Comments on: Tough Crowd

By: TGGP

TGGP — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:49:32 +0000

A far-left attack on Obama for his militarism here.

By: adam

adam — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:04:34 +0000

kitstolz,

Please ignore the rhetorical head-fake that Obama did regarding teachers unions:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/07/clinton_obama_go_easy_on_school_reform_talk/

With regards to Social Securty and the 2037 number.

And he worked with Lugar on non-proliferation issues and Coburn on the “google for government” are they really that controversial? (important, no doubt.)

When Obama’s actual policy proposals begin to match up with the world transformative rhetoric, maybe I start giving it a second look.

By: kitstolz

kitstolz — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:37:46 +0000

Regarding differences between Barack Obama and Walter Mondale:

Traditional Democrats such as Walter Mondale and Al Gore, in 2000, strongly opposed any discussion of the need to change Social Security funding, arguing that it’s in fine shape. The usually point to a Congressional Budget Office analysis that says that the program will be in the black at lest until 2037. Obama has nonetheless opened the door to a renegotiation of Social Security funding, agreeing with some moderates that to strictly separate Social Security from Medicare, which everyone agrees is in bad shape, doesn’t make sense.

Another example: Obama has also suggested, much to the irritation of the teacher’s union, that we need to find ways to consider teacher performance for reward or punishment, because it’s the sing;le most determinative factor in how well kids learn. This would horrify traditional union Democrats such as Walter Mondale.

Plus, as I mentioned before, Obama has shown an ability to work with conservative legislators, both in Illinois and in Washington, such as Tom Coburn and Richard Lugar. Not to mention his endorsement of an effort to oppose new nukes supported by Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and William Perry.

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/obama_and_nukes.html

By: dylan waco

dylan waco — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:34:23 +0000

By recent I didn’t mean the last few months…I meant the last few years.

Krugman was a moderate Keynesian for years. Most of his early economics work looks like something that would have been drawn up by the Eisenhower administration..some of it is heavily influenced by Milton Friedman.

While I have no problem saying that Krugman has been a long time Bush critic, and was perhaps always a “progressive” in the sense that he is a managerial elitist to his core, he has clearly moved to the centralist left over the last few years. If you look at the language of modern “progressivism” in America, the Krugman of five years ago hardly qualifies.

By: Markus Kolic

Markus Kolic — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:54:51 +0000

Well, Krugman focuses almost exclusively on economic issues (trade, taxes, employment, regulation etc.), and Obama’s been pretty disappointing to the left on that front. He’s no populist, certainly no Edwards, in rhetoric or substance. (Kitstolz above is also right that the tone issue is important. Obama doesn’t speak like a progressive.)

Re Dylan above, curious as to how Krugman is a “nominal progressive” and “recent convert.” He was calling Bush out on economics and foreign policy long before most other mainstream commentators were willing to touch him…

By: adam

adam — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:51:17 +0000

“I think itâ€™s a matter of tone, as most famously evidenced in the 2004 Democratic convention speech.”

Interesting. Other than the ‘tone’ that he brings, is there anything substantive in Obama’s actual policy positions that, say, Walter Mondale would have disagreed with?

By: Cal Lanier

Cal Lanier — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:23:34 +0000

He won’t challenge a single liberal sacred cow. Most of his policy positions have been chosen for him, and his poliotical handlers carefully selected two or three tidbits to wave frantically to as evidence of his “centrism”.

By: kitstolz

kitstolz — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:56:05 +0000

I think it’s a matter of tone, as most famously evidenced in the 2004 Democratic convention speech. Obama will challenge sacred cows on the Left as well as the Right (the need for Social Security funding, for instance). And, being a Constitutional law professor, for him to fairly lay out both sides of an argument before he takes a stand is routine. This is deeply reassuring to people on all sides of the political spectrum, I think. His stands may be liberal, but he shows no interest in demonizing his opponents, and can work even with opponents who agree with him on almost nothing (such as Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma).

Tone matters. At a certain level of separation in discourse from other candidates, it becomes charismatic, as Reagan showed…and Obama is showing again.

By: Cal Lanier

Cal Lanier — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:46:29 +0000

I’ve never understood this weird delusion some people have about Obama that make him a centrist. He’s way out there on the left. He wants to repeal DOMA, which boggles the mind. Democrat presidential nominees have always recognized that the tightrope they have to walk is for civil unions, but Obama–an unknown novice–is going to prove them all wrong?

By: adam

adam — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:02:19 +0000

Krugman’s problem is that he has actually been taken in with the whole hope/change/unity cloud surrounding the Obama campaign, and doesn’t think Obama will go nuclear on the right in quite the way Krugman wants.

On a totally different topic, South America may be on the brink of a rather ugly little war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/FOREIGN/933500764/1001

By: dylan waco

dylan waco — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:30:09 +0000

This is of particular note because Krugman himself only qualifies as a nominal progressive in the eyes of many..and he is a recent convert.