea,we know their track record

Now I know why you a so good at your real job. You are a glass half full person….and wise to boot.

So who will we have a better chance at pushing?

excellent question.

but i don’t have an answer.

i never would have thought that pelosi would be so irresponsible and so unresponsive to the american people. basically, i just don’t know how to judge.

Touche — I meant to separate Krugman from MoDo, because I respect him and expect more, but I can see how one might read it as equating them. It’s a fair cirticism.

Exactly. You disagree on this point and show your thinking, complete with facts and experience. Others just assume Krugman is a supporter of HRC, and will say anything to help her. Of course it is true he supports her, and what he says has to be read through that lens, but his thinking is out there for us to study and criticize.

There is no way Krugman and Blumenthal are in the category of the bushies, who say anything to get what they want. That is a trap we all need to avoid.

LOOK how our oligarch corporate controlled media SPINS NONSENSE ceaselessly….he must be VERY CAREFUL what he says,because they would like to hang em high(figuatively)

you DO have an answe,the CLINTONS were in office 8 years,and were PUSHED WAY to the RIGHT….just sayin

Really, I get that, selise.

I guess I’m really growing increasingly frustrated these days because we do have, as Joe Andrews put it [heard on car radio yesterday so no linky], two very good candidates on our side.

And more needs to be said about issues, and how to accomplish those issues, instead of the media-enabled roilings about Obama’s pastor, etc.

In Hillary’s campaign tactics, I’m seeing a “style of governance” if you will, that won’t accomplish those issues no matter whether she’s incrementally better on one or the other. We’ve lived thru the Clinton Years.

Let’s Move On….

i never would have thought that pelosi would be so irresponsible and so unresponsive to the american people. basically, i just don’t know how to judge.

I don’t think that fancynancy’s intractable position is helpful to clinton2 frankly. The perception of clinton2 as a stuborn intractable women is being played out for all the world to see in the person of pelosi the defense industry’s puppet.

Blumenthal is a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign, he has a formal
position in the organization, so some discount is applicable for the
duration. Social networks influence opinion, Krugman is not immune.

But he has gotten his pride and academic tenacity involved in this, and has forgotten Voltaire’s warning that “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

A lot of progressives seem to have forgotten Voltaire’s warning during this long primary season.

November is still months away & I think I’m near the political burnout point. My mind is tuning out more often every day due to the struggle of finding a minute or two of common sense, rational discourse out of 24/7 babble. The only times I find myself fully engaged in listening & watching is when Elizabeth Edwards & Michelle Obama speak.

Has Krugman actually endorsed HRC, or has he merely said that he favored her plans on healthcare and the economy?

Once again I say:

Obama cannot win the General Election without a large percentage of the Clinton supporters voting for him.

Clinton cannot win the General Election without a large percentage of the Obama supporters voting for her.

So as Scarecrow asked the other day, how do the supporters of both plan to bring the supporters of the other back into the fold for November?

And how will that be done without insulting the intelligence or integrity or beliefs of the other side?

I was responding to selise’s concerns about Obama giving a gratuitous nod, off the top of his head, to some supposed Republican concepts. I don’t like to hear praise for them either, but don’t take it too seriously because I don’t think either candidate will effect any actual policies or decisions. That’s just based on what both candidates have said or done.

I support Obama for the precise reason that I thought the tactics and statements adopted by Clinton over the past couple of months were very self serving and destructive to the Democratic Party and chances of correcting the nation’s ills. The policies of the two differ little, but in a few cases (mandatory health care participation), I think her ideas are correct. Nevertheless, I feel certain he would ultimately adopt whatever method is most likely to solve the problem and modify as necessary.

Hill at CAMP DAVID

BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Similar Bloggers
My Recollection of Hillary Clinton at the 1995 Camp David Meeting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..97291.html

sadlyyes @ 69 says:

you DO have an answe,the CLINTONS were in office 8 years,and were PUSHED WAY to the RIGHT….just sayin

but that doesn’t mean obama won’t be worse (not arguing that i think that – just saying i don’t see much evidence of him standing up for principle).

Prairie Sunshine @ 70 says:

two very good candidates on our side.

on this we disagree – i don’t like either one.

I think we’re all burned out by the campaign. It causes irrational behavior– or as RevDeb observes, I’ve written a favorable piece on Friedman and a critique of Krugman? What?

So just out of curiosity . . .

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake. Like to hear from those who watch/read but don’t often comment, too.

So as Scarecrow asked the other day, how do the supporters of both plan to bring the supporters of the other back into the fold for November?

Well now if the eventual candidate were to take a definitive, progressive stand on say healthcare or taxing the rich I don’t think there will be any trouble at all getting most, if not all, Dems behind them. Wishy washy will get neither of them what they need, the votes.

should have included that i don’t like either D candidate, except with i compare them mcsame.

I don’t believe the columnists are allowed to formally endorse.

WELL mandatory HEALTH INSURANCE ,ina recession/depression,is a non starter imo

Yes.

And these same meme applies to dakine’s point about uniting the party.

He’ll do it, she won’t.

no shit SHERLOCK…….”G”

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided?

If the discussion is about clinton2 or obama1 then all is fine but if the drift is towards chit chatting about Wright or Krugman or Blueballs, or any other supporter endorser then time is a wasting. Issues ladies and gentlemen it is all about the issues.

from my comment

But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices — usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.

I vividly remember at the time finding it impressive that Bill Clinton (NOT Hillary Clinton) showed real empathy for the ordinary people whose motives and supposedly misguided choices were under analysis. Ironically, just as Barber reported, Bill Clinton was the one who combined analysis and empathy, much as Obama himself did in his full San Francisco remarks.

Truly I don’t think any of us has an answer that we can count on. There comes a time when we just have to make a decision based on the best information we can gather and go on from there. Then we get to live with the consequences and either be pleasantly surprised or work hard (again) to change it in the next round.

rinse and repeat.

So, you want to argue with me over this? LOL.

I don’t think FDL or any blog should avoid the Clinton v Obama conversaton. Then you leave the playing field to the lowest common denominators like Limbaugh, corp media, and yes, hyperpartisan campaign minions.

FDL’s mix of conversation over the dayparts and thru the week give everyone ample opportunity to participate, to pop off, to learn, with the greater goal of actually realizing restoration of democracy and rule of law in this country.

And really, how could we possibly separate the candidates, the competition, from each of the issues which move us so deeply?

The Clintons have a record that extends from Arkansas through DC that
is more image than substance. They have been at it for too long, there
is plenty of talent that can take the lessons learned from those years
and apply them for a future that is less of a rerun of a nostalgic past.
I agree with Cross, the methods used by the Clintons in this primary
season don’t pass the smell test, but they have a long history that can
be found in texts widely available to the inquiring mind.

Your last sentence is THE question.

sez a lot

Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices

For the Clintons, it IS all about getting them elected, if not this time then next time following a failed McCain term. They care about nothing else, certainly not about the fate of the rest of us under more years of Republic control.

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake.

How refreshing that would be… Searching out and supporting more and better Democrats in the down-ticket races would be helpful, I think. Several times I’ve heard about good candidates here and when possible I’ve tossed a few bucks into their kitty. How about more focus on Congress and state races?

no!,peeps might be choosing to pay for FOOD,and not INSURANCE
and Krugman obviously doesnt get it

It’s the SUPREME COURT. Period.

That has to be the bottom line and anyone you talk with who hints at not voting for the dem—whomever it is—needs to be asked with this frame. Do you truly want John McCain to choose the next 2,3,4, Supreme Court Justices?

She lacks the ability to fake empathy that her husband has. Her attitude is very Republic.

What Krugman doesn’t get is that Obama is following George Lakoff’s lead.
And, I would say that he’s doing one hell of good job of it to. This quote below explains what Obama’s up to better than I can.

“When you want to convert someone to your point of view go over to where they are standing, take them by the hand, and guide them. You don’t stand across the room and shout; you don’t call them a dummy; you don’t order them to where you are. You start where they are and work from that position. That’s the only way to get them to budge.”
Paraphrase from: St Thomas Aquinas

I think you and the other posters have been doing as well as can be done to raise interesting topics without picking sides. I don’t see how the controversy can be totally avoided right now.

I personally react adversarially when I perceive someone trying to convert every subject and point in favor of their candidate. When I see the, “Yes it’s a very nice day and that is no thanks to the evil influence of Obama,” comments. I feel like someone is on here for a definite purpose of obtaining converts, or sowing dissent, or something. Anyway, I promised to bite my lip.

The point is that Obama’s remarks fit into and reinforce caricatures of the Democratic party as top down regulators. To be fair, I have called both Obama and Clinton on it when they fall into this kind of trap – and would still prefer Al Gore. But what I said on my blog,(http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2008/04/transcend_this.html) before Krugman’s piece (maybe he read it?)is that, when set up with the question about where he might have differences with his own party, he could have, instead, taken the opportunity to say something more interesting, which is that the markets vs regulations debate is just an old tape that keeps getting replayed, and that there are legitimate debates, even among Democrats, over how best to confront complex environmental problems for which regulations alone are clearly inadequate. And that many Republicans, less bound by caricatures and ideological convictions, are already part of that conversation.

Although it doesn’t fit so neatly into soundbites [or Republican images of Democrats], most of those engaged in environmental issues have, for quite some time now, known and acknowledged that end-of-the-pipe command-and-control regulatory solutions were only useful for going after the low-hanging fruit. From non-point source pollution such as stormwater and agricultural runoff, to global warming, we have had had to contend with a more complex breed of problems that requires a wide range of complementary approaches, including but not limited to market-based incentives. Secondly, regulations and markets are not an either or proposition – for example, for a cap and trade policy to work, you need regulations or policies to set a cap, and also to determine how permits are allocated and how revenues are used – which is the actual crux of the debate. Without that, markets will just stay the course that is inherent in the status quo and in existing policies.

COLD BLOODED INDEED….how about her NUCLEAR UMBRELLA …….shiver

Do you truly want John McCain to choose the next 2,3,4, Supreme Court Justices

I think McSame will buy his six feet of dirt before the ancient justices. But his VP (cheney) may well get to choose.

shhhhhhhhhhhiver

Why criticize Obama on this point?

Perhaps because he 1) thinks he’s wrong; 2) fell for FOX’s obviously trick question; 3) supports Hillary Clinton.

Krugman strongly backed Obama on the gas tax issue and harshly criticized Clinton. Where were the articles asking why he would criticize Clinton on that issue?

And where does this incessant outrage that Obama simply cannot be criticized in any way and to do so is an outrage come from?

I don’t see how the Lake can avoid the Obama/Clinton issues for That long. Even if we stick to issues and agendas, it’ll probably get back to which candidate sucks more.
Some days I worry that all the in-fighting will make it harder to climb fully on the bandwagon once we get a for sure and true candidate, but then other days I see how reasonable people here can be and that we will all work together to put a Dem in the White House.
My two cent answer to your question.

I’m with you on this. I see Republican Lite all over both of them.

It’s like they’re doing what they can to maintain the status quo for the wealthiest in the country while at the same time attempting to convince us “just folks” that they’re not. I think the aversion to single payer health care is a shining example of this attitude.

Speaking of health care, do these politicians really think we as a country are not smart enough to take the best part(s) of other single payer systems and devise an efficient, financially and professionally, system of our own?

And I couldn’t agree more.

I rest my case.

It’s the SUPREME COURT. Period.

That has to be the bottom line and anyone you talk with who hints at not voting for the dem—whomever it is—needs to be asked with this frame. Do you truly want John McCain to choose the next 2,3,4, Supreme Court Justices?

Amen.

i think it is cause,the media will attack like dogs ANY PINKO leanings,they walk a tightrope,but Billary has been in the oval office,and weve seen her disastorous healthcare initiative

Neither of them would have gotten this far if they had not gotten the Corporate Seal of Approval.

Just ask John Edwards.

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake. Like to hear from those who watch/read but don’t often comment, too.

wasnt’ going to say anything… not being my blog… but since you asked.

I’M SICK OF THE WHOLE FUCKING CAMPAIGN AND ALL THE CANDIDATES. THE MORE I READ ABOUT THEM, THE MORE I DESPISE THEM. PLEASE DON’T MAKE ME THINK ABOUT ANY OF THEM UNTIL I HAVE TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

thank you. i’ve hated the campaign since about the first of the year. blech. i hate the focus on the trivial, i hate the accusations of sexism and racism and i really hate the way it’s made us both stupid and mean to each other.

p.s. i know i’m not supposed to use all caps. back to whispering now.

Hillary is owned by the healthcare lobbyists….period

YES!….damn them

Please google, Mary Gade, EPA

On Thursday, following months of internal bickering over Mary Gade’s interactions with Dow, the administration forced her to quit as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Midwest office, based in Chicago.

Dioxin is a killer.

By the way, isn’t Hillary out of money? Still!

Truer words were never spoken. This is one of the main reasons my efforts are directed toward electing progressives to the House this cycle. Now, if we could keep them from being so heavily influenced by the corporate bucks once they get there.

ok im sick of it all too

Ahmen. All thoughts of vindictively withholding one’s vote in November have to stop right there. It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!

OT, but what dirty freaking hippie said the following about the Irak Occupation/Genocide?

“Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars were unnecessarily spent, and worse yet, too many of our most precious military resource, our American soldiers, were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed as a result. In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.”

So sad, but so true.
It’s a really big club that no one from the outside can penetrate.
I like your focus on Supreme Court and Blue America candidates.
Other than another French Revolution, I don’t see what else we can do.

I am truly, truly sad that Elizabeth will not be first person.

It would be nice to lurk when there is not so much bickering about the campaign. I miss the less strident back and forth of the past. It seems to me that a by product of the Limpballs era is that opinion is confused with fact without acknowledgment. Bad for productive discourse.

And Scarecrow, thanks for asking.

well, i’m inclined to agree.

but that said, i understand that others don’t see it the same way. that progressives have been supporting the dem as the lesser of two evils for a long time now and the country is still, as far as i can tell, heading towards the cliff (having been given a push by the dems). so if someone wants to try something different, i’m not going to condemn them.

Okay, after thinking about this, and reading the comments, I updated/revised the intro paragraph, because i want to be fair to Krugman.

Thanks for brining this to the conversation!

i love her too,but she is wrong on mandatory insurance too…imo

In Hillary’s campaign tactics, I’m seeing a “style of governance” if you will, that won’t accomplish those issues no matter whether she’s incrementally better on one or the other.

This is one of the pieces that matters most, I think. We are watching how HRC treats her ‘friends’ (e.g., Obama and his supporters) in this campaign. It terrifies me to contemplate her occupying the Oval Office.

I have less problem than some here with Obama highlighting what he believes to be Republican strengths on certain issues. How in the world can anyone govern this country and/or attempt to be a world leader if they are incapable/unwilling, at least occasionally, to look at the ‘enemy’ with other than dismissive rage? Just askin’.

We’ve known that for years. One would think they’d be throwing money at her but it appears they aren’t. What’s up with that?

Obama has taken nearly as much from Big Pharma as Clinton has…

Obama’s #2

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10…..f=politics

(Also takes money from oil industry)

I haven’t read through all the comments, but I think it’s a good idea not to give any credit to Republicans. Obama should have said something political like, “well, we’ve had eight years of Republican rule and now the country is ready for a change.” And left it at that.

you’re the best.

You’d believe anything that guy says? Ask someone who actually has a little cred, like a Kagan, any Kagan…

Off to earn another day’s worth of tiger food. Sayonara.

Peace Love Light

One thing has been clear to me — BOTH dem candidates will 1) talk about working across the aisle, 2) try to triangulate policy to (in their blind belief republicans will give them any leeway) apease conservatives, and 3) will definitely disappoint the progressive cause.

One reason only I support Obama, his 50-state strategy and bringing regular people (like older grandmas like me) back into the system. Hillary only believes in old machine politics which has worked for Bill and Karl Rove. I want a bigger stage for all — even those in red states. Hillary does not want to compete in those states – and Bill had abandoned the dem party in many states, which only made them giveaways to the republicans.

So, I am not naive that Obama would be a dream president for the progressive cause. But he will broaden the efforts to elect democrats in every state.

Oh, and second, despite the plea for patience with judging the robocall issue, this is pure Rovian tactics. Take a perfectly good organization and destroy it from inside. And I am totally confused why people cannot see when an organization has turned to the dark side. AARP? NARAL? EPA? DOJ?

So here’s a question for you out there who like to do research. Have either Hillary or Barak been asked what kind of judges they would put forward for the high court?

Perhaps we should make some effort to get that question answered. It is as good a measuring stick as anything else out there. And surely a better one than who their pastor is!

Healthcare is important but must not be the sole determinant because
both of them are close to the insurance business. Some think the HRC
position is the better one of the two, but what actually gets done
will likely bear little resemblance to a current proposal. As for the
blog, we have little other avenues open for even a bad discussion, so
I must take what I can get, the tone of the campaign has been decidedly
Republican and has contributed to the fireworks here as elsewhere.
But, that is not all bad either, man does not live by bread alone…

See everyone? This is what thinking people do. They gather information and make informed decisions. Scarecrow: Booyah!

Even McCain says he’ll be a uniter. But then Bush did too.

Then what was all the outrage over Clinton saying McCain has a lifetime of experience.

The problem wasn’t so much Obama’s answer. It was that he answered it in the first place. It was a trick question by FOX, and Obama should have seen that.

My lip biting has commenced.

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake. Like to hear from those who watch/read but don’t often comment, too.

I don’t see how it can be avoided, @ FDL or on any political blog. It even creeps into non-political ones. I simply refuse to participate in it. No slam on anyone here, but I personally find it pointless.

Voting for the Dem candidate, whichever it turns out to be, shutting out McCain, electing solid majorities in the House & Senate are all I’m interested in, per yr. query.

This is a tremendous political contest. It involves two highly skilled and well financed pols with amazing bios. I am a political junkie. For me this is the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manilla for a fight fan or the seventh game in a Yankee/ Bosox playoff series for a baseball fan.

Bingo!

Ah Ha!
Let’s do.
Really really good idea.

So?

The collective consensus:

Both D candidates are ‘good’.

Either is ‘better’ than McCain.

Both D candidates are ‘bad’.

Neither is as ‘bad’ as McCain.

But, right now, the D partisans have yet to seek accord.

Both ’sides’ MUST understand that they NEED each other’s support.

Both sides must NOT support McCain, directly or indirectly …

However, if they do not support each other, then they are, actually, supporting John McCain.

This goes for the candidates as well …

The Supreme Court, the economy, the occupation, healthcare etc. etc.

But isn’t it so much fun to be thick as bricks?

Isn’t poo fun?

Look how happy we all are.

Look how much progress the Progressive Vision is making.

Wow, we’re just the cat’s MEOW.

Please forgive the cattalk, Hiss! Growl!

By tooth and nail, we’ve clawed our way to ‘consensus’…

It must be ‘feel good time’ by now …

Not sure what her perspective on “mandatory insurance” is but I do believe that a lot of folks will have to be forced to buy.

When I was in my twenties, I was like many other twenty somethings and thought I was invincible and therefore had no real idea of the need for healthcare.

Until I wound up in intensive care. Fortunately for me, I was in the Air Force so was covered but if I had been somebody in the civilian world, then it could have been quite nasty for me.

My $.02

if i thought what either of them had to say during this campaign might have any bearing on their actual decision making process once in office i might be willing to look for an answer. thing is, i just don’t.

I should hand out candy bars.

Scarecrow@80:
I’ve stopped reading or listening to most of the Clinton vs Obama back & forth among liberals. A lot of people are very emotionally invested in their personal favorite & it can become quite heated. I’m not happy about & have at times been quite shocked at a lot of the tactics being used but either one is a no brainer to vote for compared to McBush. Neither one is going to be able to live up to all or even some of our hopes for major changes. I’d be pleasantly surprised if either one really follows through on even a quarter of the goals stated once he/she is in office. But it’s a start. The whole bushel of Democratic apples has to be culled through to toss the rotting ones & keep the sweet.

Message to barbara from barbara: Include self in group of people who need to be open to information and make course corrections. (Didn’t mean to be preaching at y’all.)

And so, after a few invigorating hours at FDL, I find the need to go and bake bread. Love that kneading

i’m not a big fan of big ticket organized sports either.

excellent points all around. The other thing we can’t discount about Obama is the strong youth participation and the fact that they are registering as dems. I fear if Hillary worms her way into the nomination we will lose that entire generation. That is a real and big fear.

then again I know Obama will disappoint us and the young folks too so there is a fear attached to that as well. Now that they are engaged we need to keep them and focus on what we can do to feed that new part of the party.

I would happily “settle” for judges on the level of Ruth Bader Ginzberg and Stephen Breyer for SCOTUS and lower courts

some peoplke……just CANT BUY insurance period….lost job,foreclosure,etc

please do

Speaking of health care, do these politicians really think we as a country are not smart enough to take the best part(s) of other single payer systems and devise an efficient, financially and professionally, system of our own?

Have you seen any evidence that we, as a people are smart?

the last 7 1/2 years have been a disaster…see shock doctrine

spread the almond joy.

thanks for the lol

You took the words out of my mouth, babe!

And if you haven’t had enough, read what General Sanchez has to say about these fuckers.

I think you’re right. I was watching Lou Dobbs, a man given a “news” anchor job in a key hour, and most of what he does is just rant. Of course, I’d find him just as offensive if they called his show the Lou Dobbs Rant Hour

anybody want a pancake?…”g”….its my new inexspensive comfort food

bom dia, pups

If someone has a good idea, an excellent idea for that matter or you like something someone has done, why does it matter what political party they belong to? Is there a particular rule as to when you can give credit where credit is due? I understand not using repug talking points but I agree with SC, why on this matter? Isn’t the holiday gas tax more insulting?

Agreed and I do believe all the plans that mandate insurance coverage have requirements on forcing the insurance companies to provide coverage and providing substantial support for those without the ability to pay.

It’s not universal, single-payer by any means but it is a move in that direction.

your always…sage…well sometimes parsely…”g”

RealClearPolitics had an interesting article two days ago by James Wolcott from Vanity Fair about how liberal blogs, namely Kos and HuffingtonPost, show how divided Democrats are over the two candidates.

What was telling, though, was that, in these cases, the sites are Obama supporting and the few Clinton supporters have been bullied off of them by Obama supporters. Even the editors of KOS, and KOS himself, piped in in response to complaints by Clinton supporters over how they’d been treated, by basically attacking them, mocking them, and dismissing them.

This has been my own experience, and what I find perplexing about it is that it’s supposed to be the Obama side of the aisle that is for changing the tone, unity, and putting an end to negative, attack politics, yet they’re very intolerant of the one or two people on a site who might support Clinton and who merely put forth arguments as to why they do.

Also interesting is that they seem to only want like-thinking on their sites.

Loyalty oaths, anyone?

and what kind of coverage will they give the untouchables(underclass)

For better or for worse, it will be over soon.

OK if you need more proof that we need to elect more progressives to the House, read Glenn.

Hoyer is again up to no good. Unless we get lots and lots of good progressives elected the Pelosi to Hoyer to Clyburn double dealing double plays will continue. We need new leadership in the House and Senate and that will only be accomplished by electing new people who get to vote for that leadership.

THAT’S where we can have an effect. BOTH of the preznit candidates have effectively closed out the on line community. They don’t want us, they don’t need us. Congress critters do.

Good Morning Scarecrow and Firedogs,

Do most folks think we should avoid the Clinton/Obama issue until it’s decided? Is that what we should be doing at the lake

general comment -

nope, we are politics/issues/news junkies – oh, and we happen to be passionate about it to boot -

seems it’s easy to forget just how up close and personal a feel/orientation this medium gives us – a sense of ownership if you will

and we better get used to it as we are going to have a lot more company (and hopefully influence) in the coming cycles

oooh I see (((GrandmaJ))) – blog veteran/Deaniac upthread – was thinking folks like you could add some perspective on this – how far we’ve come in 4 years and where this magilla may be headed

Holiday gas tax more insulting? Probably only because Clinton wants it.

Wolcott is a STRONG Hillary supporter and biased himself,so?

@#$%^&*argh VAMPIRES!

and her very good pal McSAME

Well said Gramma!

Thirty years later, you remember that Carter had 5 energy bills and the name of two of them. What a memory, I was in college during the Carter admin and mostly just worried about passing the next test.

I think the concern about emissions trading is that it often serves as a foil for real measures to reduce carbon emissions. There’s nothing wrong with emissions trading, and it might make emissions caps more palatable by propviding a way out for industries hard-pressed to comply with those caps, but this view only makes sense if the caps are rigorous.. more rigorous than any of the three candidates are offering. People think emissions caps are solution unto themselves.. they’re not. They only make sense if they correspond with a substantial regulatory cap on total emissions (say 60% of 1990 levels). Sorry.. I have to agree with Krugman here. Time Mag has an interesting piece this week saying that the next president won’t be green. A tragedy.

Right.

So when Clinton is able to work with Republicans, it’s bad. When Obama is, it’s proof he can unite the country.

That’s what I’m saying.

I hear Obama refer to Republicans as his good friend all the time. Obama’s supporters need to make up their minds: do we get along or not?

That’s part of the mandate that comes down on the Insurance companies where there has to be a minimum level of coverage provided.

Look, I’m not a healthcare policy expert. But I do know from experience that if certain segments of the population are given an opt-out method and not required to do something, they will not do it and all that does is increase the burden on the rest.

Is it fair? No. But it does recognize unpleasant realities.

I agree with most of that. Explaining the false choices is a better way of framing it.

Juno@171:
I hate the division. All that energy expended when we should be keeping our eyes on the pie. I’m too old & seen too much to fall in teenager love with any candidate.

have to make him green

Pretend you are an Obama supporter and try posting at Talk Left, an
otherwise excellent blog that tolerates no Clinton criticism. That gas
tax thing is pure campaign talk, the roads and bridges are underfunded
badly enough now, robbing Peter to pay Paul will not help.

Hi Blub,

I suspect Krugman is writing from a postion of total distrust of how Republicans conduct business, and rightly so. There has been very little evidence recently that they don’t do anything that doesn’t involve some kind of chicanery, greed, duplicity, and sinister operating procedures.

They can’t be trusted.

Scarecrow:

I’m incredibly late checking in and actually know something about your specific topic. I don’t know/remember who came up with the cap/trade idea and frankly don’t care. The goal is to encourage “business” to take action and do it ASAP. IMHO (and I work with businesses every day and I also own one), a cap and trade system will be a more positive motivator to encourage action in the direction we want (energy efficiency, renewable energy adoption, sustainability, etc.), than a sledge-hammer approach.

On to life outside of the toobz. Have a nice day everyone.

im no expert,but,giving billions of dollars to MIDDLEMEN seems stoopit to me,we have medicare,for the most part it works
if we REALLY want to keep costs down….why give BILLIONS TO THE PAPER PUSHERS (insurance cos) makes no sense to me the CEO at UNITED HEALTHCARE…got a retirement package…hold yopur hat
1,600,000,000.00 dollars

I hate it too, but I guess I recognize it as a fact of political life. But what I try to point out is that the Obama camp is as guilty of it as anyone, yet they deny it, so I think his campaign is operating on a big falsehood. I also think that, based on their own behavior, his own supporters indicate that he can’t in fact bring any change around. If his own supporters can’t change their tone and unite even with fellow Democrats who merely support the other candidate at any given time, how is he going to change the Repub/Dem divide or foreign divides?

I’m sure Clinton supporters can be very nasty, and I don’t condone them being so either.

But Clinton isn’t running on a platform of changing the tone, ending division, unity, inspiration, hope, and change.

Obama is. His camp and supporters ought to therefore practice what they preach.

stop LUMPING every one together,its tiresome

Unless it is to help your own campaign against a primary opponent. Then we can cozy right up to them and become bedfellows. IOKIYAH

Precisely.. and shrub’s plan… to merely slow the RATE of emissions increase slowly over 50 years (zero roll-backs), if combined with a tradeable emissions rights, will mean a massive boon to polluting industries without a bit of benefit to reduce carbon emissions overall… in fact, it’ll make the problem a lot worse. If Obama is sayin’ he plans to work with these sleazebags on this grand rethug project of obfuscation , he’s either betraying his ignorance of the issue or he’s signalling he’s willing to sacrifice progress carbon emissions for political gain. Either way, he’s wrong, and he needs to change his position.. quickly. Green is good and necessary. The next president had better recognize this reality.

it’s supposed to be the Obama side of the aisle that is for changing the tone, unity, and putting an end to negative, attack politics, yet they’re very intolerant of the one or two people on a site who might support Clinton

If you head on over to Taylor Marsh and post a comment defending Obama, you will quickly see this fault is shared by both sides.

amen!

There’s nothing wrong with emissions trading,

If Corporations support “emmissions trading”, then there obviously is something very wrong with it. This allows taxpayers to subsidize polluters.

There is a simple and better energy policy. End all subsidies for Oil and Coal and Nuclear and Switchgrass. Give the subsidies to Solar, Wind, Hydrogen and other non-carbon technologies.

For reducing CO2 generation, cap-and-trade seemed more regulatory and less free-market than a simple tax on fossil-carbon on every barrel of petroleum, cubic foot of natural gas, and ton of coal extracted from the earth.

Thanks for that link, Raven.

It answered some questions for me.

But I’m left with one: If Gen. Sanchez feels this level of betrayal, how must the troops and especially the families who have lost, forever, their loved ones feel?

The emotional investment in believeing it was not in vain must be increasingly difficult.

I am seriously glad (if that’s the word!) to learn that not all of the TOP BRASS are stupid asses, as I had begun to wonder …

Christy has a new post ready about Edmund Burke!

So a Clinton supporter is biased and therefore can’t be telling the truth or writing objectively.

But Obama supportes can?

This is what I’m talking about, Sadly. These double standards.

Indeed, I see it on this very thread having to do with Krugman. Krugman harshly criticized Clinton over the gas tax. My guess: he was right then, but he’s back to being blindly partisan and wrong by virtue of supporting Clinton.

Do we dismiss Rich as well because he supports Obama?

Why not read the substance of what they’re writing and see if it makes sense and is backed up with evidence (in Wolcott’s case, it is) rather than dismissing authors and what they write simply because they support or do not support any given candidate?

That is not a basis on which to accept or dismiss what a person says.

Right,a nd the FOX question was clearly designed to help McCain, and Obama should have seen that.

McBush’s gas tax holiday was a stupid idea when he came up with it.

It’s just as stupid as when Clinton wants it. As Mr. Krugman states, Clinton’s changes to the holiday idea render her plan simply useless, instead of downright evil like McSames holiday.

Thank you for illustrating and proving my point yet again. One standard
for both candidates not two. Remember the Republican line of “holding
the Democrats to a higher standard” in the Reagan years? The literal
definition of hypocrisy bacame the standard now used by the press and
many Democrats in this campaign. Nostalgia is a deathwish.

Yes, but that “simple tax” will get hung up in congress forever, being lobbied to death, while GHG emissions continue to spew into the atmosphere. You are assuming that the Dems would win total control of both houses and all of them would support this tax. They won’t. Therefore, we would go another 8 years with no action.

A cap and trade system would be palatable to the free market folks and would likely pass in 2009. Which means a real system to reduce GHG emissions would be put in place in this country. Yes, some polluters would still spew. But lots of other evil corporations will reduce their emissions to take advantage of the monetary value of their emissions credits.

I’m not denying that, and I criticized her for it as well and disagree with her.

That’s not the point.

Obama’s supporters ascribe one set of standards for him and themselves and a whole other set for Clinton and her supporters. That’s what Republicans do too, and it only causes harm.

Do we dismiss Rich as well because he supports Obama?
————–
i dismiss him cause he was a cheerleader for the war iirc
you really need to give it a rest
its total bullshit,and makes people think you judge by SIMPLE black and white arguments,there are many factors whya person has a preference,for one canidate,than another…HILLARY is a known quanity,and not my fave….

cripes.

What part of “It’s the Obama side that is about changing the tone, change, ending negatative/divisive/attack politics” is not getting through?

How is Obama going to bring this change about if he can’t in his own supporters, and if they can’t because other people do it too, how is this change going to come about?

hehehehehe

Thank you some more, Scarecrow.

We can’t not talk about the differences and similarities between the candidates,
but we can talk about them in a constructive and respectful manner imo —

Because
whoever our nominee’s to be,
there are just these two words for me:

Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.

Pardon me, but it isn’t me who said, in this case, what Wolcott says should be ignored and dismissed by virtue of whom he supports.

I don’t support Obama at this point, but I adore Rich and read what he says with an open mind and decide for myself whether or not I agree with him based on his argument and what I know, or not, to be the facts, NOT based on the fact that he supports Obama.

CSM (Corporate Sucky Media) hates the one standard for all candidates. I think all the bickering on which campaign is more politically craven, Obama’s or Clinton’s, just plays into the CSM mindset.

Juno your tactic AINT working,it postulates that peeps here are STOOOOOPIT,and cant follow the facts

sorry but as much as I like Wolcott, he is one to talk. He has taken some shots at Obama so…..

Like I said, it will be over soon

a-yup

Okay, then no more saying “Republicans…”

My tactic???

Again, this is what I mean. I have a tactic…some conniving scheme. I can’t possibly be saying it as I see it. Why?

Because I back Clinton.

Obamans have some work to do on that unity thing.

Extremely well put, Elliott.

Brava.

I don’t think there is any value in all these negative comments about our candidates. In the end, we have to pick from what’s available. I want to agree with RevDeb’s comment @54, that we should try to figure out which of the two we progressives might be able to push, but I can’t figure out why they will pay any attention to citizens, rather than the Congress and Courts that actually can push back. In the end, we are all going to vote for the Democrat.

My only real hope is that this isn’t a repeat of 1968, where we McCarthy/RFK supporters were so disappointed that we didn’t work to elect Humphrey, who was a much better man than Nixon, even if he was not strong enough on the issues that mattered to the left of the party.

I’ve seen some er um faulty reasoning before but i do believe that even my philosophy professor would be baffeled by this one. Good Day

Right, taken shots at Obama so dismiss him.

Good grief.

Faulty reasoning? Philosophy professors?

My degree is in philosophy, with honors, so at least my philosophy professors found my ability to reason at least adequate.

THATS just it,i dont ADORE anybody,nor think their word is the new GOSPEL according to GAWD………….opinions are like asswholes…everybody has one

yay it’s the daily pie fight that goes nowhere

Empathy is swell, but I’m never going to meet her. Actions count, not feelings. Her record is perfectly adequate on that point.

and here,you are just another opinion with out honors,so?

so………..cheney chuckle

No. Follow the reasoning. For Wolcott to talk of Clinton supporters being run off of so called obama sites is laughable because he is guilty of postings that have led many obama supporters to stop reading his stuff until the primaries are over.

That’s the opposite of taking a person’s word as gospel – just as wrong.

Then I want to see your degree and your transcripts

oops wait, forgot..leave folks where they are at.

See you upstairs, sadly

This is faulty reasoning.

Wolcott’s articles are not interactive, so he is not running anyone off from reading them by bullying the reader. You are choosing not read what he writes for no reason other than you don’t like what he’s saying because it’s critical of the person you support and doesn’t conform to what you want to believe and hear.

I wasn’t run off of huffington post because it is an Obama supporting blog; I was run off because I was told I should kill myself, called a douchebag, asked if I vomit when I look in the mirror, etc. But I was willing to read a blog that supports the candidate I do not.

You say you don’t want to read anyone who doesn’t support Obama.

That is a big difference.

It’s important, I think, to hear both criticism and praise of all candidates.

And for the third time, it isn’t Clinton running on change and ending negative politcs. Obama is, so it seems to me that, if you support his platform, you should live it. To not do so indicates that he cannot incur that change.

yea Juno is now arguing the unknown unknowns….hahahahahahah

Hillary is the only one hurting the Democratic Party by refusing to accept her loss and continuing ad nauseum and keeping this nation in a state of bitter confusion.

Why?

You have every right to choose to believe I’m lying about that.

I’m not, but believe what you want. But why do you wish to believe the worst about me, that I’m lying about this, and how is that bringing about change and hope and inspiration?

Both these candidates are corporate trash. That’s probably stretching things, but in modern America, if the corporations are against you, you don’t have a chance in hell of getting elected district dog-catcher. We don’t live in a real democracy. We live in a plutocracy.

She hasn’t lost, and I guarantee that what’s holding up the superdelegates is that they have a real conundrum on their hands: on the one hand, they think Clinton is more electable and has the stamina and backbone to take on McCain and Obama doesn’t, but on the other hand, Obama is more likable (I happen to disagree and believe that’s a falsehood, but it’s an entrenched perception) and has appealed to new voters , which is a good thing. The trajectory is in Clinton’s favor for Nov. now, but they have the problem of Obama supporters revolting if they’re not given the nomination.

It’s a tough spot. I don’t envy them.

Pluto is NOT crazy, he is Mickey Mouse’s best friend.

Dog catcher, indeed! Humph!

Scarecrow, I’m really sorry I missed the early commenting in this post. It would have been nice to talk about the actual issues in it, that the usual hoo-hah. BTW, I worked in the Bay Area and Sacto energy worlds in the late 80s and early 90s…

Oooopsey! Another former DNC chair goes to Obama. Trickle, trickle. Fairly soon the levy will be breached and Senator Clinton’s dreams dashed.

should have said “NOT the usual hoo-hah”…

that’s goofy too

or perhaps a syndicracy (rule by corporation)…. or a kleptocracy (rule by thieves). In shrub’s case, we can add the concept of kakistocracy (rule by the worst). All these things probably apply, as well as plutocracy.

hmm I like that. mind if I borrow for future references to shrub?

So?

I speak the truth and what do I get?

You guys are all daffy here, all of the time …

Oh, and cultish and delusional and and …

;~D

It REALLY bugs me.

Do youse guys think this is a cartoon?

Oh yeah?

Well, DRAW, PARDNER!!!

Irrelevant.

The country went for Bush in ‘04 too.

I think Dean would have beat Bush, but Dems went for Kerry.

“The majority is not always right.”

I happen to agree with Obama philosophically more than I do Clinton, btw, but I think Clinton is very smart, is more ready for the job at this point, and understands what it takes to beat Republicans, ugly or not, and therefore has a better chance of doing so. That is simply what I believe.

The one thing I liked that the the guy said about Obama, though (I don’t buy the change and hope and unity stuff), was that Clinton thinks we have to be Rove at his own game; Obama thinks we don’t have to play that game at all. I love the sentiment, it is what my own WANT is, but I’m not sure I believe it’s realistic and could well cost Dems in November. Dems have tried to stay above the Rovian fray, and it’s been disastrous, IMO.

Nice, lex-i-con, by the way.

Will you allow ‘free use’?

teehee

color me surprised

Btw, I find you post interesting.

Your “oopsy” and “…Clinton’s dreams dashed” indicate more of a desire to see someone lose than to see someone else win.

Again, the Obama candidacy is supposed to be about unity, ending division and negativity, changing the tone.

I don’t see it.

Paul Krugman hates Obama, as does Dowd, Kristol, and Brooks. They all like life as it is, and they use their columns to trash Obama and/or praise Clinton.

What did Dylan once say? Oh Yeah. “The Times, they are a changing”.

Well, wobbly, since we have to draw our own conclusions, I suspect however colorful we chose to be, ‘it is up to us’ (which also happens to be my suggestion for the new motto on our coinage).

Let us paint the future Green …

Considering that Krugman all but ignored Hillary’s embrace of McCain’s ridiculous gas-tax holiday, it’s so weird to see him attacking Obama on this. I guess his ego hasn’t got over Obama’s not being willing to utterly acquiesce to his demands when Krugman dissed his health care plan. (Which was a legitimate diss, but Krugman’s campaign-related columns since then have been subtle and not-so-subtle exercises in revenge.)

I like the motto and the color

That is why I don’t think the post should have been revised to fit a
neutrality that Krugman does not achieve himself, he does sound like
Dowd on this one. Blue Texan does a better job.

All but ignored?

He wrote a very strong column on it disagreeing with Clinton in no uncertain terms!

Geez…

You’re wrong about me, Juno. I see similarities between McCain and Clinton, and I cannot, in good conscience, support either of them. McCain and Clinton are self-absorbed, self-serving and tainted beyond correction. I want a coalition of Americans to positively affect the challenges that face all of us now and in the future. There’s only one competitor left in the race that has any HOPE of constructing that coalition.

I have no issue with any of that. We all support and/or do not support any given candidate for any number of reasons (I think Obama is VERY arrogant, btw, but I also think you have to be so to run for president).

My point was that your post was 1) sarcastic (the oopsy thing) and negative, about Clinton’s dreams being dashed, which would indicate that that is your goal.

Why not a post saying, a major superdelegate, who once supported Clinton, has now defected to Obama, giving Obama an edge in superdelegates, and I’m glad because I think Obama is the better choice?

I’m not hoping to gleefully watch Obama go down in flames. I’m hoping Clinton wins because I think she can beat McCain. I have no desire to see either candidate’s dreams dashed, beaten to a pulp, any of that, but I hear that a lot from Obama’s supporters, which seem to me to run contrary to the message Obama is trying to send.

Sarcasm and limited quantities of negativity are part of my charm. I’m an Obama supporter, not Obama. I am an imperfect human being. If you don’t care for my tone, that’s you’re perogative. Lots of people don’t like my approach. That’s my cross to bear.

What’s Senator Clinton’s theme? Obviously not unity. Not positivity. Not humility. I could offer many Clinton surrogates to support my argument. So, Juno, what exactly is the theme of her campaign? Saying anything at any given moment that might attract any given demographic to her desire to be the nominee? That’s how I see her.

And, for the record, McCain cannot win in November. The Democratic nominee and the other Democrats up for election will obliterate him and the other Republicans up for election.

I fundamentally disagree with your predicate that the superdelegates think she is more electable. That is total b.s. broadstroke and is totally contrary to the superdelegates in rural America who strongly support Obama.

Juno’s fatal flaws are generalization and short-sightedness. These flaws are very similiar to those of his preferred candidate.

This has been the pattern for the last month, on a daily basis… house
troll?

Yeah, I’ve been lurking. My thought is that it’s sour grapes over the dwindling Wright ‘controversy’.

Well let me correct you:

It’s concern about winning in November.

K?

Actually ‘his’ should, in point of fact, be ‘hers’.

Simply to set the record straight.

By so doing, I am NOT taking ’sides’, I assure you …

Nor passing judgment of any sort.

Just speaking to ‘truth’ …

Let the record be clear.

1) I’m a she;

2) I’m not sure why you can’t take my arguments at face value and perhaps simply disagree. Why does it have to be that I’m a troll or have sour grapes or some ulterior motives?

This is exactly what I mean by the insult so many of Obama’s supporters heap on people. You all take any challenge to Obama personally. This isn’t personal.

You say you are not obama, so you can offend away. But again, I ask you, what does this “change” entail if it doesn’t mean actual people changing their tone?

Response to your 1) Color me surprised. I was using ‘he’ in the universal sense. Bet I can come within +/-10 years in guessing your age. Burn any bras lately?

Response to your 2) I categorically disagree with you. You have continually tried to sell your POV in your comments. Isn’t it fundamentally fair to me that I could do the same? I get the impression that you have difficulty accepting those and the opinions of those who disagree with you. Not a criticism, just an personal observation.

Your first full sentence after your list satisfies my argument that you are a generalist without consideration for any view alternate of yours.

Change? Oh, I’ve changed. Change is a sign of growth. You should try it.

Wait until you see what the Obama comes up with against McBatshitCrazySaint when Obama becomes the nominee. Senator Obama’s campaign has resisted seriously attacking Senator Clinton in an effort not to destroy the party. The same cannot be said for Howard Wolfson and his cadre.

I’m going to make some calls to Guam now and prepare for my trip to Indiana. :)

While I’m not taking aim at Scarecrow in this comment, I am taking aim at some commenters here: Krugman is much more of a progressive than either Obama or Clinton and throwing over your real friends (that would be Krugman) for either of them is foolish – they are both centrist democrats and neither of them is progressives.

Clinton is generally better on domestic policy – as Krugman notes her tax policy, while a bad idea, is not identical to McCain’s an in policy terms is a wash. It’s however, not 1/10th the bad idea that Obama’s health care plan is and health care is 100X more important than a one time gas tax holiday. Her stimulus suggestion was also better than Obama’s, and not by a small margin.

Economically Clinton is, overall, the better candidate. That’s my opinion, and I’ve read both sides proposals. It’s Stirling Newberry’s opinion, and he’s read both sides proposals. It’s Krugman’s opinion – and he’s read both sides proposals. We could be wrong, sure, there are trustworthy competent economic types on the other side. But suggesting that he, or we, are not arguing in good faith is shooting your own friends for folks who aren’t.

Go look at Obama and Clinton’s actual record on say, the war – not their words – their record. Go look at their records on most issues. They are centrist Dems when the rubber hits the road.

For them you’re willing to slime Krugman?

No one takes Progressives seriously, and one reason is we eat our own. I will suggest to you that destroying our friends for either Clinton or Obama is not in our best interests.

Destroy Krugman? How in hell can a commentor on a blog do that, I think
Krugman will survive any disagreement I have with him playing a role in
this campaign, he has an otherwise good record. The blog started as a
negative appraisal of Krugman so what else do you expect? Perhaps you should critique the original post, now scrubbed, the pups just barked a
little about it, thats all.

I dare say that we are all caught up in this primary that has caused us to turn on one another. But afterall this is a place for opinions and as you have stated yours, allow others to continue to do the same.

Other than my hope that Obama may prove more educable than Clinton, on economics and in other areas, I endorse your comment wholeheartedly.

The damage we are doing to ourselves and each other will be the legacy we must live with, or die with …