tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post1176713999516442331..comments2023-10-01T09:22:37.695-07:00Comments on Economists for Obama: Peddling Anti-ObamaismDon Pedrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-70107183584730497212008-08-21T13:28:00.000-07:002008-08-21T13:28:00.000-07:00to support the idea that the obama folks have just...to support the idea that the obama folks have just not yet figured out how to capture his economic thoughts into a broader narrative, from today's NYT:<BR/><BR/>The new Democratic consensus isn’t complete, obviously. Labor unions, in particular, would prefer more trade barriers than many other Democrats. During the primaries Obama nodded, and at times pandered, in this direction. Since then, he has disavowed that rhetoric, to almost no one’s surprise. Yet his zig-zagging on the issue did highlight the biggest weak spot in his, and his party’s, economic agenda. He still hasn’t quite figured out how to sell it. For all his skills as a storyteller and a speaker, he has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path.<BR/><BR/>The lack of such a message has contributed to several of his worst moments over the last year. Most recently, the campaign has come out with a series of small-bore, populist energy plans — a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, a crackdown on speculators, a partial opening of the strategic oil reserve — that seem more political than economic. The most glaring misstep on this score was his comment this spring about bitter rural voters clinging to guns and religion. It was, in effect, an admission that his own message about the economy hadn’t yet broken through.realbrvhrthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00334749834027311702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-31244468639370149072008-08-20T09:09:00.000-07:002008-08-20T09:09:00.000-07:00Krugman's pissed that Obama won't praise the Clint...Krugman's pissed that Obama won't praise the Clinton admin.<BR/><BR/>I think he's right.<BR/><BR/>But he makes way too much of it, repeatedly banging his spoon on the highchair. (To quote Safire.)<BR/><BR/>Yes, Obama should be singing that tune. But Krugman shouldn't be talking about his failure in that regard. He should be talking about how good his economic plan is (Clinton admin as proof), and how bad McCain's is.<BR/><BR/>Steve<BR/>http://trueconservative.typepad.comSteve Rothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11895481216028771016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-10491870788045247552008-08-19T11:31:00.000-07:002008-08-19T11:31:00.000-07:00Jonah: Note this post is from Lerxst, not me!Jonah: Note this post is from Lerxst, not me!Don Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-3575195494167062942008-08-19T11:25:00.000-07:002008-08-19T11:25:00.000-07:00What DP said, on pretty much every count. Krugman ...What DP said, on pretty much every count. Krugman built up some serious capital in my book by having the guts to take on the Bushies when everyone else rolled over for them. But many of his columns on this campaign have just been silly. He's entitled to have a preferred candidate, and even to lionize the Clinton presidency (which, as DP notes, he wouldn't do back when the Clinton presidency was actually happening). But his arguments in this campaign have frequently been anti-factual, used cherry-picked examples, or just out there. It's a shame.Jonah B. Gelbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16937666641251545988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-1732007199119487032008-08-19T10:36:00.000-07:002008-08-19T10:36:00.000-07:00I had a different reading of Krugman. I know he s...I had a different reading of Krugman. I know he sometimes swoons a little too much about the Clintons, but I believe he genuinely thinks Obama's economic plan is right on target and McCain's would spell disaster for lower- and middle-class Americans.<BR/><BR/>Just because the Furman/Goolsbee piece is hard-hitting and visionary doesn't mean that the <I>political</I> folks in the Obama campaign have effectively gotten across his economic message. To me, Krugman is saying: "You guys are in the right! Time to start acting like it. Confidently and succinctly state your ideas on the trail, and don't be afraid to tear down McCain for his disastrous plan."realbrvhrthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00334749834027311702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-15312640512810752822008-08-19T07:55:00.000-07:002008-08-19T07:55:00.000-07:00ahhh, Krugman, Clinton lost, get over it! Also fin...ahhh, Krugman, Clinton lost, get over it! <BR/><BR/>Also find a new song to sing: From his Aug. 4 blog (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/post-partisan-depression/)<BR/><BR/><I>Obama’s big economy speech, last week:<BR/><BR/>Back in the 1990s, your incomes grew by $6,000, and over the last several years, they’ve actually fallen by nearly $1,000. <BR/><BR/>“Back in the 90s?” Why not, “When a Democrat was president?” “Over the last several years?” Why not, “under Bush?”</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com