Comments on: State of Confusion

By: jd

jd — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:03:51 +0000

Wealthy elite liberal writer knows what is best for working stiffs? Give me a break. Krugman is so much on the Clinton Koolaid he will go cold turkey when this is all over.

The ultimate liberal establishment media whore.

Guilt by association - the main feature of McCarthyism - is now the crux of american politics.

By: polly

polly — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:25:30 +0000

Dear Susie,
the confusion seems to be yours. Obama’s tarnishing was due to character flaws and guilt by association and not because of his program which was hardly ever discussed. Democratic elders’ endorsing Obama based on his program (and despite the image doubts) kind of suggests that his thinking is in the line with the party’s traditions.
On the contrary, Hillary’s idea of hitting Obama the way Republicans would, her undermining both the activist (as with moveon.org) and afro-american (as in Bill’s comments) constituencies, as well as willing to override the party rules for the primaries (to which she fully agreed last fall) suggests lack of consideration for the Democratic party.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:30:01 +0000

He also raises a point that I’d like to see addressed more often: What, exactly, has been so “negative” or “scorched-earth” about Clinton’s campaign?

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:29:20 +0000

But I understand that Clinton consistently pays her supporters the complement of assuming they are interested in and can understand specifics of her policy proposals.

actually, in my experience that seems to be more true about domestic policy than foreign policy. obama’s foreign policy speeches are much much more substantive than clinton’s.

my point is that they both have strengths and weaknesses as candidates. and that i think it’s weird when people accuse obama as being without substance or not talking about issues. this has got to be the most detailed-oriented campaign in modern history. politicians regularly make promises to do something about various issues, but how often do they set out their actual health plan months before the general election? in this race, both candidates have (plus edwards, before he dropped out). in 1992 bill clinton just ran on universal healthcare, he didn’t even try to come up with an actual plan until a year after he was in office. similarly, both candidates have given us detailed iraq withdrawal plans, economic proposals, tax policies, etc. there’s really no way to accuse either of them of being an empty vessel or not going into details.

we have a lot more details about what both of them will do than we do with any other candidate during my lifetime. just compare it with the candidates on the republican side, mccain has talked about various proposals, but he hasn’t come out with anything remotely as detailed as either candidate’s health care plan. both candidates on the democratic side have a lot of content to them. when i see people saying otherwise, it just makes me think they are not paying attention to one of the many things that makes this race so unique.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:49:27 +0000

From the National Review Online, the Corner:
Krugman–Right On! [Rich Lowry]
I always know there’s some strange disturbance in the atmosphere when I find myself agreeing with Maureen Dowd’s columns. It happened, for instance, during the Harriet Miers controversy. But how weird do things have to be for me to be nodding along to much of a Paul Krugman column? I especially enjoyed the first half of this column shellacking Obama today.

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:42:40 +0000

sister…

Firefox…integrated spell checking is great for typing on blogs

By: sister of ye

sister of ye — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:34:13 +0000

Sorry, that should be “compliment.” I really do know how to spell.

By: sister of ye

sister of ye — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:33:24 +0000

Living in Michigan, I haven’t had the chance to hear either candidate. But I understand that Clinton consistently pays her supporters the complement of assuming they are interested in and can understand specifics of her policy proposals. That creates return respect from the voters (though not the bored media people).

I spent a year out of work in the Bush I years. Many in my family preached that I just needed to get my head together. (One actually paid for me to attend a Tony Robbins lecture.) It was when a new friend finally said, “Here’s the temp agency I’m working for, call her, she’ll give you an interview,” that I finally got work, which led to a permanent job at the law firm where I’ve now been for 15 years.

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:47:00 +0000

It was only with the help of a complicit media eager to bury everyone named Clinton that allowed Obama to dismiss everyone who came before him and call his campaign one of hope. It was a campaign of hope…as in, I hope the media stays on my side.

Well guess what..The media jumped ship according to Tom Edsall at the Huffington Post

Shocking I tell you…positively shocking

By: k

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:03:53 +0000

This is blatantly obvious to us folks on the ground. Are the candidates holding off till after the primaries? If they do successfully lose, will we start a third party? If the stakes weren’t so high for this election, I’d say that would be the best outcome.