Renowned liberal stalwart and NYT columnist Paul Krugman has written no fewer than three columns trashing Barack Obama's health-care plan, and teed off again on the Illinois senator today, in an interview with TPM Election Central.
What gives?
It's not as if Krugman pretends that there is any great difference among the health-care plans proposed by the Democratic front-runners. As he noted on December 7th: "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."
Krugman is not the only one to assert that Obama's plan, which does not include mandated health care for all, is less comprehensive than the other Democrats. But it's a long stretch from that to concluding, as he did on Monday, that Obama is "the anti-change candidate." And to spend three of his valuable Times platforms attacking Obama is, well, strange.
Is this just a visceral dislike for Obama on Krugman's part? Does he covertly support another Democratic candidate? Either would be legitimate, but ought to be revealed. And Krugman should go on to other subjects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Is this just a visceral dislike for Obama on Krugman's part? Does he covertly support another Democratic candidate? Either would be legitimate, but ought to be revealed.
No, I don't think it is a dislike for Obama. I think he's giving Obama a heads up on some of what to expect in DC.
The GOPhers play for keeps. They WON'T compromise unless you have the votes to shove it down their throats, and Obama should be aware of that. But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.
I like Obama because he's not been bludgeoned by the GOPhers for 8 years so he has no reason to be vengeful or ruthless.
We just need to get the Senate solidly back in Democratic hands.
So I see this as Mr. Krugman giving Obama a heads up rather than a beating.
Maybe, but 3 columns and an interview on a widely-read political blog is over the top. I suspect something more.
And let's be serious, here. There's nothing wrong with trying to compromise, putting your opponents in the position of refusing, then calling them on it.
Maybe, but 3 columns and an interview on a widely-read political blog is over the top. I suspect something more.
Krugman has the right of it on how we need to move forward from and economic sense. I've read a number of his books, and he is rarely wrong. He is clearly a liberal and based on is bashing of David Brooks on the re-engineered Reagan legacy, he's clearly not a bigot.
I've never seen him bash Edwards for his concern for the poor and he's been critical of Ms. Clinton when criticism was required.
Your concern I think, is perhaps misplaced.
Post a Comment