CNN Debate: Malice in Hillaryland
Finally, some blood on the floor of a Democratic presidential debate. Yum yum.
Barack Obama has finally uttered what millions have been thinking these past few weeks: Who’s he really running against? Bill or Hillary?
Answer: Bill.
Here’s my reaction to the debate.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 am
I get a sense that when Marc writes, “what millions have been thinking” he actually means “what I have been thinking.”
Your analysis would be a lot more credible Marc if you’d ease off on the Hillary hyperbole.
If you want to come out for Obama and against Clinton, you should do that straight out, and back it up, instead of nipping at her heels in a newsish report about what happened at the debate.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 am
@bunkerbuster: Since when did Marc’s column become your personal fucking birthday cake? He’ll write it the way he wants.
Stop wasting everyone’s time with your inane lecturing on what you think journalism is, you’re in over your head.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Well I was going to comment here but Comrade Chileno put me straight. guess he’s the enforcer and only benign comments agreeing with the Great and Powerful Coop are to be permitted.
Clinton Deraingement Syndrome is in virilent form here. So let’s all get in line with Obama. Never mind that no one here has the slightest idea where he wants to take the county. But he’s so inspiring!
And I love all the cretins in the comments section at HUFFPO that simply WILL NOT vote for Hillary. So they’ll vote for Romney? McCain?
I give up.
This country is not fit for self-government!
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Both you and reg should ponder that one, RLC.
And its perfectly reasonable, in spite of your admonitions, to refuse to vote for Hillary.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Marc — I read your column linked over at HuffPo and I think you called it dead on. I was glad to see Obama scrap with Clinton(s). However, I was dismayed that Obama seemed too defensive on health care reform. Was taken aback that Clinton had the nerve to chide Obama for previously supporting single-payer. Obama, imho, shoulda shot back more forcefully — that the 47 million uninsured mess we’re in now is largely a consquence of the Clinton’s incompetence. Thats her legacy! Those who fetishize beating the Republicans more than fixing the problem are the ones with a virilent deraingement syndrome. How can any adult with at least a room temperature IQ not see this? But hey, if you’re going to aim for mediocracy, you’re bound to hit it 100% of the time.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 am
“no one here has the slightest idea where he wants to take the county”
richard – you’re showing a vast ignorance – or faux-ignorance – here that’s beneath you. The “derangement syndrome” is obviously in full effect. Look in the mirror.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
jc I love that Brecht quote and have been using it here for years.
Reg, you really know where Obama wants to take the country?
What is is recipe for the economy?
How long should we stay in Iraq?
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:40 am
Last night’s debate must have been filtered thru “Rashomon.” For a slightly different view than that of our genial host consider this:
http://jeffrey-feld.typepad.com/frameshop/2008/01/frameshop-can-o-html
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Correction:
http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2008/01/frameshop-can-o-html
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
I also love the new Clintonista pile of steaming horseshit: It’s a “right-wing talking point” to call Bill Clinton a liar (even when he – and Hillary, as in last night’s debate – shamelessly lie. Hillary’s charge against Obama on him “liking” conservative ideas was the most calculated Big Lie of this campaign to date. This woman is going to kill the Democratic party’s chances to either revitalize at the grassroots – and possibly to even win in November. She’s certainly going to be a drag down-ticket – as evidenced by Senator McCaskill’s and Jean Carnahan’s endorsement of Obama. The best thing that could possibly happen for Democrats at this juncture is to leave the memory of “The era of Big Government is over” “End Welfare as We Know It” “Tough on Crime” Clinton era behind us and have Hillary go back to New York. This Clinton thing is getting pretty fucking sick – It’s hard to tell the difference between Roseanne Barr’s outbursts, the natterings of has-beens from the ’70s like Erica Jong on HuffPo and the talking points – which are becoming deeply disingenoous of the Recycle Twins – Hill and Bill.
I’ll vote for this blast from the past if I have to – but when Clinton fans like Josh Marshall and Michael Tomasky – or old-line Beltway stalwarts like Teddy Kennedy and Tom Daschle – are starting to get seriously creeped out by the Dynamic Duo, there’s obviously a problem. Denying it – or falling back on kneejerk memes like “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” and worse – like Barack’s being some kind of “Kumbaya” guy who doesn’t have a coherent agenda and just want’s to hold hands with the pharmaceutical companies.
The TRUTH is that the “healthcare industry” is donating to Hillary bigtime and even “sitting at the table with her BEFORE she’s even won the nomination. Here’s a clip from Newsweek of September 17th:
As of the first quarter of 2007 she was the recipient of more health-care-industry donations than any presidential candidate—Democrat or Republican—according to a recent study by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy. Even Charles Kahn, who, as executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association of America, orchestrated the Harry and Louise ad campaign, is hopeful that a President Hillary Clinton would tackle health-care reform again. “She knows a lot about health care, she’s interested, she can speak the language. It’s a natural constituency,†says Kahn, who is now president of the Federation of American Hospitals and says he met with her just a few months ago to talk about the issue. (end snip)
So if we want to slam a candidate for being open to negotiating with the insurance companies and big pharma, let’s have the honesty and candor to hit at the one who’s already doing it – but who is so fucking dishonest and has bamboozled liberal icons like Paul “I’m not that liberal” Krugman into actually believing that she’s “more progressive” and more of a fighter against corporate incursion into the interests of the working class (or “middle class” as it’s called in the USofA) than Obama. Horseshit. And people shoveling it should be ashamed of themselves.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
That should have been “Denying it…doesn’t make it go away.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Living in immutably-blue California it is easy for me to say I will never vote for Sen. Clinton. But I won’t. She and I were both wrong on Irag. The penance will never end. Yet she excuses herself from it. Out of political calculation? Some perceived burden of not being able to ever be wrong? All the other Dem. candidates that blew that call have admitted it. Why not her? There is a dangerous weakness here. Whatever psycho-baggage you bring into the Oval Office consumes you.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
richard – Obama’s plan for drawing down a brigade a month is more “detailed” than Hillary’s, and I think you know that but are playing games here.
As for the economy, he’s got a lot of detailed proposals, but frankly this bizness of dueling primary agendas is a fools errand. The reality is that if you want the same old hacks who supported the war in Iraq – like the egregious Richard Holbrooke – in the drivers seat, or you want the same economic team who have driven Robert Reich, one of the few “progressivesa” who even won an appointment in the Clinton administration – to support Obama over Hillary, keep up the silly “rosanne” stuff. I’d say it’s your funeral, but in fact it’s the funeral for anything even resembling moving forward on the part of Democrats. Mark Penn, Terry McCauliffe, has-been black insider leadership like Charlie Rangel, Richard Holbrooke, etc. etc. say it all. Obama isn’t the second coming of Christ – I’m real clear on that despite all of the silliness about Obamamania. But I also am real clear on the fact that he’s not the second coming of the Clinton administration with it’s worst dregs in the drivers seat and Hillary having her meetings with the likes of Charles Kahn while claiming that she’s got a better health care plan than Obama’s. The woman made universal health coverage a toxic political issue for FIFTEEN YEARS. The Big Dog – who’s now shitting on the sidewalk – was using Reagan talking points in his goddam state of the union address FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER Reagan was elected. The Democratic Party was a disaster during those years. Cliintonism was the essence of Democratic Leadership Council capitulation to Reaganism and the corporate agenda.
Do you want a rerun of this shit ? Wake up. Please.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I should have written “The woman’s political incompetence and arrogance made universal health coverage a toxic political issue…” There was enormous pushback obviously, but Hillary used the worst strategy possible under the circumstances and, frankly, shouldn’t even have been the person who – out of a sense of ego and entitlement – comandeered the battle. That, along with her vote for Bush’s war resolution, should eliminate her from serious consideration as the most skilled and experienced candidate. It also speaks volumes about her temperment and judgement, both of which suck.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Here’s the latest from the pile of horseshit known as the “Cllinton Campaign” – which obviously proves Obama loves conservative ideas…or something.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/because_she_asked.php
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I remember when it used to be a right wing talking point to call bill a liar. Now I don’t feel so lonely.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
reg’s expletive vehemence telegraphs that he’s less sure of his views than perhaps he should be.
It certainly makes him less persuasive than he should be…
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
>>>Well I was going to comment here but Comrade Chileno put me straight. guess he’s the enforcer and only benign comments agreeing with the Great and Powerful Coop are to be permitted.
tee-hee. But you’re wrong. It’s not that bb disagrees with the GPC, but rather that his idiotic and erroneous henpecking of the GPC’s journalistic credibility insults the intelligence of everybody here.
BB requires the GPC to “back it up” when the GPC supposedly projected his personal belief onto millions of Americans. Yet the GPC fails to provide his own evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, he acts like reporting with bias is somehow a violation what a “newsish” piece should be. He doesn’t know the first thing about journalism, yet the smug, ignorant little pedant pretends to spell it out for someone infinitely more credentialed than himself.
It’s uninformed, hypocritical tripe like that which stifles intelligent discussion about the issues. It’s okay to disagree, offer your own input, but bb didn’t even do that, instead the presumptuous brat took it upon himself to tinker with something he could never have written himself.
Social pariahs like bb are the outcome of the falsely-empowered nouveau riche consumerist culture a la your opinion matters when it really, really doesn’t. Unfortunately they proliferate in blog comments, these uppity, pompous fucks who view everything in their path as consumable, and theirs to judge and evaluate.
Again, debating the issues is fine, but assuming a fake sense of superiority by tsk-tsking a real pro’s credibility is pathetic beyond belief.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
This does it! reg and I will not vote for Hillary.
(Linked from Real Clear Politics) Hillary and the ‘Excesses of the Market’
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The difference, Woody, is I don’t think Reg would feed her to the woodchipper.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“he acts like reporting with bias is somehow a violation what a “newsish†piece should be.”
Not a violation, but certainly a weakness.
If Marc wants to be a pundit, he should come up with more analysis and insight. If he wants to be a reporter, he should show us, rather than tell us, about the debate. By mixing punditry with straight-sounding news, he weakens both.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
bb – perhaps less persuasive, that’s your call. But certainly not less sure – it’s a measure of precisely how little regard I’ve got for the Clinton endeavor as it unfolds.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
bb, what are your credentials? You’re critiquing the work of a pro journalist, someone who teaches journalism – it might be valid if you could back your shit up and prove you’re somebody worth listening to, but until then you’re wasting everybody’s time. Your persistent witlessness is a shameless abuse of our patience.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Here’s the problem Reg. When one compares details, like health plans there is a difference. I find the Edwards approach superior because of the Midicare option which I see as the back door to Single-payer which is, as every serious health economist not in the pay of the insurance industry knows is the superior model. Then why not do what Kuchinich wants and just go for Single-payer? Because – and this is an unfortunate fact – it cannot pass at this time and what is important now is to cover everybody as soon as possible. Not win “Moral Victories” and wait another ten years.
Hillary’s plan is universal but leaves a large role for private insurers. That is a recipe for such hugh costs that I fear the plan may be “Universal” but will be limited. Coverage will skimp. The putpose of the madates in her plan and in Edwards is to get to universal. You can only start seeing savings and better health outcomes if everyone is covered. Again – that’s apparent to every economist who has looked at this. Uwe Von Reinhardt is one of the experts here and he’s a colleague of Paul Krugman’s at Princeton. And Reinhardt says that Obama’s plan simply will not cover everyone and has too many gaps.
Why do I mention all this in the context of this thread? Because when Krugman pointed this out in his column the reacion of the Obamaics was not to accept the criticism or debate the good professor and point out his error of reasoning but, rather to go after Krugman as if he were some Clinton shill with an anti-Obama agenda.
And that seems to be typical. Barack can do now wrong and those who criticise him are obviously operating out of base motives. See the reaction to the perfectly reasonable criticism of his 100 plus “Present” votes in the Illinois legislatature. I thought his response to Sen. Edwards query was particularly lame. Look, Why could he not take a stand on these issues. And the argument that someone had put a “killer”Ammdt in some was no excuse. Then he should have voted “NO” and explained that the ammdt had changed the bill to something that was now unacceptable – even to a sponser. Now he would work to get a proper bill reintroduced and passed. It sounds to me that Obama was afraid that he could not explain that to the public. That’s ducking it and Harry Truman told us famously that the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania. Is he going to be “Present” there?
I’m sticking with Edwards. I’ll vote for Hillary or Barack if they get the nomination. But as Hyman Rickover told Jimmy Carter once –
“Why not the Best?” And right now I don’t see Barack that way. And that does not make me a Clinton partisan or an evil reactionary blind to the transcendent vision of the man from the Illinois prairies. You see a Lincoln – I see potential Edsel.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One more thing, bb. Have you ever picked up a European newspaper? Don’t you realize that mainstream US press is founded on an arbitrary construct of “objectivity”, that is really just a vehicle for promulgating a certain bias, just as any other form of writing is?
And otoh why should Marc become a “pundit”, just because he feels like expressing an opinion? You would sit here and defend the broken system of cable TV shock punditry vs mainstream corporate agenda oriented “objective” news, while Off The Bus is actually trying to do something different.
So okay I took a couple undergrad newswriting courses and I know a little bit more about the history of journalism than you – I don’t expect everyone to know what I know, and vice versa – but for you to sound off on something obviously know nothing about makes you look really, really stupid and I just had to call you out.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Chileno: My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Some times he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds, pretty standard really. At the age of 12, I received my first scribe. At the age of 14, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum, it’s breathtaking, I suggest you try it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
or to put it another way: My comments here stand on their own merits.
I don’t know, but I’d bet Marc would rather you let his work do the same.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Jesus, what tedious coprolalia.
I’m not voting for empty suit (thanks, Ted Rall) Obama nor for fascist Hillary. It’s not much of a choice.
Hopefully, Romney will be president.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Tedious coprolalia?
A nervous sausage anamolous prognosis!
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“So okay I took a couple undergrad newswriting courses and I know a little bit more about the history of journalism than you.”
Apparently, Chileno, you missed the lesson on making assumptions.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You guys keep whining for socialized medicine when we could achieve private health care for people who want it by offering tax credits and full deductions for coverage. It could work, but the Democrats want to take over a major segment of our economy, control our lives, and buy votes, so they ignore those options.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Ha! You can’t even come up with your own retorts, bb, much less respond substantively. I give a flying frick whether Marc requires my attack-dog services or not, I give them freely to shout down those who can’t contribute to the discussion. It’s a simple notion that you can’t seem to grasp:
a) You know nothing about journalism
b) The mission of OTB is therefore indistinguishable to you from the rest of mainstream media you’ve been spoon-fed
c) You persist in critiquing Marc’s credibility, without offering any display of your own credibility
Conclusion: your comments are a shameless waste of space. I certainly haven’t helped the discussion by egging you on, better to ignore you of course, but that wouldn’t be fun. Also, one would hope the generation of conflict would elicit some sort of solid defense from you. But since you’re obviously totally vapid, you resort to cutting and pasting.
Oh well. Here’s to picking a better fight next time.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Woody check the price of Health insurance and tell me that a family of four around the median (around 35K) can afford same. No bluster OK, show me the real policies that will provide the needed coverage with eith no deductibles or very tiny ones.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
One more thing. That family pays little if anything in income tax. They pay a lot more in FICA.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Chileno: your remarks contain no substance, beyond sophomoric misunderstanding about European journalism, so there’s nothing for me to respond to. Your insults are so witless they count more as self-deprecation.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
rlc – you’re grasping at straws which have been debunked with the “present” argument. The differences on Hillary’s vs. Barack’s health care plan are miniscule details indeed – and Barack has said he’d go for mandates if necessary, but it’s politically daft to run on them because the GOP will distort it successfully.
What I get from you is serial and often overtly disingenuos criticism of Barack and the sense that you’d be fine with Hillary if she gets the nomination. I think that the Clintons are a disaster for the Dems. You can use Edwards as a shield for passive assent to the Clinton steamroller, but don’t attack Barack for not being a committed progressive, like the increasingly out-of-touch Krugman. It’s intellectually insulting. It’s based on a patchwork of arguments that don’t bear up under scrutiny. Some of the stuff, like the “He loves Reagan” meme is pure fabrication – as was Hillary’s attack on him in the debate last night. This stuff is de facto shilling for Hillary. Which isn’t even remotely “progressive.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Incidentally, the notion that Obama’s push-back to Krugman’s silly little academic driveling was some heinous offense is absurd, especially coming from folks who make claims about the exquisite sensitivities of Obama supporters. (And like Obama doesn’t understand the point of mandates – which he’s explicitly said he’ll include if too many people aren’t covered – or that he doesn’t understand that single payer is the best plan. Ezra Klein and Robert Reich have both weighed in on this without making completely ignorant and tendentious arguments about Obama being less “progressive” than Hillary Clinton – which is insane and which Krugman has tried to peddle twice. Krugman’s a politically shallow man who should stick to what he’s good at. He’s a technocrat who’s found himself dabbling in partisan politics – which he isn’t suited for. He comes at it like a naive convert.)
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Gotta side with reg (gasp) and Chileno defending Marc. Not that he needs defending at all, but bb’s rants are almost as stultifying as reg’s multi-posts (sorry reg, just have never been able to understand why you can’t get it into a single post).
I don’t like any of the dems running, but of those running I think Obama would be harder for the conserves to beat and would be a better president than shrillary. On the other hand, reg would be a better president than shrillary.
In point of fact, my russian born scottish fold cat would be a better president than shrillary.
Did I mention I don’t like Hillary by any chance?
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Reg to get back to health care. To be universal there must be some mandate mechanism Without it you cover evryone. Its that simpe. Don’t cover everyone you miss the advantages of Universal coverage and creat an expenside, unworkable mess.
I’m sorry old friend but it is you and not Krugman et al who are out of touch here.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
rlc, I could make health care affordable and private through the tax code. Democrats don’t like that option because it lets you make choices rather than them. And quit calling it univeral health care when it is appropriately labeled socialized medicine.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I don’t know much about how it works in Canada or U.K., but I can tell you that insurance in Japan–where everyone’s covered under a government-administered plan–seems very expensive.
For someone making, say, 100,000 dollars a year, the monthly would be north of $500. And that’s out-of-pocket; the employer kicks in more–how much, I don’t know.
That buys 70 percent coverage of everything, with zero deductible. There are a few quirks–such as childbirth, which isn’t covered, since it isn’t an illness, and some of the best prescription drugs simply are unavailable.
All told, it seems to have less disastrous consequences than the American system, but, then again, it conforms a lot closer to Japanese culture.
I wonder if such a system could function in America??
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I should probably let Richard respond to you first, Woody, but where you say you could “make health care affordable and private through the tax code” I find that quite a doozie. Would love to see some outline as to how that would actually work.
You do know, that there is a health care plan that works through the ‘tax code’ right? It’s called Medicare. And we’d probabaly do well to keep them goverment bureacrats out of Medicare, huh?
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Reg, you’re definitely being a Stalinist here. In every possible way. The notion you hint, at, – that to support Edwards is to support Hillary is, while you are simply saying to not support Obama is to not support Obama, and that God Forbid anyone not support Obama. When confronted with evidence that Obama – as if we never knew this – was a Centrist, albeit a sincere and honest one – you don’t take a tack that defends his position, you attack the messenger.
On all issues, Edwards is more progressive, and I dare say closer to your own positions. The question is why so many progressives support Obama over Edwards? My God, you’ve got a candidate whose talking in class oriented – and even “no military bases in Iraq” – language that has never been heard in teh mainstream. Thsi is great stuff, even to a cynical Marxist like me. And you are supporting Obama.
Its just as logical – and far more true – for me to say that by supporting Obama you are supporting the financial sector – but it would be not taking into accounts the variety of reasons that people support various candidates in a democratic system. And like it or not, RLC and others, this appleis to all of your arguments against Nader supporters- or this year, McKinney supporters or any other Third party supporters.
Obama and Hillary are corporate shills. This is why the media makes a big dal out of their fight (and I’m not discounting Hillary’s campaign’s disgusting Willie Horton swift boat tactics) and underplay Edwards, make him “second tier.” And thus Obama supporters, by playing him up as a prog, drain Edwards support. Why are you supporting Hillary by supporting Obama?
See the logic?
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I will agree, GM, that you are stultified. But I don’t think you should be blaming little old me for that. Took you a lifetime to get there…
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“why so many progressives support Obama over Edwards”
Because there’s no “two Americas” in any meaningful sense. And to the extent that there are differences between the interests of upper middle class and middle class and poor Americans, many progressives such as myself are doing what we can to make sure we are at least headed toward the upper middle class, if not the dread upper class itself.
The insinuation that rich people don’t work hard or don’t deserve their wealth is toxic. Edwards has a lot going for him politically–his looks, his twang, his stance on Iraq–but he’s not substantively enough different from Obama to make it worth swallowing the “Two Americas” crank populism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Actually, jc, viewed from a vin diagram, you’re logically correct about reg’s argumentation visa via Edwards.
Where it doesn’t work so well is with Edwards as a candidate within the Democratic Party. Indeed, Edwards carries a class-orienated message (that I admit to agreeing with). But he’s playing it in a country where overwhelmingly people won’t even acknowledge class distinctions. Probably, he’s in the wrong party. He’s a leader without a following. He’s a Lulu Mini Me.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“people won’t even acknowledge class distinctions.”
What, Rob, is your description of America’s “underclass”?
And if I’m clearly not a member of the underclass, does that mean my interests are necessarily different than those of the underclass?
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Because there’s no “two Americas†in any meaningful sense.
That is so incorrect, that I won’t even bother explaining it to you.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
BB- good question. Perhaps you and I understand our ‘position’ in the greater economy, our ‘place’ if you will in the means of production. But I don’t think anyone can successfully argue that Americans, overall, recognize these distinctions. Seriously, look at your own comments @ 9:18. Maybe another why of explaning it is to ask how many Americans understand the definition of solidarity. Or what do Americans do to press for a betterment of their own self interest? We’re mostly buying the charms of ‘individualism’ and atomizing ourselves in the process.
And certainly the two major political parties refuse these distinctions — except for the real Blueblood types like Mitt Romney. He know he’s uppercrust and is fighting for all he’s worth to stay there and keep us both away. No ‘Magnificence’ …not even a little bit.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
There are tangibly different interests between owners of capital and labourers who must sell their labour to earn a subsistence. This is basic economics, not at all radical. And capitalism creates class struggle. Again, basic economics.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“Reg, you’re definitely being a Stalinist here”
Total fuckng idiot. Woodyesque.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I have to say that I think that jcummings is making the most sense here. I would take it a step further by daring to call Obama a spoiler. Barak Obama is without a doubt a spoiler. He is certainly no less a “spoiler” than Ralph Nader was a spoiler in 2000 against Gore. What, Reg, makes Obama any less of a spoiler than Nader? Anyone who seriously believes that Obama (“I’d have to see him dance; to see if he is one of the ‘brothas’”) has any chance of winning an American election is comically mistaken. It is Edwards’ time, and to me Obama’s egocentric (and premature) run for the presidency represents one of the biggest American betrayals of all time – especially considering that as many as 3 supreme court seats may be at stake.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I guess to summarize my last post: If Obama were not running, Hillary would not have a clue against Edwards. Edwards and Obama should consolidate, and the person to drop out should be Obama without question.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
rlc – to turn this thing on “mandates” is truly shortsighted to the point of the bizarre. I’ll go with Robert Reich over Paul “I’m not that liberal” Krugman of “Globalization is Great” fame…
Pauly-come-lately is showing his technocratic, academic roots. Fussing over policy papers. It’s a damned shame when this decent, moderately liberal guy becomes one of the intellectual icons of progressives. A tribute to the disarray of Democrats inflicted on us by DLC Cintonism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Um, David, Edwards is tracking all of about 14% in South Carolina right now.
Yeah, if it weren’t for that pesky premature (?)Obama, Edwards might hit, what 20%?
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“:one of the biggest American betrayals of all time”
from someone who’s obviously one of the biggest American morons of all time. Good thing cummings with his “Stalinist” drivel is Canadian or it would be a hard call.
This stuff is just puerile and pathetic.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Okay, jc – Canadians are also “Americans” – my bad…
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I think David proves that if there’s any Kool-aid circulating, the Edwards variety is even more toxic than Clintons – or at least more damaging to the brain cells. I’m feeling pretty level-headed under the sway of “Obamamania” compared to the stuff that’s coming over the transom from blindered Edwardsites. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest “biggest betrayals of all time” sounds kinda…uh…Stalinist.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
>>>Apparently, Chileno, you missed the lesson on making assumptions.
No, I’m not practicing journalism I’m wanking on a blog you dolt. And if I’m assuming wrong why can’t you correct me? Because you’ve got nothing and you know it. Afaict, the whole reason for your existence on this thread is to:
a) henpeck that which you know nothing about
b) brag about your own arrivism, via “arguments” against Edwards.
Man I totally called it with “nouveau riche” – face it, bb, Edwards is a dream come true for you: what other national candidate would give you a chance to try to flaunt your social status?
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Thanks to those defending me against BB, but not to worry, I am armed with a ginat sized can of Raid to protect me.
Krugman, by the way, is vermin. But some of us knew that already.
I might also have to improve relations with Jcummings because if Billary is elected I WILL be moving to Canada.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Referring to the “Betrayal”
Thats Trotskyist, comrade.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I want to clarify something – I’m not attacking anyone for supporting or voting for John Edwards. That’s a coherent position, although I’d argue with the tactical sophistication at this late date if you are a progressive who would like to move beyond stuff like Bill Clinton’s triangulation’s and HIllary’s remarkable combo of incompetence (healthcare) and bad judgement (Iraq.) What I find disapponting and, frankly, infuriating is using support for Edwards as the rationale for launching serial – and, I have to say, mostly disingenuous and/or insinuating – attacks on Obama and giving Hillary a pass. This is the essence of my problem with Comrade Richard.
I’ll also not that I’ve got this funny feeling that, for all of Edwards’ heated rhetoric about he and Obama being aligned against Hillary and for “change” just a week-and-a-half ago, Edwards might well cut a deal with Hillary and throw his support to her (although he certainly won’t get the Veep spot this time around.) I don’t fully trust the man…although I hope I’m wrong. My impulse has always been to like Edwards and assume he’s sincere about his issues, although he obviously sucks as a candidate given his track record.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
This much is certain, should Hillary win the nomination, liberals will have set the bar very, very low for her…
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 am
re John Edwards:
The wheel’s still turning, but the hamster is dead.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Rob Grocholski, I don’t consider medicare to be the same as allowing private health coverage through the tax code.
When someone hands me a fistfull of prescriptions to deduct on his tax return, I often tell him that he’ll be out of luck on the deduction unless he had cancer and no insurance. It can take that much. The tax code passed by Congress allows health coverage to be deducted as an itemized deduction, but only that part that exceeds 7.5% of your income. Do the math on your income. Why not allow it all or allow someone to take it as a credit?
There are many scenarios where the tax code does not encourage private health care, but it could if politicians really cared about people rather than politics.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
“reg would be a better president than shrillary”
GMR – you forgot to mention your additional excellent insight that I would also be a better President than Mike Huckabee.
(Given my obvious and rather awesome ability to “kumbaya” the far right, it’s a damned shame I’m not in this race.)
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Wouldn’t you love to read an extended Mark Cooper column where our hero demonstrates his prowess with “critical thinking” by really exposing Paul Krugman as “vermin?” Unintentional comedy like that is a lot to hope for; but in that area Coop sets the bar high. Love the sleazy “some of us knew” touch, a vague suggestion Cooper has some nasty, inside information on Krugman. Cooper has studied Hoe MCarthy and Hitchens well.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 am
This week the LA Weekly brushes off a letter writer who points out the ugliness of Cooper’s bigotry with the old “equal opportunity offender” saw. You have to wonder if these people even review Coop’s tripe before waving in into print, but those of us who HAVE done the dirty deed and waded through the wet noodles Cooper has applyed to the radical right politcos (he helped elect) know what nonsense this is. Hey Huck, the bitch was Clinton’s cousin. No harm, no foul.
So we are left with the same old question: why do liberals accept this abuse from left publications, or even seem to disere it? Guilt or self loathing? Do the situational standards Reg’s brings to his recent mud pies hold some clue? Last night I watched Dan Abrams do a boxing scorecard on the debate. Stupid, sure, but entertaining. So maybe it’s my fault.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
Anyway Bunk, I think you protest to much. Most liberals understand there are decent and good rich people. Lot’s of exceptions thou….
Grown ups corner: The Dems have three pretty good candidates. Does Hillary Clinton’s built in devisivness mean the same thing as unelectability? I honestly don’t know. If you do, bless you until the walls of Jerico come tumbling down! The infighting and low blows will be used against whichever one takes the nomination, and if you think they’re not going to turn on Obama, you better wise up. The surge has salvaged Iraq is already emerging as the offical story; and instead of answering this; our leftist publications waste time on the likes of Marc Cooper.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
I was impressed with how Obama handled himself against Hill and John in the last debate. Smart, quick-witted, and above all IMHO, a ‘gentleman’ in his responses to attacks from the ‘machine’ and the odd-man-out. This guy is really likeable, and increasingly worrying to the other machine, the Republican Party.
His response to the Clintons when ask if Bill was the first Black President could not have been more considerate and funny at the same time. His response to Hil’s attack by saying he didn’t know which Clinton he was running against was so on, but restrained at the same time. His response to the race/gender voter issue in the campaign by adding John should attract white men, was another disarming response done in an entertaining way.
I have been amused and impressed by the way Obama has raised tough issues normally reserved for the general election, like social security, the need to unite the nation instead of the party, and an unheard of acknowlegement of a potential advantage of another parties past president. It is hard to believe he is not doing this by accident, and if not, a very unusual political tact for winning a parties primary.
I will speculate he is trying for the young and independents and disaffected to win in the increasingly open primaries, and will put him in very good stead with the middle in the general.
In any case, this guy will be President sooner or later. Refreshing.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:38 am
Should be “It is hard to believe he is doing this by accident….”
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
“The infighting and low blows will be used against whichever one takes the nomination, and if you think they’re not going to turn on Obama, you better wise up. ”
Which makes one wonder why Edwards continues to attack both at the expense of his own party, with absolutely no chance of winning a primary. This says more about his real character than the one he want to ‘talk’ about.
Obama knows full well he will be turned on in the general. He is doing a pretty good job taking on two of the best in his own party. One behaving as if he lusts for a third term.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Chileno, journalism is too important to claim that only pros should critique it. The record of professional journalists in general, current company excepted, in the US recently is pretty despicable. You really don’t want to be taking the position of defending the perquisites of this particular profession.
Woody, individual insurance, whether subsidized by the taxpayers or not, is a terrible way to handle health costs. Pace JC, this is just basic economics. Rates for sick and older people are necessarily extremely high if an insurance company has to make a profit. Unless you think that age and poor health are the fault of the individual, it doesn’t make any sense to allocate the costs this way.
All, mandates to buy individual health insurance, whether they come from the Walmart-Clinton campaign or from Mitt Romney, are horrible. First, see the economics lesson above that individual health insurance is a terrible idea in the first place. Second, it is a clear signal to employers who currently pay for insurance to drop it and shift cost to their employees. Third, the government subsidies will never be enough for the poor and sick to afford insurance, which is why compliance in MA is terrible. Mandates are about as effective as just outlawing disease.
How can anyone miss the politics of this?Campaign contribution-hungry politicians propose to require everyone by law to buy their sponsors’ products at whatever prices the for-profit corporations choose to charge. Criminy, why doesn’t every industry try this?
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
“Do the situational standards Reg’s brings to his recent mud pies hold some clue?”
I’d like to hear some substantive response to the points I’ve made – like was Hillary broadcasting a shameless like, and sticking to it knowing it was a lie, in her charge against Obama that he thought conservative ideas were “good.” Or Bill’s attempt to falsely portray himself as an opponent of the Iraq war at the outset. Or the fact that Bill Clinton swam in Reagan’s wake with his anti-big government, end welfare, eager-to-enforce-the-death-penalty DLC persona. I’m accurately portraying the Clintons. The crap here slung against Obama is ridiculous – “Kumbaya”. Or assuming he needs some education about the virtues of mandates on cobbled-together health care reforms. And Krugman has sunk quite low in his serial assertions that Clinton is more progressive than Obama. That’s the perspective of either a hack or a dangerously naive scribe. I don’t for a minute believe he’s “vermin” – just a come-lately guy who as recently as 2003 made the claim “I’m not really that liberal.” And, of course, his record on the issues is a testament to that. It’s a damned shame when liberalism has been so stymied by some combination of conservative hegemony and the tepid responses of DLC types and years of “incremental reform” Clintonism that, literally, mimics Reaganesque rhetoric and even agendas (controlling goverment deficits – no matter that they were exacerbated by Reagan – and ending welfare “as we know it” are the two signal achievements of the Clinton years – along with sinking health care reform for a decade and a half via massive political incompetence). One can trumpet what a fine candidate Hillary is – except she’s not. Her vote on the war alone disqualfies her as “knowledgable, experienced, and a fighter” in my humble opinion. She’s the dream candidate of the GOP and can mobilize right-wing shock troops even better than Karl Rove can at this point in the game. “Faithful” Democrats need to wake up. More Clintonism – either the ’90s variety or what’s exemplified in Mark Penn, McAuliffe heading up this current campaign – is the last thing progressives need. I also have to say that a lot of “progressive” bloggers like Atrios and Digby – who refuse to enter the most important debte going on among party activists right now – are proving themselves little more than relatively intelligent and diligent Yellow Dog Democrats. Another disappointment. Not much “there” there.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 am
Typically, at least one sentence went wandering off on its own…my point was supposed to be:
It’s a damned shame when liberalism has been so stymied by some combination of conservative hegemony and the tepid responses of DLC types and years of “incremental reform†Clintonism that…an academic economist with utterly conventional views – well to the right of John Kenneth Galbraith – becomes an icon of “fighting progressives” simply because he does a good job of defending social security and the obvious disasters and excesses of the worst administraion in memory. The unfortunate fallout of the Bush years and, before that, the conservative onslaught that Reagan effectively launched, is that we have indeed set the bar awfully low.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Mr. X: “Woody, individual insurance, whether subsidized by the taxpayers or not, is a terrible way to handle health costs.”
I don’t consider letting people keep the money they earned as being subsidized by the taxpayers. However, Democrats believe that all money belongs to the government and they just allow you to keep some of it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
>Obama’s plan for drawing down a brigade a month is more “detailed†than Hillary’s
I don’t know much about the military, but I did take the time to look up “brigade” on Wikipedia to see if Obama’s plan adds up. I’m invite any factual corrections from someone more knowledgeable about the military. Pending that, here are the numbers:
USM brigade = between 1500 and 3500 troops
Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I’ll use 3,000. Currently about 150,000 US troops in Iraq, not counting private mercenaries and assuming the official numbers are accurate.
Do we want to vote for a plan to withdraw over 4 years plus, starting one year from now? What will the war be like for our troops who are still there four years from now when they are down to 50K, not enough to defend Baghdad alone?
None of us should support any candidate who does not promise full, immediate withdrawal.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
I find it interesting that Krugman is dismissed as “vermin” because . . . well I don’t know why its because. Probably the most cogent and coherent critic of the Reagan/Bush conservative nonsense is dismissed for the capital crime of not finding Obama to make sense? That seems to be Reg’s reason. Why Marc so catagorizes him is left to one’s imagination – or is it that the Great and Powerful Cooper so decrees.
Look there is a pattern here. Several people express doubts about Obama. These doubts are based on reasoned arguments about parts of he program. Instead of argumentthose doubts are met with invective.
I must say that I’m feeling nostalgic. The last time I ran into this was in the late sixties and early seventies when I knew the bedraggled surviviors of SDS and the RCP or other such groups, sure in their own way that history was on their side and “Revolution” was around the corner. Sometimes its fun to go own memory lane. Sometimes its just “Groundhog’s Day.”
But I learn my lesson if slowly. So I won’t argue the point any more since I’m dealing with true believers and know that they won’t abandon their doctrine over a little matter like consistancy or proof. After all I didn’t spend all those years as a youth learning the Baltimore Catechism for nothing!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
>I don’t consider letting people
>keep the money they earned
>as being subsidized by the taxpayers. >However, Democrats believe that
>all money belongs to the
>government and they just allow you
> to keep some of it.
First of all, don’t call me a Democrat-those are fighting words.
Second, give me a break, none of us would earn anything without the government. Speaking for myself, I learned to read in a taxpayer-funded school, went to tax-funded universities, and inherited a bunch of money from a stepfather who learned his high-paid profession in the military and from a mother who was a public school teacher. You and I both drive to work on tax-funded highways and rely on the tax-funded internet every day for our jobs. I make my living marketing financial products that would not exist without
tax subsidies or without government regulation to keep the markets relatively honest. If I’m not mistaken, you make a living mostly by completing tax forms. No government, no earnings.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
I should have read further to cover your other points, Mr. X.
Not having coverage in old age or with bad health is the responsibility of the individual. People know that they will get old and should prepare. Many people (not all) in bad health brought the bad health on themselves by lifestyles and, in any event, should have had pre-existing coverage. But, provisions can be made for those people without making everyone sign onto socialized medicine.
Regarding individual policies, it doesn’t matter how a taxpayer gets insurance, whether through an employer or on his on–and, there are plenty of association plans for individuals.
Also, it doesn’t matter if some people choose not to spend the money on insurance. Leave it up to the individual. I know plenty of people younger than age 25 who temporarily forego health insurance to buy a house. They’re not expected to have a serious illness and auto insurance covers car wrecks.
The health system has a lot right with it and a lot wrong with it. However, letting government take it over and saying that it will make the system better is a joke.
Tell me. What “entitlement” will masses expect next, once the Democrats have milked this one and ruined out system? I guess a few years from now they will want to “save health care,” just like they want to “save social security,” another unfunded program they started to buy votes.
Maybe they would like to take over unions to make them run better and will force eveyone to join a union, whether they want to or not–just like some idiot states. Universal union care–an entitlement for the 2020 election.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
X – here’s his precise language…
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
rlc – frankly, you’ve not made any “reasoned arguments” that I can tell in response to either the Clinton record – which elsewhere you’ve tried to de-link from the DLC, when that doesn’t even begin to wash – or the fact that Obama can mobilize people. Repeating the “kumbaya” mantra doesn’t qualify. I’ve made a number of explicit charges against the Clinton record and campaign which no one has debunked – deflected, yes. But not even challenged substantively. It’s always a circle back to your articles of faith – Obama just wants to sit down with the drug companies, etc. etc.
Since I’m not the smartest guy around and often get “testy” in these exchanges, I’ll challenge anyone here to make a coherent argument against Marshall Ganz’ estimation of Hillary’s approach to her tepid “progressive” politics vs. Obama’s progressive strategy AND ability to deliver on it. Also checking out Mark Schmitt’s piece at The American Prospect on the Dems contending “theories of change” makes the argument better than I ever could. That’s my last word on this, other than to challenge anyone to come up with any specific charge I have made against the Clintons record and false charges against Obama (leaving “horseshit” at the side) which was “mud.” And if those charges can’t be debunked, it’s pretty damned clear where the “mud” is coming from.
I
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
And frankly, richard, you know exactly where you can stuff the “RCP” analogies. I’m deeply disappointed…disgusted even.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
X, we’re crossing paths on the comments. I didn’t call you a Democrat. I try not to insult people.
I didn’t say that we don’t need government. We just don’t need as much as they are forcing on us, and we sure don’t need them taking over a major part of private enterprise. Government makes things more complicated, less efficient, and more expensive.
My great-grandfather was a wagon builder back in the 1800′s. He knew the trade and went about it, without business licenses, sales taxes, zoning, payroll taxes, census reports, OSHA requirements, registering with all levels of government, and having a ten foot bulletin board necessary to post all the different rights of workers.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
>there are plenty of association plans for individuals.
no time to respond to more than this one point right now. Insurance companies will not issue group plans to groups with voluntary membership. This is a fantasy of the mandate crowd, but private insurance companies will never do business this way since it invites “antiselection,” the tendency of sick people to join such associations and healthy ones to stay away.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
“Probably the most cogent and coherent critic of the Reagan/Bush conservative nonsense is dismissed for the capital crime of not finding Obama to make sense? That seems to be Reg’s reason.”
Okay – I can’t let that stand.
First of all, as you know, my biggest criticism of Krugman is for making the obviously inane and DLC-like assertion at least twice in his columns that Hillary Clinton is a more reliable progressive than Barack Obama. Anyone who believes that is a fool, and I’m not going to bother to spend time debunking it (which would be relatively easy and probably futile because my detractors here make a point of ignoring evidence in favor of insinuation.)
Second, the notion that Paul Krugman is “the most cogent critic of the Reagan/Bush nonsense” is sad. First of all, Krugman actually worked as a technocrat in the Reagan administration – which doesn’t make him a bad person or devalue his often excellent commentary on the utter insanity of the rightwing agenda (probably enhances it). If I were going to nominate a “most cogent critic of the Reagan/Bush nonsense” I’d look elsewhere however. That liberals idolize St. Paul is a function of the fact that the New York Times is still the center of too many liberal’s world. I’ll take Robert Kuttner, who was making more systematic criticisms than Krugman is even today capable of back when Krugman was still an apparatchik in a GOP administration. Or Robert Reich, who is “softer” on globalization than I am, but again who is someone who is truly a cogent critic and has the track record. William Grieder also comes to mind. Joseph Stiglitz is probably the dean of former “insiders” who can debunk the conventional “conservative” wisdom. Krugman comes late, often with relatively little. He’s got a great perch and he says the right things more often than most of the “establishment liberal” columnists, but he’s not my guru. Not even close.
Also, I don’t hold to or approve of the vermin characterization and I’ve consistently acknowledged the good Krugman’s done in our current Bizarro World in tandem with my criticisms of his intellectually and politically embarrassing evaluation of Hillary Clinton’s “progressivism”. Krugman shows his penchant for academic distinctions and near-total ignorance of the dynamics of activist progressive politics.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Obama supports collective punishment:
”
The letter from the Senator to the Ambassador speaks for itself:
Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,
I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.
I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condenm the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel…
All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this… Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.
The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks… If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator”
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
As Krugman himself acknowledges, the only reason he’s become a “radicalized moderate” is because Bush has pushed moderate liberals – like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall – to what has become “the left” as the larger terms of political debate have shifted well to the right (chalk that up to Reagan as Obama correctly noted and chalk approximately zero effective push back in reframing the political dialogue in favor of liberals for Clintonism, unless one considers “competence” a key element of the liberal agenda.)
To understand who Krugman is and why, here’s an interview excerpt with Ezra Klein at American Prospect on his book, “Conscience of a Liberal” –
EK: And you know that Wellstone used the same title. Did you think about that at all?
PK: No, it actually slipped through the holes of my head. I might not have done if I had realized that.
EK: I thought it was interesting because of the parallels and contrasts between you and Wellstone. You are, as you’ve said, sort of a radicalized moderate at this point, a mainstream liberal who’s been living in a radicalizing time. And it struck me that five, ten years ago, that there was a real difference between the sort of technocratic liberal that Paul Krugman was and the sort of populist labor liberal that Paul Wellstone was. There’s been a convergence of those — George W. Bush has expanded liberalism. Do you think that’s right?
PK: Oh sure. You know, [under Bush], you realize who you actually have only technical disputes with, and that, more fundamentally, you share values. I think I said to Eric Alterman once that while people like you and me are having our disputes over trade policy, Sauron was gathering his forces in Mordor. There are arguments we can have that will eventually have to be hashed out, but they’re relatively minor compared with this huge difference, do we believe in democracy, do we really believe in a broadly shared prosperity? And so now we have a lot of ground giving in all sides so that we have amazing consensus on things like healthcare. (end snip)
So we have Bush to thank for mobilizing liberals – not our own “gurus” or our own political leadership.
Another excellent argument for electing someone who has the will and capacity to move people at the grassroots, be a positive impact on downticket Democrats (like McCaskill) in “reddish and purple” regions, and put the oppostion on the defensive – as Reagan did – when it comes time to push the legislative agenda in ’09 rather than mobilizing them and helping them consolidate their base. There’s only one candidate who has shown this potential. On the other hand, if you enjoy treadmills…
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Okay – I’ve overstayed any possible welcome and slung enough mud.
If I violate my alleged intention to give this a rest, folks will begin posting their response using a “Sergio” psuedonym.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
>Government makes things more
>complicated, less efficient, and
>more expensive.
Direct me to the private company that will deliver a document anywhere in the US, including Hawaii, within a couple of days for $0.41.
What about a private health insurance company with 6% overhead costs, like Medicare’s?
Why again do my neighbors with LA Water and Power pay utility rates that are so much lower than mine with Edison? Is that because socialized services are so inefficient?
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
I’m perplexed, Cummings. What exactly do you have a problem with in Obama’s letter?
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The notion that “Israel must” starve and punish the people of Gaza, and the aim to outflank Bush on the right by demanding that Khalilzad prevent a UN resolution condemning Israel’s behaviour.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
As I said I will no longer attempt to challenge Reg’s world view or the Manichean world of our genial host who sees the mark of the beast in all things Clinton.
In the meantime I will just note that the Fresno BEE (A McClatchey paper) has endorsed John Edwards.
Small victoiries are all I’m allowed these days.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Mr. X, should you ever start your own blog, please post the url here. You are on a ripping good tear today, and I’m reading compulsively. Easy enough to scroll past the verbal diarrhea of some others who are prompting you to write. Your trenchant points are right on. Well said, man!
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“serial assertions?” Well Reg, as long as you’re not loading the issues…
An opening caveat: The war in Iraq can be laid at the foot of George W Bush. Hillary Clinton’s claims that her votes were to empower Bush to give inspections more time are only outlandish if one is pretty much committed to letting Bush off the hook. The now well parrot phrase “voted for the war” must bring a smile to Karl Rove and others sympathic to Nadar in 2000.
This does not rob Obama of his glory in siding with the small, but not that small percentage of Dems who didn’t, even under consdierable political presure, buy Bush’s con. Did he try to retreat from his vote by his use of the internet and other means? Sorry Hil, the point isn’t even interesting. It simply illustrates the strain the candidates are under in trying to distinguish themselves, when they are not really very diferent. At least policy wise.
As for the all important “soft on the gipper” issue, I can’t say it better than Joan Walsh today. Somersby also argues convincingly that while Obama’s comments were no big deal in first place; it’s Clinton’s words that are getting a royal twisting. In fairness, however, this may be due to the Obama’s campaign trying to keep their Clinton’s stright; and that’s hardly their fault.
As for Krugman, look, it seems a bit ironic that you want to go back to the Reagan era to slime the guy. Yes, I know, and Byrd was in the Klan. At some point you should receive credit for your conversions. I just took Krugman’s piece to say he thinks Clinton’s proposed programs are better than Obamas. I don’t think he’d have written it if he didn’t think it was true.
This does carry some weight with me; but I assure you the Paul Krugman Alter in my home is quite small. During the holiday months, it is even reversed to form a modest, non-denominational nativity scene.
As I think I said before, the Robert Johnson comment struck me as a lame attempt at humor I very much doubt came from the Clinton camp; just as I’d be floored to learn the Obama campaign had anything to do with the Priest at Obama’s church who made the Monica crack.
As we must ask ourselves, who benifts from the current media narrative? Said almost always seems to run anti-Clinton. Sure, some radical scribes sign on too, the kind who pine for the great jounalism of the O.J. Simpson trial.
Greenwald’s point the other day wasn’t that Klein was special in abusing Hillary, but that he was part of something that appauled a majority of Americans (see Clintons Impeachment week numbers) and has tried to run away from his part in it.
Seems to me the Clinton phobea is rooted, for some, in a fear of having to face the daily frothing at the mouth of a nation of idiots who bought into that nonsense. I ADMIT IT, IT SCARES ME TOO. But I’m not so far gone that I’m ready to hang it on the Clintons.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Thirdcharmer writes: “Most liberals understand there are decent and good rich people.”
That raises the question about the extent to which you, and/or “most liberals” understand there are decent and good poor people.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
>My great-grandfather was a
>wagon builder back in the 1800’s.
>He knew the trade and went
>about it, without business licenses,
sales taxes, zoning, payroll taxes,
>census reports, OSHA requirements, registering with all levels of
>government, and having a ten foot
>bulletin board necessary to post
>all the different rights of workers.
Do you want to go back to the guilded age level of GDP per capita? 19th C rates of cholera, silicosis, typhoid, diseases that are now reduced or eliminated by government regulation and public works projects? Should we go back to dumping people on the street when they are disabled in work accidents? tear down the taxpayer-funded universities where most of your clients were educated?
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
>My great-grandfather was a
>wagon builder back in the 1800’s.
And PS, my grandfather was a small town painting contractor. He had to treat low-skilled, mostly immigrant workers decently because they had a union and because the government forced workers comp and unemployment insurance on him. He did just fine, thank you. What’s wrong with small businessmen today? Bunch of whiners. Back in the day they could have toughed out a little minimum wage and health insurance premium here, a little basic workplace safety and workers’ comp insurance there.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“you want to go back to the Reagan era to slime the guy”
The characterization of my remarks on Krugman as “sliming” is proof that you’re the one who is prone to distortion and hyperbole. I gave you an interview with Krugman to help frame his background and current political perspective – and I’m “sliming”. Don’t criticize Marc’s “vermin” comment if you’re going to call my Krugman remarks “sliming” because they’re in the same order of overreach.
Give me a break
As for Hillary and the war, the record speaks for itself. Senator Bob Graham, a conservative Democrat, actually read the NIEs – which Hillary didn’t – and sounded the alarm. Hillary doesn’t deserve to be considered a “leader” of any quality within Democratic circles based on that vote.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Just in case Mr. X, or anybody else, is in danger of taking Woody seriously, let me toss out that Woody supports laws that prohibit the sagging of pants (somehow he has no problem with bikinis). And yet, if only government were less intrusive, he bemoans.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Better to have a house conservative on this blog than not, so let’s be nice. besides, saggy pants are not uncommon in these comment pages
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Actually, Bob Williams is the conservative in the house and a fairly witty one at that.
Woody is a wingnut, pure and simple. He really isn’t worthy of the label “conservative,” which he wears the way overweight middle-aged sports fans wear their favorite player’s jersey.
I would say the same for GM and Jim R.
As for Krugman: shouldn’t we be discussing his ideas on their merits or lack thereof?
The guy is pretty clear, and pretty consistent about what he believes. It’s a huge waste of time to bother with whether he’s “liberal enough.” Who cares? Either he’s right or he isn’t, which category he fits into is irrelevant.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
This just in:
From an LA Times/Bloomberg poll:
`Clinton leads Obama, 42 percent to 33 percent, down from the 24-point advantage she held in early December. Three out of
five supporters of each candidate say they would like Clinton or Obama, if nominated, to choose the other as a running mate.”
The Democrats could do a lot worse than an Obama/Clinton ticket.
And even if Hillary doesn’t make it onto the ticket, it will be a real shame–not to mention a repeat of Al Gore’s biggest mistake–if Obama doesn’t embrace the Clinton legacy and get Bill to campaign for him.
He needn’t claim to agree with everything Clinton said or did, nor to pretend that the Clinton era was perfect. But it’s just moronic not to play to the Democratic strength that is the Clinton economic boom and eight years of relative peace and foreign policy stability, with America’s rep in the world reaching new heighths.
If nothing else, it would be worth it to witness the fermented crow pie reg would have to eat should Bill hit the campaign trail on Obama’s behalf…
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Reg, I would say it’s on a whole other order of overreach; rather than being called vermin (nice Nazi ring to it, eh?) I’d MUCH rather be accused of sliming somebody, especially if I was sliming them.
“Help frame the background of his current politcial perspective?” Hmmm..seems to me you were reaching back 25 year to tar him with his Reagan, which has little to do with what he’s been writing for years. “Silly little academic driveling” “Ignorant” “a politically shallow man.” Anything you have to say about Krugman getting Obama wrong is barely discernible beneath the name calling. If it’s there at all.
Bunk, you are right, I shouldn’t presume to speak for most liberals. As a middlebrow, I think I HAVE grasped the truth that evil in human beings cuts across lines of gender, race, and class.
I’m not sure what your point is for our purposes, however. When Sam Waltons kids hire a PR Agency to create and pimp a phoney “death tax” PR campaign; because they are greedy, selfish, and dishonest, they are engaging in behavior that’s not really availble to poor people, right?
You do seem a big touchy on this matter. Maybe you should buy me lunch?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Not touchy at all 3C, but mad props for the lunch line. touche!
I just think it’s important for Democrats to steer clear of demonizing non-poor and/or non-middle-class people.
Since every single leading Democratic candidate is wealthy, demagouging class gives off a real stench of disingenuousness.
More important, there are a lot of voters who are not poor and haven’t ever been poor and aspire to wealth. They want to be represented by someone who doesn’t imply that those aspirations are suspect in some way.
Tearing down the rich will never pull the poor up, and candidates that try that angle have no record of success in American politics.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“When Sam Waltons kids hire a PR Agency to create and pimp a phoney “death tax†PR campaign; because they are greedy, selfish, and dishonest, they are engaging in behavior that’s not really availble to poor people, right?”
Right. But they are also engaging in a behavior that isn’t available to 99 percent of the rich either. If you want to single out the superwealthy–I believe the Waltons are in the top 20 globally net worth-wise, that’s fine, but we’re really talking, then, about a handful of people that don’t in any way represent broader class divisions in America.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
‘The Democrats could do a lot worse than an Obama/Clinton ticket.”
Yeah, I suppose they could pick a Clinton/Lieberman ticket.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Okay, if Krugman is vermin, will Stiglitz do? From Dan Froomkin:
And, bunkerbuster, how would you recommend we speak of tax cuts to those who cannot be named?
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Not sure what you mean by that question, Listener. Can you reframe it?
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
3rd time – Anyone who believs Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Obama is peddling ignorant drivel…it’s no more complicated re: St. Paul than that. “Politically shallow” is kind. I made a critique of Krugman that in no way was “sliming”. It was a hell of a lot more substantive and rooted in solid evidence than any of the crap coming from you Hillary shills.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
also re Krugman – “Either he’s right or he isn’t,”
When he makes the absurd claim in several columns that Obama is to the right of Clinton, he’s not right – not even close. I’m putting the guy in perspective, because as I said it’s a sad state of affairs when a moderate technocrat like Krugman becomes the spokesman for liberalism and to point out his obvious weaknesses as a liberal “guru” is some kind of offense.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Clinton is a deliberate – and skilled – liar. No less.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/the-truth-behind-clinton_b_82952.html
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
And by golly you’ll still vote and even campaign for her!
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
At least she didn’t stoop to murdering dissidents – like your hero Trotsky.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Incidentally, I won’t campaign for her. I had intended to, but the current state of affairs means that if she’s the candidate I’ll direct all of my available resources to helping downticket congressional races like Darcy Burner and Donna Edwards. That’s all that will be left for progressives who actually give a shit about the future of the party.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Why should it matter to anyone whether Obama is to the right or left of Hillary?
At this time, at this level of politics, those labels are utterly meaningless. Come the general election, the GOP will sure as Pavlov’s dog try to label the nominee as a far-left ideologue.
And while reg vows not to campaign for Hillary, should she win, you can bet Obama will…
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“it’s a sad state of affairs when a moderate technocrat like Krugman becomes the spokesman for liberalism.”
What’s with the “technocrat” label? Why in the world should “technocrats,” not be spokespeople for liberalism? Technical expertise is essential, rather than a disqualification, and moderation is a hallmark of liberalism.
Would that we had 1,000 more Krugmans, the American left would be much better off politically, academically and journalistically.
I miss the old reg, before he became such an Obamamaniac. It seems the campaign has him chasing his tail all the time…
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Trotsky is not my hero, nor are many Bolsheviks truth be told. I am increasingly symapthetic to Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of Leninism. My riff on Trotsky was in regards to the notion of “betrayal” and a play on Trotsky’s masterful “Revolution Betrayed.” In between Trotsky and Stalin, I’m with Trotsky, who was a tremendous historian – but I’m not a Bolshevik.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
When the stock memes about Obama degenerate into “Kumbaya” bullshit and Clinton launches a campaign based on lies, somebody’s gotta deal with it…
If I’m a “maniac”, what do you call the folks dismissing Obama on the basis of insinuation and ignorance and giving Hillary and Bill a pass on any crap they come up with.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
And do you really think that having Krugman – who has been a vocal advocate of unfettered globalization unitl very recent “second thoughts” and considers himself “not very liberal” – as the supposed “most cogent” spokesman for liberalism is a sign of our health rather than our having been on the ropes for decades and rather desperate ?
January 24th, 2008 at 12:24 am
“what do you call the folks dismissing Obama on the basis of insinuation and ignorance and giving Hillary and Bill a pass on any crap they come up with.”
Hyperbole isn’t like you, reg. You don’t need it so I wonder why you keep using it.
People aren’t “dismissing” Obama, especially not Krugman. He, and they, are criticizing him. Big difference.
Likewise, few, if any, are giving Hill and Bill a “pass.” They’re just saying it isn’t on par with, say, the spooky chauvinism of a Rudy Giuliani or the coded nativism of Romney, and so on.
Here, you’ve got me, even, trying to explain why Hillary isn’t Satan. I think that alone should convince you that you may have dailed up your rhetoric too far.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:28 am
and, please, while some may have said Krugman’s the “most cogent,” I doubt they really meant that he deserves some kind of special position among liberal pundits.
He’s just one voice. Sure, he’s bound to be wrong fairly regularly. As a liberal, we should celebrate that our spokesman seldom agree on every issue point by point. That’s who we are.
Let the talkradio and Fox hyenas and their dumbfuck audience celebrate their strict ideological compliance, it suits their mentality, not liberals’.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:39 am
“strict ideological compliance” is what Krugman is asking from Obama…on the basis of comparing the mandates issue in their health care, he makes the ridiculous assertion that Obama is “to the right” of Clinton. Only a niggling technocrat with minimal political sophistication could make such an argument. And rlc, here, has consistently made arguments against Obama that are purely tendentious and totally ignore his record and clear agenda – it’s all about stuff like he’s “Kumbaya”, “Bambi”, etc. And Krugman himself, ironically, is the one demanding strict ideological compliance when he attacks Obama for his dispassionate and accurate perspective on Reagan and for not including mandates in his proposed health care plan. (Let’s remember that these are merely proposals that have to be legislated – so including mandates that either or unenforceable or require something like the IRS or one’s employer coming after you is politically idiotic in the general election – it’s turning the issue from creating an affordable, cost-containing system which Obama emphasizes into an issue of government becoming an enforcer for the insurance industry. That’s a distortion, but that’s exactly how the GOP will re-frame the marginal mandates issue in the general. Watch for it if Hillary is the nominee. Krugman doesn’t understand the difference between political strategy and policy papers – because of his technocratic background.
And it’s clear from the hysterical reaction on some blogs and by Krugman himself to the Obama pushback against St. Paul – simply by quoting earlier comments side by side with more current ones, which was deemed “oppo research” – that Krugman is considered to be the liberal guru by many. All I’m saying is that he’s overrated as a political analyist speaking for liberalism (as opposed to as a “cogent” critic of BushCo) and it’s sad when liberalism’s most prominent voice outside of the professional pols (and I don’t think I’m exaggerating here) is a technocrat who, by his own admission, “isn’t all that liberal.” As I said earlier – it’s a far remove from when John Kenneth Galbraith played a similiar role as “spokesman-academic.”
January 24th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Below find Krugman’s column that refers to Obama’s comments about Reagan. Clearly, this is a column focused rather narrowly on the hollowness of the Reagan myth. Obama is mentioned merely as an aside-of-a-newspeg to illustrate how the myth can be prone to misinterpretation, if not misrepresentation.
This is hardly Krugman going after Obama. He’s going after the Reagan myth and disassembling it with some flair, I’d say:
by Paul Krugman
Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.
And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,†he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.â€
Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.â€
Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism†means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.
Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America�)
But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?
Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.
This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.
It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?
Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.
Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.
-30-
AND…
We might as well take another look at Krugman’s piece on Obama and health insurance mandates. Here I think reg has a better case that Krugman is politically tone deaf. Krugman says Obama will have a hard time shifting away from his opposition to mandates, but that’s never been the case for presidential candidates. Policy details like that get lost in the shuffle, especially if the politician in question has the publics support for his broader agenda.
Nevertheless, I don’t see in this Krugman column either any attempt on his part to unfairly attack Obama. In fact, he makes it clear at several points that Obama’s stand on health care is much better than the most likely alternatives from the GOP side.
By Paul Krugman
Imagine this: It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.
Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.
But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he’ll have trouble responding — because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.
O.K., before I go any further, let’s be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan — although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans — is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.
But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.
First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama’s advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.
But this statistic is known to be seriously overstated — and some states have managed to get the number of uninsured drivers down to as little as 2 percent. Besides, while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn’t perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.
Anyway, why talk about car insurance rather than looking at direct evidence on how health care mandates perform? Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work.
The second false claim is that people won’t be able to afford the insurance they’re required to have — a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.
In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they’ll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan.
By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state’s uninsured — which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest — come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn’t yet allocated enough money for subsidies.
Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that “force every American to buy health care.â€
Look, the point of a mandate isn’t to dictate how people should live their lives — it’s to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.
Here’s an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn’t think you’d actually need Medicare when you got older — except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.
Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare’s finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.
So how much does all this matter?
Mr. Obama’s health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it’s infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.
I’d add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:03 am
and from now on, if everyone would address JC as “ J “Trotsky Is Not My Hero” Cummings” I would greatly appreciate it.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
reg: At least she didn’t stoop to murdering dissidents – like your hero Trotsky.
When did reg start having problems with communists?
Mavis: Woody supports laws that prohibit the sagging of pants
Hey, I’m just against crack.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Reg, your bluff has been called, quit while you’re behind. No surprise it’s bunk who ends up posting Krugman. You can only say “anyone who doesn’t see my progressive is bigger than your progressive deserves worse insults than I’m already dishing out” so often.
In the meantime, Obama wisely highlights Clinton’s god awful answer on the bankruptcy bill; while Cooper rolls over, farts, and lands in the gutter. Choose wisely, my friend.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
>healthy people could choose not to
>buy insurance, then sign up for it if
>they developed health problems later.
>This would lead to higher premiums
>for everyone else.
Here is a lesson in how insurance works.
Insurance companies are very good at identifying poor risks and either refusing to insure them or charging them higher premiums
This is a problem with mandates-they would force sick people to buy insurance that is not economically rational. It doesn’t make sense for severely ill people to buy private insurance at all, any more than it makes sense to buy homeowners insurance for the price you would have to pay when your house is already on fire. Only the state can realistically absorb these costs. That’s why we already have single payer for the part of the population with the highest health costs.
No corporate-sponsored politician would propose a program to force insurance companies to take poor risks at the same price as good ones. Even if they did, the insurance companies would soon be bankrupt anyway.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Mr X – You’re wrong that “no corporate-sponsored politician would propose a program to force insurance companies to take poor risks at the same price as good ones. Even if they did, the insurance companies would soon be bankrupt anyway.”
It’s called community rating and New York state has been mandating it for over 15 years. That’s why insurance in NY state is so expensive. It’s not rational – it’s our government at work. Socialized medicine will just be another mismanaged, expensive government program wasting our tax dollars.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Community-wide underwriting does not make insurance expensive. It does spread the expense of premiums across all categories of risk, from 20-35 y.o. males, who are probably the cheapest to insure, to elderly people, who are most expensive. What “community” should be is a policy decision. If all of California is a community, then rural Bishop or Redding residents would pay the same as Los Angelenos, despite the vastly different cost of medical care (and, arguably, the availability of vastly better care in LA, for some). That doesn’t happen, and generally rates are set by age and zip code, not by true community rating.
However, back when people were actually receiving affordable health care, when unions were a factor, and there was a real middle class, community rating ruled. Blue Cross/Blue Shield–sponsored by hospitals and doctors, respectively–sold their group policies specifically on the fact of community/group rating. If you were a union carpenter, the cost of your medical coverage was the same whether you were 25 or 64. The individual policies offered by BC/BS had elements of both risk-based rating and community rating.
Community rating was essential in extending the benefits of modern medicine beyond the upper class.
Now, we can choose to abandon community rating completely. If we do so, we are guaranteeing that some substantial percentage of people–let’s say 50% more than those currently uninsured, or 70,000,000–will reject coverage. At least half as many will have to abandon true necessities to pay required premiums. These folks will continue to get at least catastrophic coverage–and many of their disabilities will become catastrophic due to lack of early detection/treatment. They will be able to pay only a small share of the cost of treatment, and the balance will be passed along as overhead–billed as boxes of tissue or aspirin or whatever. Money will not be saved, and those who are trying to solve the dilemma will continue to deal with deceptive cost numbers, particularly from hospitals and clinics.
Community rating is neither evil nor panacea. It certainly does not lead inevitably to bankruptcy. Insurers can underwrite community-rated products just as prudently as any risk-rated product. The question is whether we can develop a health care model that provides excellent care to as many people as possible, hopefully to all, at a price that does not impose disastrous cost on anyone.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
bb – you’re missing the boat here entirely. The Krugman columns that were total horseshit were centered on health care mandates and distortions of Obama’s position on social security. I’ve read all of this stuff, and Krugman is full of shit. Unless you actually believe Hillary is “The progressive” in this race.
Democrats deserve to continue their legacy as a truly shitty, cowardly, morally decimated party if they enthrone the Hillary, Holbrooke, McCauliffe wing as “leadership.” Gag me…
January 26th, 2008 at 12:48 am
I didn’t see that you posted the health care column, which you note is pretty weak tea. I don’t object to Krugman discussing the positives and weaknesses of varioius plans – what I object to is that TWICE he’s dubbed Clinton “more progressive” than Obama – which IMHO is beyond tone deaf and perilously close to insane.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Cheapest Bankruptcy…
Vehicle Loan Calculator…
October 4th, 2010 at 8:44 am
On this web site was placed a lot of articles. All of published news are truthful.