I would guess it is because we see Krugman as one of "us." Many of "us" support Obama, and it is galling to see one of "us" attacking one of "our own."

By contrast, Dowd and Rich are just doing what we've come to expect of them.

This is what happens when your support is primarily generated by nonrational hero worship. Even relatively mild, above-the-belt, substantive criticism is perceived and portrayed as being unfair or personally motivated. The leader must not be insulted!

I think one of the jarring things about Krugman's writing is that his writing, though far more policy-oriented than Rich's or Dowd's grips, remains not-that-interesting. We liberals are used to wringing our hands about how if only op-eds were more focused on policy and substance, and less focused on horserace and personality, The World Would Be A Better Place. Turns out, that's not true. Letting one person write about the same thing week after week -- i.e., the op-ed as a format -- just isn't all that interesting.

"Continual Hillary-bashing is somehow far less jarring than continual Obama-bashing. Maybe that's a strength of his."

i.e. "Blame the victim" defined. Wow. Didn't expect that here.

> I would guess it is because we
> see Krugman as one of "us."
> Many of "us" support Obama,
> and it is galling to see one
> of "us" attacking one of "our
> own."

Of course, that is very similar to what both conservatives and mainstreamers were saying about Krugman's criticism of the Bush Administration in the 2001-2004 timeframe...

Cranky

"Continual Hillary-bashing is somehow far less jarring than continual Obama-bashing. Maybe that's a strength of his."

Or, repetitiveness from someone who progressives respect such as Prof. Krugman is more frustrating from repetitiveness from someone who progressives may read for kicks, such as Rich or Dowd. I think this is more plausible. Krugman's critiques of Obama are annoying because HE is capable of offering more to us than Rich or Dowd or basically anyone else in the moderately progressive wing of the media.

PS I'm not saying I'm galled. I'm one of those hopelessly torn liberals who hopes the decision is made for me (I'm in Ohio). I think Krugman's criticisms have been in-bounds, if somewhat overwrought.

It is not "Obama-bashing." It is "Obama's plan bashing."

But if someone's campaign had done oppo research on me, I'd probably not let go.

The problem is that Krugman's repetitive and comes off like he has a bug up his butt on a single aspect of a single issue. He hasn't engaged Obama substantively on the range of issues and has repeatedly made the false statement that Hillary is more reliably progressive than Obama on the issues, at least domestic. He's studiously ignored the broader implications of electing Hillary vs. electing Obama - not even the question of who has stronger coattails to bring along the Congress that will determine the actual contours of health care reform.

It's a symptom of liberalism's weakness that a policy wonk who, by his own admission, "isn't that liberal", who's been on the wrong side of significant liberal concerns over the years and who is politically naive (which partly explains why he turned to the left in horror during the Bush years after being comfortable with the "conventional wisdom" of academic economists) suddenly finds himself the "conscience of liberalism." Bull...that was Paul Wellstone. Krugman's a guy who happened along and stuck his finger in the dyke, to his credit, but he's hardly prescient as a political analyst.

What irks folks like me about Krugman is that he's doing all of his babbling about Obama in earnest. Nobody takes Rich or Dowd that seriously as much more than snarkmeisters.

Dowd's and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Rich's criticisms come across as idle and often snide precisely because they're focused on personal traits. Krugman comes across as a sort of policy-wonk Inspector Javert, relentlessly trying again and again to capture the perpetrator of a relatively small infraction. Maybe it's his forceful-yet-pedestrian writing style, or his absolute dogmatism regarding mandates, but the Obama-must-be-stopped subtext is tiresome. And I say this as a reader of Krugman's who actually considered paying for Select to keep up with his columns, although my handy-dandy library website saved me the $50.

This "oppo research" thing is truly a bullshit meme. It's a loaded locution that doesn't wash when one looks at what was actually put out by the Obama campaign in response to Krugman's criticism.

Poor little Paul - Obama pushed back by quoting an earlier column. Waaaahhhh!!!!

I agree with jacob above.

Moreover, even if Krugman's attacks are based on an actual policy disagreement, they still seem rather petty. After all, unless Clinton or Obama turn out to have the arm-twisting ability of an LBJ, a detail like the nature of a health-insurance mandate is something that'll likely be a subject of legislative sausage making and out of the exact control of the President. Anyway, as Reich and others have pointed out, if you have comprehensive and universal health care the existance of a mandate is rather a moot point.

Thus, Krugman's attacks of "oh noes ... Obama isn't saying we should have a politically disastrous[*] mandate" just seem about as silly as the personal attacks of Dowd, et al., even if they are about something more "serious" than horse-racing and/or personality.

Indeed, one can argue that because they are about a "serious" subject and being made by an otherwise level headed person, their silliness is even more galling.

* the one way in which a mandate could be good politics is if it is spun as "HRC is so brave, she's not pandering but rather making people 'feel the burn' and do what must be done to achieve universal health care, even if it is politically bad".

The punditocracy just lurves "you better eat your fiber" sorts of arguments -- it can be in a politician's best interest to do something that seems like political suicide just to prove to the pearl clutchers that they are not shallowly after political gain. Of course, the resulting contortions would be funny if this all wasn't "for real" ... but to the rich punditocracy, it's only a game anyway (hence their calls for "sportsmanship").

But I doubt that the punditocracy, which hates HRC, would view her call for mandates as evidence that she's not only after doing what's politically expedient.

I disagree entirely with Munz. In fact, one of the things that gets me about Krugman's criticisms is that they often feel like they are veering away from policy. I want to read more of his policy disagreements with Obama. I like that stuff. But there are too problems with his point here.

1) It's not like health care is Krugman's only hobby horse. In reading him, I've seen far less Yglesias-style criticism of Clinton's foreign policy views, a topic that Krugman does not generally shy away from, than I have seen of his health care-based Obama-bashing. It's not that Obama doesn't deserve it; it's that Clinton deserves it, too, and he's not giving it to her. If he's trying to balance out his own op-ed page on the Dems, then he's playing a game a lot like Fox News' "right wing is fair and balanced; it fairly balances against the liberal media" game. And that's not a game I want him to be playing. He's too smart and intellectually honest for that.

2. It often feels like he's going out of his way to needle Obama for grudge-based reasons. For example, in writing about candidates' stimulus packages, he initially seems to be writing about how the Democratic plans could actually work to counteract the recession and the Republican plans cannot. But suddenly, when he gets to Obama, he extends the criticism from the first plan's lack of effectiveness to the second plan's lack of progressivity. That may be true, but it's not really the argument he had been making, and it's perplexing why he'd switch gears right there unless he was just looking for a reason to be critical.

Anyway, I still like Krugman a lot and I find his work - even regarding Obama - worthwhile reading. And this is, as jacob says, part of why we notice his criticisms more than Rich's or Dowd's.

I think the problem with Krugman's critiques is that he doesn't seem to be adding much new information. He just keeps going over the same issues over and over again. After a while it just seems like he's writing the same column over and over again. He seems to be pulling his hair out screaming "Don't you understand!?" without realizing that most of us have already replied, "Yes, we do, Paul, but we still prefer Obama to Hillary".

As far as the Clinton-bashing from Dowd, many of us have already resigned ourselves to the fact that The New York Times wastes its column space on third-rate gossipy bullshit that has no place in a respectable newspaper.

It's not that the Clinton bashing is less jarring, but it's something we've had 15 years to get used to.

Krugman comes across as a sort of policy-wonk Inspector Javert, relentlessly trying again and again to capture the perpetrator of a relatively small infraction.

Thank you, latts. You described the way I feel about this better than I could.

I paid the $50 to read Krugman when it was still behind a wall - and still would.

But he's not my fucking "conscience" - just a generally useful wonkish guy - who had his head totally up his ass on globalization, incidentally - who's gone around the bend on the mandates thing.
The truth is that it's politically stupid to talk about sending the IRS after people if they don't purchase a policy from one of the insurance companies - which as things stand is how this will be interpreted until some better, affordable plans actually exist. It's braindead politics and a GOP dream. Obama's 10x smarter than Krugman. The guy's just needs to give this a rest.

Or maybe we just expect better from Krugman, Dowd is a lost cause and I don't think too many people pay much attention to her anymore.

"But if someone's campaign had done oppo research on me, I'd probably not let go."

Oppo research would be researching his criminal history, past girlfriends, etc., not a mild response his repeated substantive criticisms, which is what they did.

"It is not 'Obama-bashing.' It is 'Obama's plan bashing.'"

yep, and that's the difference right there...it's not as fun, darnit to bash a plan

It's not that the Clinton bashing is less jarring, but it's something we've had 15 years to get used to.

i think this is the salient point here. clinton-bashing is an accepted practice that seems almost to be a part of the clintons themselves. you can't have one without the other, and it doesn't matter who's doing it or how truthful it is, it's just its own phenomenon. almost like debates and russertism. it's just accepted that that's how things work.

'not a mild response his repeated substantive criticisms, which is what they did.'

You mean truncating Krugman's words to make him appear to be a flip-flopper?

Laughable.

Krugman's no worse than Dowd and Rich, you say. You nailed it, all right.

what Krugman fails to mention is that Dowd and Rich are *expected* to comment on Hillary/Obama in almost every column they write. They're writing amongst the political news cycles, many of which have been rife with ugly press over the Clintons (deserved or not is beside the point).

Krugman, economist that he is, writes about politicians (and their respective policies) only half as often as Rich/Down

so...his 3 out of 10 anti-obama columns is more correctly labeled as anti-obama in 3 out of 5 political commentary columns.

3/5 = 6/10

if it's the ratio of columns he's worried about, technically, he's just as guilty.

BUT

EK's point is right on though about the difference between attacking substance of policy vs. substance of character

Krugman has every right to belabor is criticism of Obama and to talk about it repetitively for weeks on end. Krugman's criticisms, while they may have some truth to them, ignore the larger reality that the health care debate is going to be largely hammered out in the House and in the Senate. The irony of Krugman's criticism is that there is probably more that Hillary can do to advance health care mandates as a senator than she can as the president.

Both Hillary and Obama are promising mandates. Hillary is offering a health care mandate, but Obama is offering Democrats something far more valuable: a political mandate. Obama is betting that his inspirational leadership style and coattails down ballot will create a political opening for the left to implement broad based change in this country.

Here's the thing. If you want to get to universal health care, you have to have the political mandate first. Period. Without that, there's simply NO WAY you're going to be able to get enough votes in the Congress to pass the kind of health care reform the country really needs. I don't think anyone doubts that Hillary will be able to win the general election if she's the nominee, but it will be another 50% plus 1 victory--or worse, she might only win by a plurality. Anyone who has spend more than a few weeks living in a purple or red state will tell you that Hillary will have NEGATIVE COATTAILS. Sure, people will vote for her because they simply don't trust Republicans with the presidency right now, but they'll hold their noses in the ballot box and vote for Republicans down ballot to check Hillary's power.

The simple truth is that Hillary cannot deliver the kind of political mandate she needs to pass health care mandates. Obama can give us the mandate we need to pass comprehensive health care reform, and whole lot more if we want.

That's why I'm supporting Barack Obama for President AND Hillary Clinton for Senate Majority Leader, if she wants it.

Maybe health care reform is a big issue for Krugman as it is for me. Maybe, like Krugman, many of us feel mandates are a necessary first step towards single payer. Maybe if I were a respected columnist who had a passion for an issue that directly and indirectly affects everything and everyone in this country I would harp and harp on the subject to the point of pissing people off because it really mattered to me.

There can be disagreements between us, can't there?

Don't hate your fellow progressives just because they may decide to support Hillary. In the end we're all on the same side.

Mike in SLO,
That's all fine and good, but Krugman would do Hillary the progressive at large well by admitting that there are serious issues with the implementation of Hillary's plan as well.

Hell, I have a vested interest in keeping health care cost low as I'm 30 but was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis when I was 26. So trust me, I know all about wanting affordable care. I just think that Krugman assumes that because he's right there aren't any good, rational arguments against the Clinton plan. That's just not true.

Ezra - Your commenters don't seem to grasp why Krugman keeps harping on the lack of a mandate in Obama's plan (and also Obama's touting that absence of a mandate as desirable).

Maybe you could go over once more why it is essential to ensure (by mandate or some other mechanism) that almost everyone is insured so that the total cost is feasible.

How to get almost everyone enrolled isn't a small detail to be decided later; getting it right is an essential part of building support for any viable insurance plan.

Yeah, i agree with anonymous.

Ezra should go over that point again, instead of just doing some hand waiving and saying "but then it won't work because of ... hey look, a mcardle!"

The problem is that Obama's policy on this issue is really bad. Obama keeps demagogueing over the issue in a way that undercuts the premises of a social safety net. A lot of people buy what Obama says 'cause he's like cool, man, he even has a video an' stuff.

So what's a writer to do? Maybe he can promise to stop attacking when Obama decides to stop demagogueing

The problem is not that Krugman keeps harping; the problem is that he's wrong. Plenty of others have pointed out why, elsewhere.

Krugman may be an excellent economist, but he's not a particularly sharp political observer. Not when it comes to the people part of politics. If he really thinks harping on mandates--i.e. garnishment of wages--is a winner, then he really should get out more.

In 2000, people told Krugman to stop harping on the election; Bush 'won' after all.
In 2001, people told Krugman to calm down because of the war on terror.
In 2004, people told Krugman that the election proved that Bush was 'right.'
Now, in 2008, people are telling Krugman to be quiet because the differences don't matter except to him.

"Krugman comes across as a sort of policy-wonk Inspector Javert, relentlessly trying again and again to capture the perpetrator of a relatively small infraction."

Minor infraction, huh? Tell that to those who don't have health insurance. I always thought universal health care was a key tenet of the progressive platform...maybe Krugman just can't let that go, and rightly so.

"The problem is not that Krugman keeps harping; the problem is that he's wrong. Plenty of others have pointed out why, elsewhere."

Links to the Drudge Report requested.

"Krugman may be an excellent economist, but he's not a particularly sharp political observer. Not when it comes to the people part of politics. If he really thinks harping on mandates--i.e. garnishment of wages--is a winner, then he really should get out more."

Ignorance knows no bounds.

I will never believe a word Krugman says. His hatred of Obama has blinded him.

He is like a drunk at four in the morning just babbling.

Obama has passed health care. Krugman is a moron.

Ken-Hilarious, Obama has passed 'healthcare?' Really it would be news to the good people of Illinois that they have universal healthcare.

KathyF-So how do you feel about Social Security? Seriously this is the problem with Obama's demagoguery.

Just as when Krugman was harping on Bush's budget numbers to show that Bush was a liar, the harping on the Health Care Mandates is supposed to allow us to read between the lines:Obama will not govern as a progressive in domestic policy. This is about much more than Health Care.

Paul Krugman is one of the very few who will be able to say both the right & left hate him, and have that be actually flattering.

You will have no one to blame but yourselves for the next four years. Do not try to blame Obama if he diappoints you. Don't blame Repubblicans, don't blame the media. HRC could have gotten health care. You have lost the right to blame anyone but yourselves, because you have been warned.

Ezra, you are not worthy to criticize Paul Krugman. And that is a huge personal disappointment to me.

I never realized till this campaign that progressives thought the main problem with the health care system was freeloading irresponsible twentysomethings.

They MAY, in fact, be a problem, and her policy MAY, in fact, be better--though it would seem to me to depend on details that neither of them has yet released, as well as the details in Congress. But when did requiring people to buy private insurance become the big progressive litmus test?

I think that they're BOTH making a political calculation here--well, obviously, as neither supports single payer. Hers being: insurance companies will never go along w/ the rest of this without a mandate. His being: mandates freak people out and are only a good policy idea under certian circumstances.

I think they CAN be a good idea, but it depends heavily on other details, & I am annoyed at him for ruling them out, but am even more annoyed at the way we're digging our heels in on this and I can't even find out the other details, which seem to me to be more important.

I am not a big Clinton fan. She has done many things wrong and continues to be far from perfect. Edwards was our best candidate, I think, but so it goes. The thing is, Obama is far from anything special, except as a demogogue. He is a very skilled politician, but he is no less a politician than Clinton (Bill or Hillary). This cult he has inspired is based on nothing substantial. And his lack of experience could well result in the same disasters seen in JFK's first couple of years, Carter's, and Bill Clinton's, which exacerbated the partisan nature of Washington, ushered in the Republican sweep of 1994, and crushed any hope of progressive legislation for the remainder of his terms.

If someone reviews the issues, the track record, the campaign behavior, fundraising activities and known connections of both Clinton and Obama, then still decides Obama is the better choice, fine.

But all of this 'Yes, we can' baloney and willful ignorance of who either of these people really are is inexcusable. Strip away the sloganeering and the cultish appeals on both sides, and let's pick a nominee because he or she best represents the substantive agenda we want our party to stand for, and will be able to deliver on it.

Criticizing Obama's positions on matters of great import is not "bashing" him.

Unless of course you regard him as Perfect and Without Sin.

Many do.

The rest of us are not so easily seduced.

No Obama bashing here, just love.

Phenomenal rally here in downtown St. Louis Saturday, around 20,000 people in attendance. Security was tight, I had to go through a complete check of all my bags and equipment, as well as a bomb sniffing dog. There was Secret Service everywhere, one of them grabbed me when I tried to climb on a light stand because even though I had a press pass it was hard to find a good vantage point for taking pictures, nice clean-cut young man. :-) Tons of TV there, at least 25 video teams, we still photographers were getting no respect.

I ran into the broadcast team from NHK (Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai) the Japan Broadcasting Corp. at the press sign in table. They didn't have any US press credentials so I had to vouch for them. :-) You know it's big when those guys show up. I did the traditional Japanese exchange of business cards with one of the cameramen, cool. :-)

Obama Rally, Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO ( 02-02-2008 )

hollow
are promises of unity,
with lesbians and gays
left behind

empty
are thought bubbles of change, and rebuttals
of dynastic politics,
when Kennedys play
badminton in the
background

hypocritical
for a campaign
claiming to rise above to attacks based on lies

proud
will be media owners,
annointing another king

falling,
is america, then,
for another actor?

Obama is far from anything special, except as a demogogue
Yes Jonah, do tell.

Dowd and Rich are nothing -- Andrew Sullivan is, as is his wont, pathological in his hatred of Hillary. Why people haven't been on his back for this is more than I can fathom.

one element I do not see people talking very much about...

From everything I've seen about Obama's policy proposals, one of his big philosophical foundations is reducing the regressiveness of the system.

One of the policy maker's favorite means of getting things done has been to do unfunded mandates on various parties. Congress tells states to do this, that and the other, and they tell people to pay for this, that, and the other in exchange for privileges like driving.

A mandate is pretty easily converted to a means of making the economic system even more regressive, and Obama may just not be very cool with that.

Using myself as a sample statistic, I'm an Obama supporter who's been annoyed by Krugman's attacks, but I'll pay him a compliment on this anyway.

I've been annoyed by Prof Krugman's columns because I actually read them. I've never once felt more informed after reading a Maureen Dowd column then before, and I know exactly how Frank Rich feels about every issue before I read it.

I must throw in that despite banging on about mandates for over a month, I don't think either Mr. Klein or Prof. Krugman have made a terribly convincing case against mandates. The only I'm convinced of is that they think mandates are "less progressive."

Praline's odd poetry aside, I think Ezra's perfectly missing the point - that sexism posed as "personal criticism" (it's not that Mrs. Clinton is a woman... it's that she's her)is more likely to fly under the radar than even mild (which Krugman's is) criticism of Obama which is seen as Trying to Take Down the Black Man. In other words, what we're defining here is a key difference between racism and sexism. And what's , at least to me, is the extent to which sexism... doesn't even raise an eyebrow, not the way a lot of things are getting swept in as "racist" when they're not.

apron monkey -- Krugman and Klein are for the mandates, not against them. Oh I give up.

shah8: Most democrats are about reducing regressiveness in any system. That's why we're democrats. I think that kind of underscores the whole argument. Obama is all things to all people. Lashes out at Krugman over mandates (which were hardly controversal before Obama decided he didn't like them), doesn't say why, so people assume whatever fits their preconceived notions. Supporters say he's got a better idea, or he's not convinced it's progressive enough (whatever the definition of progressive is today), or that it's a minor detail in a grand plan of amorphous change. Detractors say he's selling us out, can't take criticism, doesn't really care about health care.

Obama's campaign just feels a lot like GWB's circa 2000, vague platitudes, a few undistinguished policy planks, and a lot of personal charisma and talk of change. If you remember, GWB lost.

Could it POSSIBLY be that Krugman has policy differences?

Nah. Personality-driven blogging! That's what's important!

SqueakyRat,

Don't give up. My simple mistake. Meant "for" wrote against.

Look. The problem with what Obama's been saying isn't so much demagoguery; and it isn't just that he's wrong (though both may be true, and the latter certainly is). The problem with Obama's whole "My opponent wants to force people to buy insurance" line is that it just hands off the entire dialogue to the GOP when the time comes to get serious about this stuff. Now, I tend to think that Obama has no intention of getting serious about this stuff -- but it really doesn't matter whether he does or not. He can't now. Universal means universal. He's already not just negotiated universal away, but made the case against it himself, and pretty damn fiercely.

Tell yourselves whatever you need to get through the night, my friends. But I hope you like hearing right wing talking points reconfigured and fed back to you, because Obama's going to give you a lot more of it, I think. He's already done the negotiating, and ceded to the other side its just reward. The fact that that negotiated position will then be a starting point for any future debate -- which will push the democratic position back even further -- doesn't seem to bother him. Why it doesn't bother you I can't fathom. It bothers the shit out of me, and, evidently, out of Krugman as well.

Yikes: You're right; there's no way the Republicans could have thought of that one!

"Continual Hillary-bashing is somehow far less jarring than continual Obama-bashing. Maybe that's a strength of his."

The Hillary-haters have accomplished their mission.

Wonky criticism of Obama's policies is "more jarring" than misogynistic attacks on Hillary's clothes, laugh, and other personal and irrelevant traits.

Obama asked for it when he brought up social security and started spouting a bunch of republican talking points. Krugman has spent years trying to explain that to people and having someone like Obama say something to monumentally stupid doesn't help get the point across and undermines Krugman's work. Don't hate Krugman just because he doesn't have Obama fever. He is a sharp guy and right more often than wrong. He also happens to be right about health care and Obama's plan does suck. It is gutless and half-assed and will not work. Then when it doesn't, the hope for universal health care will be set back by years.

Yikes,
Look up the word demagoguery, it does not fit. If you think Obama is handing talking points to republicans, you're naive.

JB, Obama's view on social security is exactly what every liberal was saying we should do - increase the cap. That is not a republican talking point.

I don't think Krugman's health care mandate bitching against Obama is motivated by anti-Obama sentiment, as such. Krugman gave away exactly where is coming from when he bitched about "free riders" in the healthcare system.

This is either

just another upper middle class spoiled baby boomer brat taking his own whacks at the same underemployed people that everyone else is spanking and kicking around and lecturing on the Protestant work ethic, even though they know full well what the trends are in the macro-economy.

Or, he is up in arms about the youth vote, throwing wrenches in the nice little plutocratic set up of their neo-liberal elders, by supporting Obama. These little kiddies would, I'm sure, like to evade paying health insurance for a few years while they're young. (Can't say I blame them).

No doubt Krugman's aging creaking ass is hoping the Obama kids will be paying his medical bills over the next couple years. As for the underemployed, we all know that they'll just go buy liquor if we don't garnish their wages.

Either way, I lost all respect for the guy. Honest? No fucking way.

I'm with Obama. If it's affordable, people will indeed run, not walk, to buy health insurance. Anything else is not something I would attempt in an ostensibly free society.

Democratic liberals are always right, and if their candidate doesn't get the Democratic nomination, they'll vote third party or just stay at home on election day.

We're in Iraq today because of the beautiful purity of liberals and, if it's Hillary against McCain in November, they'll would rather stay in Iraq for 100 more years than see that bitch in the Oval Office.

"The only dif between her and Monica Lewinski is a marriage license and stretch marks."

This is the kind of thing you see written countless times about Clinton from the right and left.

THAT is bashing; when you find something akin said about Obama, let me know.

jj,

What's that a straw sentence?

the point to me about Obama's "plan" without mandates is that it telegraphs a lack of care about health care as a priority - or a willingness to listen to actual authority figures in the field. In his speech about single payer back in the day - it sounded like he didn't understand what actually the basic characteristics of a single payer system was. How it was different from universal healthcare. And maybe a president doesn't need to be a wonk. But i want them to demonstrate that they at least care about what i think is the most important domestic policy issue.

I wish, Blind Joe. I wish.

What pisses me off about Obama (and his supporters) is that when the country's leading health economist Jonathan Gruber says that 15 million people will not get insurance even if the cost is low, they just refuse to believe it, saying that if it's affordable, people will buy it.

This disbelief in expert opinion reminds me of Bush. I know that Obama's smarter than this, but why is he simply saying he doesn't believe expert opinion without offering his own critique? Even though the Obama plan will make it so that everyone can afford the premiums, is it that hard that there will be people who are stupid enough to want to save a couple hundred or thousand bucks a year?

Maybe I'm being one of the cynics because I don't hope that people will do the right thing.

THAT is bashing; when you find something akin said about Obama, let me know

What about the stuff about Obama being an adulterous, cocaine-addicted, first cousin of Saddam?

Krugman has consistently identified healthcare as the key to the entire progressive agenda. You can disagree with this analysis, but you can't say that Krugman is inexplicably emphasizing healthcare.

Likewise, Krugman has addressed the political aspects of healthcare at length, and why he approves of the Hillary/Edwards approach. Again, you can disagree with his analysis, but you can't say he hasn't addressed the issue.

As for those of you who think Krugman is repetitive on this, you ought to reflect on the fact that despite his repetition, the close observers here contend that Krugman hasn't addressed these key issues.

If Obama is going to continue to use mandates as a political wedge - while pretending that he is above such partisan maneuvering - why shouldn't Krugman take note?

As many have observed, however, Krugman errs in comparing himself to Dowd or Rich. He might as well compare himself to O'Reilly or Drudge. Krugman needs to get accustomed to being held to a higher standard.

Even though the Obama plan will make it so that everyone can afford the premiums, is it that hard that there will be people who are stupid enough to want to save a couple hundred or thousand bucks a year?

Yeah, there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay another couple thousand a year. What Krugman/Clinton won't acknowledge is that forcing such people to pay is a huge regressive tax on the lower middle class. Check this out.

Krugman is just being completely irrational and/or deceptive here--he's pissed at Obama because Obama represents a challenge the DLC centrism of the '90s--and in the 1990s Krugman was a centrist.

Krugman has consistently identified healthcare as the key to the entire progressive agenda.

Yeah, but equating progressives healthcare with mandates is completely idiotic. There's nothing progressive about insisting on shoving the noses of the poor further into the grindstone.

Likewise, Krugman has addressed the political aspects of healthcare at length, and why he approves of the Hillary/Edwards approach.

Not really at all. He says that the Hillary approach is more likely to pass legislation, but neither he nor Ezra has really argued coherently for that point--ruling out any plan that doesn't include mandates is exactly the kind of refusal to let the Senate have a say in writing legislation that doomed the 94 attempt. Krugman isn't merely wrong, he's incoherent here.

If Obama is going to continue to use mandates as a political wedge - while pretending that he is above such partisan maneuvering - why shouldn't Krugman take note?

Bullshit. Clinton is the one who started attacking Obama as "not universal" because it wasn't coercive enough of poor people.

One thing is damn sure. We are far less likely to have any health care legislation at all if HRC wins the nomination. She's making exactly the same mistake she made in '94--health care has to be done HER way or no way at all. Which means it will be done no way at all. Obama on the other hand was open to mandates. (Indeed, if Clinton is still in the senate, she'll probably be able to force mandates on President Obama.)

Consumatopia-

As soon as I published what I said I realized that my writing was sloppy regarding affordability. This is my point: if the lower middle class can't afford the premiums, then they sure as hell can't pay for serious medical care out of pocket. The difference is that premiums are a sure thing while medical care is not--but when it happens it is the leading cause of bankruptcy. Now both the Clinton and Obama plans have cost-cutting mechanisms, but I doubt that they will significantly decrease the price of care for the uninsured since most of them have to do with things like coordination of care and preventive medicine.

The Clinton and Obama health care plans should take care of the people who can't afford medical care, but would like it. There will always be people, however, that will gamble with their health and finances to save a bit of money in the short term-even if they can afford the premiums. Many of them go bankrupt and the Clinton plan is trying to redress that. What drives me nuts is that the Obama people won't even acknowledge that that's a problem. If you think that a mandate won't solve it, fine. But then you either have to propose a better solution or argue that the problem of 15 million uninsured isn't a big one (or dispute Jon Gruber's numbers)

By the way, Clinton isn't making the same mistake as in 1994. She'll let Congress deal with the particulars. She's let a broad outline. I, however, doubt that a mandate won't go through unless a Democratic president backs it.

Whoa! Need coffee. "The difference is that premiums are a sure thing." Sure thing=sure expense. I meant I doubt a mandate will go through unless a Dem Pres backs it.

I never hear about what Rich or Dowd say, yet every time Krugman launches into another round of attacks against Obama, I see it all over the place. Maybe Krugman has a much bigger soapbox on which to stand, maybe Hillary supporters are just really good about spreading Krugman's attacks, and Obama supporters know better than to spread around attacks from Rich and Dowd, who knows. All I know is that I'm tired of Krugman's shamelessly biased attacks on Obama, on health care and everything else. They have a legitimate disagreement on one aspect of health care policy, mandates. I for one side with Obama on this, as do many others. Many others, including Krugman, apparently support Clinton, whatever, okay. But this stupid hammering on this one issue, this pretending that mandates make Hillary's plan magically universal and Obama's lack of mandates make him Republican-lite or some crap, I'm sick of it. Krugman is a Clinton tool, a complete hack at this point, and I've lost all respect for him. Furthermore, he attacks on other things that AREN'T legitimate policy disagreements, like accusing him of praising Reagan, which all educated and rational observers know he never did. Did that stop lapdog Krugman from gleefully jumping on the Hillary bandwagon to shamelessly exploit the ignorance of voters? Hell no. So no, I have no respect for Krugman anymore, and a grind my teeth every time I see anyone say "Krugman says", because I know whatever follows is going to be NOTHING more than Clinton campaign talking points. Krugman is a tool, and he deserves the feedback he gets.

jj,

Since you made up the slur your wish is granted.

My issue is that Krugman does not clearly state that Jonathan Gruber is Hillary's principal health care policy advisor and is clearly biased. If he had provided this disclosure, it might hold more water. I'm disappointed with Krugman, as I've been a long fan, but I think he is choosing to focus on this aspect without vetting his source.

Vishous, Gruber was Hillary's advisor--because he advised all three candidates (that's why they're so similar) NY Observer

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at M.I.T. who helped create the lauded Massachusetts health care system (and who advised all of the leading Democrats on their health care plans), said he found the Clinton proposal to be “excellent.” He said that it went further than the Obama plan in that it mandated universal coverage, and was more progressive than the Edwards campaign’s in that it would end tax breaks on health-care benefits for wealth Americans that went beyond the baseline benefits provided by the federal system.

He prefers mandates and that's why he prefers the Clinton plan--not because he prefers Clinton