Comments on: Krugman on Obama, Again

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:31:38 +0000

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 …

By: wobblybits

wobblybits — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:23:02 +0000

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.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:15:37 +0000

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.

By: Ian Welsh

Ian Welsh — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:04:07 +0000

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.

By: kdh22

kdh22 — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:03:23 +0000

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

By: kdh22

kdh22 — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:02:36 +0000

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.

By: kdh22

kdh22 — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:54:46 +0000

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.

By: Juno

Juno — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:32:59 +0000

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?

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:30:30 +0000

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.

By: Juno

Juno — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:30:26 +0000

Well let me correct you:

It’s concern about winning in November.