Just About Right
Paul Krugman has got the Dem primary chase just about right, framing the candidates and this year’s election with its parallel in 1992.
“A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago…Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?”
“So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?
“First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).
“The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.
“Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.
“I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.
“My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.
“What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.”
Yup.
Posted: January 28th, 2008 under Dumbocrats.
Comments: 14
Comments
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 28, 2008, 6:17 pm
Man, half of his columns in the past few weeks have been anti-Obama/pro-Hillary. It’s gotten really old.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 28, 2008, 11:19 pm
I agree. But even Krugman’s had enough–that’s why I posted it…
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 8:22 am
This is all self-fulfilling prophecy. Krugman is not exactly a student of the legislative process: he needs to get out of Princeton more.
The difference between the candidates on how they would go about the legislative process could not be clearer. Clinton is all about “what I can do” for you, in her words. Obama is about “let’s come together” and see what we can do. Edwards is channeling Perry Mason.
The three keys to getting something done in the next administration is the White House approach to bi-partisanship, the size of the majority in the Senate, and the mood of the Republicans on filibusters. Kennedy, the dean of the senate, said Obama was the man. Lieberman, the weasel of the senate, said McCain is the man. No one in the senate, to my knowledge, has spoken up for your gal.
Comment from jabartlett
Time: January 29, 2008, 9:06 am
Maybe we ought to draft Krugman. We could do worse. And we might.
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 29, 2008, 9:19 am
Far too early to commit, it may just be, that Ted didn’t want to be outshone by niece Caroline, thus showing he is still the patriarch.
On the other hand, you may choose to lead by this example …
So who does Feingold believe would be best equipped to handle this kind of exploitation of fear? He’s not budging.
“There are all kinds of issues weighing on my mind,” said the senator. “I’m trying to figure out who is most ready to be president in a very difficult world. I’m looking for somebody who can carry real change and a real feeling of unity in the country. I see some of these qualities in Senator Clinton and some in Senator Obama. And I simply don’t feel that I am compelled to make a decision.”
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 9:34 am
From what I know, Obama has been seeking Kennedy’s advice for some time, since he came to the Senate. He also consulted with Kennedy before he ran for president. Kennedy was also a mentor to Hillary. But Bill pissed him off. Especially when Bill refused to cool it after Kennedy asked him to stop his racists rants.
Caroline did the soft thing. Uncle Ted did the bazooka thing, taking on the Clintons bullshit point by point. It was one of the finer moments in recent political history. And the Clintons could have averted it, but narcissism rules and ruins again.
One of the seminal issues for Feingold has been the war, so if he did come out for Clinton, he would be selling out on what has distinguished him from the other donkeys in the senate.
Comment from I.B.Lever
Time: January 29, 2008, 9:57 am
In Krugman’s words … ” This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.”
Knowing the above statement to be true we sat idly by and let the following go unchallenged ( with the exception of Kucinich )…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042401542.html
Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan.
Fein called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he outlines the various cases against the Vice President. Fein also testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2007 about President Bush’s use of “signing statement.”
According to Fein, Cheney has:
Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.
Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President’s say-so alone.
Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.
Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.
Engineered the National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.
Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.
Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration’s evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq. ….
Miss Pelosi we certainly didn’t do ourselves any favors, by letting this go, did we ?
Now folks who do you really think will be better prepared, for the next inquisition . We know it’s coming and so should whoever we select as president ?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 10:06 am
Nothing is ever the Clintons fault. Cheney did not invent claims of Executive Privilege. The Clintons are still, to this day, hiding behind that claim.
This is not a defense of Bush in any form, but it is to point out that Hillary has Bill tar all over her, and she will have to defend what he did and did not do, and how he did it. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Obama does not have this privilege or baggage.
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 29, 2008, 10:41 am
I’m thinkin’ it may not be very wise to seek the advice of someone with uncle Ted’s background . Let’s face it, if it weren’t for family money and this nations apathy, he might never have gotten past Chappaquiddick. Do you think he was concerned about anyone’s well being that night , other than his own ? Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940 – July 18, 1969) didn’t think so.
I am taken aback, that you would mirror self adoration at the Clinton’s and have the unmitigated gall to mention Ted Kennedy, in the same breath ?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 10:52 am
Hey Umous, Ted doesn’t claim to be a saint, nor do I make that claim on his behalf. By pious contrast, the Clintons do claim a papal status that has worn very, very thin. And be it the devil, someone had to call them on it and put an end to it.
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 29, 2008, 12:17 pm
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283(198421)59%3A1%3C60%3AACSFTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
Hey Josh -
Here is the first use of executive privilege, but you appear to be of the opinion “slick willie” was the first to put it to use.
re:
“The Clintons are still, to this day, hiding behind that claim.”
This may put you somewhat at ease, “slick willie” isn’t running, Hillary is. Also, if you are willing to accept Ted Kennedy as a fine example for character reference, then I’ll stick with Willie J .
As for pious contrast, you are the one who brings a delegate’s personality and character to the table, but appear not to want others to share in that meal.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 12:30 pm
Umous, I can’t access your link, but I’m not claiming that the Clintons invented executive privilege or abused it to the extent that Shrub has. The Clintons still use it to protect, among other things, 3 million documents, I believe that is the number, of Hillary’s papers when she was in the White House. She, of course, claims that it is up to her husband to release them and that she can’t do anything about it. How convenient.
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 29, 2008, 1:12 pm
Google - “origin of executive privilege”
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 29, 2008, 3:35 pm
Josh: Re: Clinton baggage and Obama: You’re right, Obama doesn’t have the privilege or baggage…or much of a record, either.
Write a comment