"no Democrat is going to start another war."

And no need to hold the Democrats who started the first war accountable! The Iraq War is the #1 issue with voters. It's nice of Krugman to give all the candidates a mulligan on their view of AN EXISTING WAR but I'll be taking it into account in my choice just like a plurality of my fellow voters. More people list the Iraq War as the most important problem facing the country today than the next three issues COMBINED. But let's not talk about who authorized America's biggest problem with their vote in the Senate.

Shorter every Zombie Krugman piece in the last month: "Obama BAAADDD!! Must make fetish of wonky detail and Lakoffian rhetoric. Zombie Fighting Liberal must be contrarian! Question Krugman, Krugman angry!"

Corporate influence, health care, and economic insecurity aren't big problems if you're dead.

The Iraq War is still huge, even though HRC wants you to forget she supported it, and BO wants to avoid talking about foreign policy altogether.

It's the 'tone-deaf' accusation that is questionable, however. Krugman seems to argue that if the election is about domestic policy the best approach is to adopt the Republican foreign policy rhetoric: "I'll double the size of Guantanamo and then fill it with insurance company executives."

Krugman seems to argue that if the election is about domestic policy the best approach is to adopt the Republican foreign policy rhetoric: "I'll double the size of Guantanamo and then fill it with insurance company executives."

But isn't the use of such rhetoric what he is criticizing Obama for?

This is mistake because the general election will be about foreign policy, so we'll be ignoring the platform that these candidates will be running on.

Iraq + terrorism trumps healthcare and the economy in just about every poll of public opinion I've seen for 3 straight years.

The Dems would be wise to run on a two-pillared platform of ending the Iraq war and ending Washington corruption--these are the GOPs weaknesses right now, and we should be rubbing as much salt into those wounds as possible.

Getting into a debate about whether or not "market-based" reforms in healthcare will work or whether or not an individual mandate amounts to "socialized medicine" would be straight up stupid, and could lose an election that not only is a must-win, but should be the easiest win since as far back as I can remember for either party. Probably since 1980.

And John Edwards deserves credit for pulling it to domestic policy because he can't compete with Obama or Clinton in foreign policy. For whatever reason, voters seem to buy that Clinton has FP "experience", and Obama has credibility from his Iraq-war judgment and the sheer volume of endorsements and impressive advisers his campaign has attracted. Edwards is great, liberal positions but not much credibility on them. In a FP primary, he's an after-thought.

But that ought to highlight his weakness as a GE candidate, IMO. Though he is quite good on the "corruption" bit.

"As the Democratic primary progresses, it has become clear that Iraq will not be its defining issue."

This is not surprising since the Democrats don't have any ideas on Iraq specifically, apart from running away or on foreign policy generally. Democratic primary voters simply don't care about foreign policy when choosing a Presidental candidate.

The Democratic approach to foreign affairs is best illustrated by Clinton's ad hoc approach of dealing with foreign situations as they happen. The most important to Clinton was to get any foreign policy issues off the table so as not to jeopardize his all important approval ratings.

It is because this election will be about foreign policy and national security that I believe that the Democrats will not take the White House in 08.

Obama, as recently as April, sponsored a bill labelling the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Are you not aware of this, or drawing a distinction??

I'm not sure it will lose Hillary the primary, but this fantasy that voters have somehow forgotten about the Iraq war is ridiculous.

Public opposition to the war is the reason that George Bush's poll numbers are in the 30's. It's the reason that Democrats are poised to make further gains in Congress and likely take the White House.

Failure to seriously confront Bush on the war is the reason the Democrats own poll numbers have been dropping since last year and has demoralized their core voters. Their silly strategy of waiting until they have a Democrat in the White House before doing anything about the war is the biggest threat to a Democratic resurgence (and your hopes for Hillary's campaign).

So why are you cheering it?

And wasn't everybody just recently arguing that Hillary was the best contender because she has more experience as a world leader?

Obama's time in the Illinois legislature may not have prepared him for dealing with Russia or Iran, but it's damn good experience for bread and butter issues.

Krugman's critiques of Obama on the two key issues of Social Security and health care are eminently fair. Support Obama if you choose to do so, but understand that 15 million Americans will still live without health insurance and the Village drumbeat for the destruction of Social Security will only get louder under his administration.

Having apologized for his AUMF vote, and not being in the Senate for the appalling Kyl-Lieberman bill positions Edwards far above the only candidates the press seems interested in talking about.

Add in his populism and the fact that he "gets it" in terms of the real lives of working Americans, and he blows them out of the water.

Krugman has made clear his distaste for Hillary and wrote her off as being not even worth challenging or engaging with ages ago. He's been looking at Obama and Edwards because they're the only ones offering a change from the status quo--Hillary is running as being the best able to work within that status quo so doesn't offer anything to work with or even to examine. And the massive overcoverage of Hillary in the NYT and everywhere also renders Krugman's voice less clear and less likely to be heard at all (an ego thing?)

Krugman has also made clear his priorities over the long haul, and has always been more about domestic issues than foreign, i think.

Although the war is a big issue, economics is going to be a bigger issue than any candidate is willing to admit right now.
Please find a more elaborate answer at http://thepoliticsofdebt.com/?p=110

Ok, we don't need any of the people above being elected into office.  Ron Paul is the best choice for our country.  He will end the war in Iraq, get government out of our lives, abolish the income tax, no more IRS, bring the power back locally to us the people!  He dares to talk about issues other candidates run around!  He doesn't have to stumble for words and he NEVER changes his position. He also has a flawless, consistent voting record as a congressman from Texas. I have never been so excited about a candidate!  You must must MUST read up on hime!  GO RON PAUL- Hope for America!            www.ronpaul2008.com or google ron paul

If the immense lie that is the Iraq War is important to you - if you are deeply concerned about rampant US imperialism.

Why would you vote for the top Democratic contenders who would continue the Iraq war, via ‘phased withdrawals and in addition would maintain US imperialism via proxy wars, CIA covert operations, and funding repulsive dictators?

And the Ron Paulbots show up right on schedule.