That Wacky, Wacky Krugman Posted by Michael Cohen

A few weeks ago I wondered aloud if Barack Obama had stolen Paul Krugman's girlfriend or maybe accidentally run over his dog. At the time, I was joking, but after reading his piece in today's New York Times, I'm really beginning to wonder. 

After claiming that there is too much "bitterness" and "venom" in the Democratic race, Krugman makes this astounding argument:

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

This is just unhinged. Does Paul Krugman really believe that the popular support for Barack Obama is akin to the sycophant-like behavior that we see around President Bush? Does he really think that Obama would pull a stunt like "Mission Accomplished" or even for that matter preemptively attack a foreign nation? Just because Obama supporters passionately want their guy to win does that mean, ipso facto, we're going to have a repeat of the worst excesses of the Bush Administration? It pains me to tar Paul Krugman with this brush, but this the kind of argument I would expect to see coming from Charles Krauthammer!

As for the notion that the Democratic race is filled with venom, as far as I am aware neither candidate has run a single negative TV ad against the other and neither has launched any sort of personal character attack. This has been one very tough fought, but pretty substantive presidential campaign. Indeed, if every campaign was like this, we'd all be much better off.

But what I find most hilarious about Krugman's allegation of the venom supposedly coming from Obama supporters is that he doesn't even bother to point to a single example of this phenomenon, instead highlighting mainstream media attacks against the Clintons and arguing that Obama folks aren't exorcised enough by them. Sheesh! This is just embarrassing.

It's really about time, Paul Krugman went back to talking about economics because when it comes to politics he's starting to sound like a broken record.

Comments

[Chill]

Did Krugman just comapare obama with Bush, a cult and then take a stance on the dr.King issue? And I believe towards the end he just suggested that some jews ddd not want obama to be president? Is that racist or slander? I don't even understand what that had to do with his argument. This was the craziest and the most sweeping op-ed I've ever read, he should have to retract that. Geeeeazz.

[Neil]

I wish you'd reserve the "Wacky, Wacky" headline for Bill Kristol. In fairness to Paul Krugman, Paul is not in the same league with Bill "blood and guts" Kristol.

Maybe it's Krugman who's too attached to his candidate as he watches her chances recede in a tide of populism. Krugman's point about their respective health care plans is well taken. I want Obama and Hillary's health care proposal.

[Will Fettes]

I can hazard a guess at Krugman's motives here. Back in the 90s he was close to a position in the Clinton 1 White House, but got passed over. It's a simple fact that he would be more likely to make inroads there than with Obama. It is also true that he is animated by the topic of universal healthcare, and sees Obama's accommodation as less pure in the battle of ideas. So it's a combination.

There is just no substance to his other comments. Anybody can see that in a contest between the Clinton political machine with a demonstrable track record of getting dirty and aggressive, against Krugman's unnamed vitriolic 'Obama camp', Obama comes out smelling like roses. We know that Hillary campaign insiders played a role in the Fox Madrasah furphy, and that they've engaged in petty meta-political framing by trying to tamper with racial identity politics, and the backhanded slap about his former drug use. We also know Clinton minions have led a editorial charge internationally in diminishing Obama's experience, and trying to pigeon hole him as a light-weight speech maker with no real policies.

These are all readily attributble to hunger in the Clinton camp, so to claim it's mostly coming from the Obama camp with not a single citation, source or line of analysis is blatantly disingenuous.

[Will Fettes]

I can hazard a guess at Krugman's motives here. Back in the 90s he was close to a position in the Clinton 1 White House, but got passed over. It's a simple fact that he would be more likely to make inroads there than with Obama. It is also true that he is animated by the topic of universal healthcare, and sees Obama's accommodation as less pure in the battle of ideas. So it's a combination.

There is just no substance to his other comments. Anybody can see that in a contest between the Clinton political machine with a demonstrable track record of getting dirty and aggressive, against Krugman's unnamed vitriolic 'Obama camp', Obama comes out smelling like roses. We know that Hillary campaign insiders played a role in the Fox Madrasah furphy, and that they've engaged in petty meta-political framing by trying to tamper with racial identity politics, and the backhanded slap about his former drug use. We also know Clinton minions have led a editorial charge internationally in diminishing Obama's experience, and trying to pigeon hole him as a light-weight speech maker with no real policies.

These are all readily attributable to hunger in the Clinton camp, so to claim it's mostly coming from the Obama camp with not a single citation, source or line of analysis is blatantly disingenuous.

[Mike D]

Krugman shouldn't go back to reporting about economics either.... he runs around telling everyone he was right about the housing bubble after predicting every year for about 15 years.... why he has a job at all is beyond me.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[Nike Air Max 95]

You may remenber the three proverbs:
Misfortune tests the sincerity of friends.
No cross, no crown.
Nobody's enemy but his own.
One man's fault is another man's lesson.