Problem is, Krugman is making the point that Obama might not be as friendly to unions as he otherwise should be. The unions aren't taking to kindly to Obama kumbaya approach. As Krugman says, corporations will fight tooth and nail for what they want. Will Obama help labor do the same? Or is he compromised?

Obama's whining is like Kerry's. BHO can't just complain that it is unfair. (Leaving aside if it is or isn't fair.)

Actually, what's bothersome is that Krugman keeps criticizing Obama and can't just go ahead and say who he's endorsing for president. Right now, his commentary is still supposed to be that of a person who no horse in the race, and it's clear that this is not the case.

> his commentary is still supposed to be that of a person who no horse in the race, and it's clear that this is not the case.

This is just routine candidate advocacy and fake insiderism approaching trollism, of which we are seeing so much this primary season.

Je repete portions of what I said over at Matt's place:

The lesson of the Conservative Ascendancy over the last 30 years is that "the economy" follows "political economy" and does not lead it.

That is, conditions like flat incomes for everyone but the very wealthy are policy outcomes; they are policy outcomes because the very wealthy set out to destroy all countervailing forces to their own power, and did so. The results are as you see.

So, it's this policy outcome that Krugman has taken issue with, and good for him.

And so, Edwards is the only one who wants to go in the direction... That's HRC's and Obama's problem (and the country's). Don't try to make it Krugman's problem, and don't try to undercut Krugman's analysis with primary season silliness. He's been ahead of the curve before, and will be seen to be so this time as well.

Paul Krugman, in my opinion, has gone off his rocker. I haven't read his column for long, but i already don't take his column seriously anymore. He's so obviously biased against Obama (for whatever reason) that he just isn't credible to me.

As far as Edwards goes, the thing i find disturbing is this; Edwards plans for America only work if he assumes he has huge amounts of presidential power- say, like Bush. I think the balance of power needs to be restored in Washington. Congress has shirked their responsibility by letting Bush have so much power. I want the next president to undo Bush's power grab. Presidential power has been distended, and the balance needs to be restored, whether the next prez is a Democrat, or a Republican. In order to get any laws passed, Edwards will either have to retain the over-reaching power of George Bush OR negotiate with congress.

I really like the idea of a president who understands the constitution and the powers of the president and of congress. Obama taught constitutional law.Also I would rather have Obama -who knows how to work in a bipartisan way to get things done, in office. You really can't get anything done if you can't work with congress. So Edwards can hoot and holler all he wants, but he HAS to have the cooperation of other lawmakers who, incidentally, DO still take money from lobbyists. Edwards is naive if he thinks he'll be able to pass any legislation without the cooperation of other lawmakers and the lobbyists (that the other lawmakers are indebted to). It sucks, but it's true.

I would like to have the constitution and the balance of power returned to the way it was prior to this administration. Once that is done, we'll need a president who knows how to bring people to the table to get things done. That doesn't sound like Edwards. (or Hillary for that matter)

Don't underestimate the damage that has been done to our country regarding the distortion of presidential powers. Bush has tramped all over the constitution, and i don't want another president who thinks that their power gives them the right to rule unilaterally.

> "biased"

Wow. "The media is biased."

Sounds familiar.

Well, if it works, do it.

Trolls, I hate 'em.

Julie:
Do you really think that about Edwards? Is Hillary going to give up the power Bush has accumulated?

Mike P:
Krugman can't endorse anyone. Just like Joe Klein can't(but if you say Klein's column the other day, you know he's rooting like hell for Hillary). Krugman is an unabashed liberal. He doesn't want Obama's kumbaya approach. Instead of tossing the GOP a lifevest, he wants to toss them an anchor.

I use to agree with everything Krugman wrote but now that he has criticized Obama it has become apparent that he is deluded.

the last post is hillarious. and yes i agree that is certainly the sentiment that's coming out of obama's supporters. not a smart move as the primary season really heats up to keep attacking people for being liberal.

akaison, I forget now, which candidate is John Edwards supposed to be? The starry-eyed idealist? Or the tough pragmatist?

Joe Klein's conscience,

I think Edwards is a good guy. I think Edwards has good intentions, but i am SOOOOO tired of the angry partisan BS, filabustering, gridlock, and the inability of our supposed "lawmakers" to be able to pass any damn laws! (And their passing of "non binding resolutions", is over the top ridiculous, and a waste of time and money.)

My point is, Edwards isn't gonna get any laws passed with his combative attitude. He needs the cooperation of congress, unless he intends to pull out the "I'm the decider" card. Negotiation is effective, not wimpy. Obama has actually gotten tough legislature passed in the Illinois and US senate, by working across the aisle.

And no, i don't think Hillary will restore any balance. The Clintons are power freaks.

He's the candidate actually trying a different approach to leadership Sean that's not been tried by the Democratic leadership for several decades. Actually it's version of leadership more applicable to the GOP rather than the Democrats. The standard liberal would much rather sip tea and crumpets and ask why can't we all just get along. In other words, the comfortable liberal rather than one who feels they have something at stake and bitch as you will almost certainly do after the fact rather than act proactively.

You can call it starry eyed or pragmatic. I call it the later because repeating the same approach over and over again (as we are doing now) expecting a different result is neither starry eyed or pragmatic- it's stupid.

Simply because some of you are incapable of getting beyond your own beliefs (I used to be you) doesn't mean you should hold the country hostage under your own version of lunacy. Marketing isn't change. Saying that getting along with the GOP isn't change. Change is where we actual achieve our goals. So when you ask who Edwards is- I can see why what I am talking about confuses you.

Is he perfect- no. does he get where we are as a country better than anything I've seen you and Obama say- yes.

It appears Kate Colquhoun hasn't visited the UK recently and tasted any good Christmas pudding. That's sort of sad.

I'm not sure if the people at the NYT even understood the Zizek coulmn they just published...

Krugman is losing it. His attacks on Obama are nonsensical, like repeating the Edwards claim that because Obama's Health Care Plan doesn't have mandates that means it isn't "Universal."

Well, sorry Edwards and Krugman, but Edwards plan isn't "universal" either. In the real world mandates are only as good as the enforcement mechanisms that back them up. Hillary Clintons plan has no enforcement mechanisms, so her so-called 'mandates' are really more 'suggestions' or 'requests.'

Edwards, at least, has enforcement mechanisms but they are hardly 'universal.' His mandates won't cover those who don't pay taxes AND/OR those who don't earn paychecks that can be garnished--like the unemployed and the self-employed. In other words, Edwards so-called mandates do nothing to bring in the very group of people who are most likely to not sign up for a plan.

So when Hillary Clinton has no mandates (she just says she does) and John Edwards has mandates which will be ineffective, it is disingenuious for Krugman to parrot the Edwards semantic argument that His plan isn't truly "universal" or that his plan doesn't "cover everyone" (implying that theirs does.)

And trying to claim that unions aren't special interests is just absurd. We might like them more than Big Oil or Big Tobacco, but it's a basic principal of ethics that you don't get to pick and choose. Edwards says he opposes 527's, but he didn't walk the walk until he was prompted to do so. Obama has been walking the walk all along.

I agree- lobbying by Big Insurance is exactly the same as lobbying by the Steel workers.

I also agree that a plan that has mandates and is imperfect but workable is far worse than one that doesn't and results in the same structural problems we already have.

Nonsensical indeed.

Krugman is simply exposing Obama for the Bush lover he really is. And of course he supports Edwards, just like every other true liberal. Is that a crime now?

Is Tom representative of the Edwards community in general?

I see his posts on various progressive blogs, and find them offensive in the extreme. Obama is a "bush lover" and only "true liberals" support Edwards?

I think Tom and his ilk have done more to pry away my vote from Edwards than any other one thing. I'm not keen to fight the 2008 general with a small mob of purity trolls.

This is where Red Guardism and Naderism meet and moderate, critical thinking dies a quiet death. Don't count me among the surprised when, after Edwards and Obama split the anti-Hillary vote and Clinton sweeps to the nomination, Tom casts his lot with Cynthia McKinney and the Greens.

Obama called Hillary "Bush lite", so why he can't he take a little of the same rhetoric back at him? I'm just a supporter of Edwards and yet you have no problem with Obama himself using that language. The fact is that there's no difference between those two.

And you tell me why else Obama is adopting Right-wing rhetoric in talking about a Social Security crisis, knocking mandates, and saying unions are a special interest group. These are the same things Bush is saying.

It has nothing to do with Nader. He was a 3rd party and I don't waste my time with those nuts. If Edwards isn't nominee, I just won't vote, like most Americans fed up with the choice of corporate Republicans vs. corporate Democrats.

I think calling Barack Obama a Bush-lover is deluded, but so, too, is the argument that Paul Krugman was a prophet until two months ago when he went suddenly insane.

I am an Obama supporter, but I'd be lying if I said that Krugman's criticisms haven't given me pause. I tend to agree that no remarkable health plan is likely to survive Congress in 2009, and I'll say this about all three plans, Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's: I have come to believe that a single-payer system is the only one that will bring about real and meaningful change in this country. Everything else is a sop to somebody, and none of these candidates has been realistic about how health care costs are to be controlled. Until they get serious, this is still an national problem.

I think there are good reasons to support Obama's candidacy, having both to do with his policy proposals and his remarkable biography and personality. It's possible to argue with Krugman on this, but I'm not willing to call the most clear-thinking public critic of the administration this side of Frank Rich a lunatic just because he and I like different Democratic candidates.

The above comment is mine. I forgot to type my info. in.

As someone who despises both third party candidates and our plurality electoral system that makes them wreckers (we need runoff voting, instant or otherwise!), I must say that about the only thing dumber than voting third-party is, as Tom says, saying that if Edwards isn't in it he won't cast a vote.

I disagree with Tom's views on Obama, and I am less impressed with Edwards than he is, but in the event I'd hope he'd either hold his nose and vote the lesser of two evils or if he cannot bring himself to do so he should find an acceptable protest vote, either third-party or write-in. Apathy is not constructive, not least because it doesn't signal your policy/political reasons for not going with the main options.

All you Obama supporters are off your rockers. You keep saying that Obama will work across the aisle and get things done. Well, I gotta tell you the Democrats in Congress could get all sorts of things done right now if they gave the Rethugs everything they wanted. So getting things done isn't the objective, getting a liberal/progressive agenda passed is what we're looking for and Obama isn't the one who's going to fight to the end to get THAT done. We need to maintain the power necessary to CRUSH the other side and get them to agree that too much power in the majority party's hands isn't good for the country. Right now Rethugs are still thinking that if they can obstruct long enough, they can return to power and once again demolish our constitutional rights. I don't want to give up power until we have the country back to where it should be. You will never get there by compromising with the right.

I am amazed that people can honestly claim that there is no important difference between a health care plan that includes a mandate and one that does not. The mandate will have important practical effects if enforced correctly. How it will be enforced is an important question, but one which it may be better to leave unanswered for the moment for political reasons. A mandate can be sold to moderate conservatives if presented correctly as evidenced by what is currently going on in California. Move too early on the issue though and it could be undermined. Beyond the practical effects the mandate is very important for what it symbolizes- the idea of shared responsibility. The idea that everyone is responsible for helping to provide for health care for everyone else. Just as we collectively provide law enforcement, national defense, and aid in dealing with natural disasters; we need to approach health care in the same way. Something that no one is able to get out of paying their fair share to provide for the entire society. A mandate is the most politically feasible way to achieve that right now, and to oppose it represents a victory for conservative ideology, even if done out of truly progressive motivations. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way people think about the provision of health care in this society. A mandate is an important step in helping to achieve that shift. Those who oppose it are simply wrong. I am thankful that people like Mr. Krugman and Mr. Klein continue to speak up and fight this battle. Those whose loyalty to Mr. Obama causes them to reject sound argument in favor of the cult of personality represent a grave danger to the progressive movement. Mr. Obama seems willing to do whatever it takes to win this nomination, no matter who he has to attack or what principles he has to compromise. I hope he is doing all of this in pursuit of a greater good and would truly be a champion of progressive causes if elected, but I am not going to believe that is true simply because he gives a pretty speech or has Oprah on his side. He has nothing of substance to prove his merit in this area and until he does those who blindly follow him are endangering far more than just one election.

The problem is the Union 527 Obama is whining about isn't even attacking Obama. They're just running ads in praise of Edwards. Given that Obama's campaign manager Axelrod ran a 527 while managing Obama's Senate run and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief I believe, ran a 527 comparing Dean to Bin Laden in 2004, Obama's cynical disparagement of unions is irredeemably cynical and embarrassing.