Jan., 2008, Krugman said Obama was less progressive on domestic policies then his rivals

[Kaleva]

"I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."

"the Obama plan...emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts..."

So the extension of the Bush tax cuts was something he may well have been in favor of a year before he assumed office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?ei=5087&em=&en=0a7286ad193e4822&ex=1200459600&pagewanted=print

I sometimes think that some who say they worked hard to help elect Obama and voted for him and now say they feel shafted, double crossed or very disappointed may not have been paying much attention during the primaries.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear

and disregards the rest.

Lie-la-lie...

[DJ13]

2. Sadly it seems there were no real progressives on the ballot

At least none that had any chance at winning anyway.

I know Krugman liked Hillary, but the Clinton's werent real progressives either.

[ThatPoetGuy]

11. Krugman liked Edwards, not Hillary. nt

[Beacool]

3. How dare you bring that up?

Facts are not what they want to hear. Some on another post are even calling Krugman a "PUMA".

It would be funny, except that the country is going downhill faster than a sled.

:(


"Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

Thank you, Doctor Krugman. Same assessment as the two PhDs in economics that I know, my brother and a friend's husband.

;-)

[emilyg]

5. .....

[dennis4868]

4. Bunch of crock!

[woo me with science]

6. So, is it "too progressive" to be against cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? nt

[sudopod]

7. So you're saying we had it coming? We were

as they say, "Asking for it?"

[Beacool]

8. This one has become one of my favorite quotes since 2008:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

;-)

[sudopod]

9. Counterpoint: The Sarah Palin Movie ;) nt

[ProSense]

10. So it's

progressive to be for an individual mandate? Krugman (Saturday)

<...>

First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits. So this is naked blackmail: the GOP is trying to use the threat of financial catastrophe to impose its policy vision, even in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a vision that it lacks the votes to enact through normal legislation.

Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

<...>

Anyone get the feeling Krugman has issues?

[MADem]

12. I have little sympathy for the people who were so vociferous then

against hearing the POVs of others, and are equally vociferous now about being betrayed.

I did my homework. I had a good familiarity with the nuances in the positions of the major contenders.

A lot of people, I suspect, were biased towards Obama because of his youth and vigor and his skin tone. They felt that he had to be super "hip" and "cool" and "urban," (which many translated, mistakenly, to mean "liberal") even though he grew up in Honolulu and attended a private school, and went to prestigious private colleges and one of the best private law schools in the world, as well.

People are shocked about his stance on gay marriage, as an example. That was never a surprise to me--he said, time and time again while he was a candidate, that he favored the state-sanctioned civil union route. Then, when he repeats it, people are somehow shocked, like it is new material and he's betraying a promise (that he never made). Now, as it is put out that he's "evolving," there are complaints that it's not enough (but it was a few years ago???).

He's actually made some 'progress' in his thinking over the years: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19marriage.html?pagewanted=all

[woo me with science]

13. Yes, one thing I've noted in the attacks on anyone who criticizes this administration,

both in the media and elsewhere, is a lack of sympathy.

Not just for the people protesting these policies, but for the victims of the policies themselves (and, yes, those groups overlap). For victims of drone attacks or TSA abuses, for the poor, for the elderly on SS and Medicare, and for the unemployed. There is a continual dismissal of the ones who are harmed by the Democratic President's policies, in order to defend the Democratic President.

I have seen complaints on TV and here about the shredding of the safety nets met with guffaws and snide remarks. Ditto for complaints by people who have been traumatized by TSA or FBI abuses. I had someone argue to me that old people should be able to save their own money and not depend on Social Security so much. Someone else posted that two more years before receiving Medicare should be no big deal. Those expressing horror at the ongoing brutal threatening and potential sacrifice of our elderly poor by putting SS and Medicare on the table are met with derision and dismissal.

The lack of sympathy does seem to be a potentially very useful identifying characteristic of the defense of Right Wing policies perpetrated by a Democratic President.

Thank you for making that so clear.

[MADem]

15. Nice attempt at a flip. All I'm saying is, if you didn't know what you were getting

when you pulled the lever in the primary, it's your own damn fault.

He hasn't changed. The people who are mad at him now are simply just starting to pay attention.

He wasn't my first choice, but he beat the prospect of President McCain.

[Beacool]

20. You nailed it!!!

"A lot of people, I suspect, were biased towards Obama because of his youth and vigor and his skin tone. They felt that he had to be super "hip" and "cool" and "urban," (which many translated, mistakenly, to mean "liberal") even though he grew up in Honolulu and attended a private school, and went to prestigious private colleges and one of the best private law schools in the world, as well."

That just proves once again the quote I posted above thread.

;(

[BlueMTexpat]

14. I agree.

People were projecting too much on him - there was never any way that he could live up to the expectations. I actually lost friends when I tried to point this out at the time. But I don't believe that any one of the 2008 candidates could have lived up to those expectations.

I still believe, however, that we ended up with the best candidate from the choices that we had from 2008. My preferred choices were never in the running then.

In all fairness, no President since FDR has been handed such a political and economic mess from the get-go, both at home and abroad. Even FDR didn't have anywhere near the mess abroad that this President has had to deal with. Yes, the global economic situation was also awful then, but the US wasn't engaged in horrifically expensive foreign wars at the time, one of them inarguably illegal, nuclear bombs hadn't yet been created or used, and there was no I-P situation that has steadily but inexorably been diminishing our credibility worldwide, particularly since 1967. (I didn't include the Nazi Regime and WWII simply because when FDR first came into office, no one really had any idea what could and would happen. Later FDR rose to the challenge.)

But Obama has so far shown too little of FDR's backbone. And that's what is needed now. Nothing less.

That said, I still have his back because the alternative is unthinkable. Shock doctrine indeed. But that is my bottom line.

[MADem]

16. I like the way people accuse him of all sorts of shit before a deal is even done.

This joint has been jumping with all kinds of whining about selling out before he's put a signature to any legislation. Some short-on-facts jerk writes some BS on a blog, and it is taken as gospel and touted as "proof" that Obama is the devil sending us down the road to doom.

Then, when the latest horseshit rumor comes to naught, the same wailers and criers skulk off, only to appear a few days later with another load of unsubstantiated crap designed to flame and incite.

It is exhausting trying to keep up with the spurious accusations around here.

I concur that this mess is not of his making. It seems that the Democratic Presidents are the ones to balance the checkbook, clean up the mess, and tidy up our relationships around the world, and the drunken Republicans come in and sign up for dozens of credit cards, max 'em out, spend money like drunken sailors on worthless shit, trash the house, and insult all the neighbors.

I've got the guy's back because he's doing the best he can, and there is no viable alternative at this point in time. He will most likely win a second term, and I will be sure to vote for him and drag a bunch of voters to the polls to do likewise.

[BlueMTexpat]

18. Same here - and I sincerely believe that there are plenty of us

"long-termers" who feel the same way!

:hi:

[karynnj]

19. Many of us, who supported Obama, did so as a consequence of rejecting Edwards and Clinton

The fact is that by mid 2007 - if not earlier, it was clear that the media/party gave us just these three choices. I knew I did not want Clinton, partly because she was a centrist, partly because I did not want the Clintons back, and partly because there were things I really disliked about her, though I had liked her as First Lady. Edwards had been unimpressive as a VP and he and Elizabeth were repeating things about 2004 that I knew were not true. I did look to the second tier - and wanted to be impressed. I had been unimpressed with Biden after he took over as chair of SFRC from Lugar - and remembered his 26 minute Alito committee monologue. Richardson's handling of the 2004 NM vote was a deal breaker. That left Dodd, the most liberal and a Kennedy friend - and utterly unimpressive on the talk shows I watched hoping to be impressed. And that was before Countrywide!

I knew, as you said, that Obama was not far politically from where Clinton was - though his votes were slightly to the left of hers - especially on foreign policy. I knew that, in addition to the liberal Durbin, Obama's earliest support was from Daschle and that many Daschle people became Obama's Senate staff. To me, any of the Democratic nominees seemed similar on domestic policy - with roughly the same goals. On the details, it seemed that what mattered was whet could get pass Congress - and I was not convinced that the plan that passed would be all that different with a different President. (I did think that of the three Obama would be the most likely to be able to work with Congress. I was NOT convinced that Clinton could really change enough from 1993 to actually help Congress find the needed compromises. That not one of his former peers in the Senate backed Edwards and some,notably Feingold, publicly bashed him, made it clear that he did not impress them and the way he ran his campaign did not help.)

This led me not to be surprised when Obama picked the Clinton team for nearly every economic position - just as Clinton likely would have. What did surprise me was that Obama did not mean as much change on military and foreign policy as I expected. It was FP where I though Obama would be different - and it is fp where the President has the most latitude. Looking back, I can see that his fp comments were usually inspirational and vague. I realize that I likely took Kerry's responses, as an excellent surrogate, as 100% Obama position - ignoring that Obama himself never said some of them. That this was not just the candidate not saying things that could be too strong, but that these were not necessarily Obama's views. I was surprised when Obama followed mostly Clinton's foreign policy - with a few speeches that seemed transformational.

However, even knowing the present, I would still vote for Obama as the 2008 nominee if the only choices available were the same.

[MADem]

26. I was always a bit surprised at the strong dislike of Clinton by some Obama supporters

I didn't see much daylight between them on most issues, and long-term, I was right.

The main differences between them were gender and color.

A look at the big money supporters of the two told the tale (you don't get something for nothing, after all) --Obama was every bit as centrist as HRC, the difference was, he was younger and hipper and could hide it better.

I have no problem with keeping him in the job, though--I will actively support his reelection.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. anyone who seriously thought in 2008 that Obama, Clinton, Edwards or any of the other leading

candidates were progressives were engaging in utterly naive wishful thinking. A simple review of their track records and any simple considerations of their actual positions beyond lofty campaign rhetoric would have immediately disabused anyone of those notions very easily. But then again we all live in hope that somehow their actual record and their actual positions doesn't reflect the real them that will take office on inaugural day. Perhaps their actual record and their actual positions where just pragmatic compromises they had to make to get to where they are. Perhaps in their heart they really are a true progressive and once in office, once they obtain the highest office in the world they will no longer be encumbered by the pressures of the interest that allowed them to get there in the first place. Perhaps now, the true progressive them will now emerge. Or perhaps some of us who have seen this game being played out so many, many times realize that any flirtations with lofty lefty rhetoric were were just nice little cliches to keep the faithful on board - but in spite of the utter phoniness in what may appear like an exercise in futility - the mirage progressives we elect are still better that their alternative who actually are true believers in their lofty right-wing rhetoric - so we discover that in the real politics of America today we can choose between the professional politicians of the Democratic Party who really don't believe in anything or the true believers of the Republican Party who really do believe in their reactionary message.

[karynnj]

21. I agree with much of what you say, but ultimately disagree

In 2007, Senator Kerry, who was then refusing to endorse anyone, argued that EVERY Democrat running stood for dealing with climate change, providing healthcare insurance, protecting Social Security etc, while EVERY Republican running was against most, if not every one of those things. (I likely got that list wrong - it was a long list which I don't really remember. But the point was that there are differences between the two parties that are pretty clear cut.)

It is these basic differences that likely make it very rare for a prominent Democrat or Republican to endorse a candidate of the other party. It is also why a unified ticket (or whatever you want to call it) would really never work. This is why a Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel, who I suspect both might have respected their SFRC colleague Kerry more on foreign policy than Bush, would never have endorsed him or NOT endorsed Bush.

It is ridiculous that the Republicans controlling one House have the ability to hold so much hostage, but I think they do partially because their values place a lower value than ours do on the government doing most of the things it does. (Consider we got the House in 2006, but did not thrown monkey wrenches at passing essential bills.

[truedelphi]

23. What you say +

A look into the past.

Visit my journal and read the third item down - "most important political conversation ever."

Times have changed, but the fact that the Uber Elite controls all hasn't.

[Armstead]

22. No, a lot of us were for him because he seemed like the only possible alternative to DLC Centrism

We did not want a return of Clintoinian Centrism and Dick Morris "triangulation" and the close ties to Wall St. and Corporate Barons.

There may have been some concerns about Obama, but he did portray himself as more liberal and committed to real reform. So we gave him the benefit of the doubt.

In retrospect (in my opinion) we were wrong. Frankly, I think Hillary would have done more to shift the center of gravity more leftward.

But we couldn't see into the future then.

[Vattel]

24. I really don't think he was in favor of extending Bush's tax cuts

for the wealthy. What reason is there to doubt his claim that he agreed to that in order to get things he did want?

[LWolf]

25. I knew that. Which is why

I never supported his nomination.