I love the columnist activity in peak campaign time, and this year is no exception. Paul Krugman of the Times is one of my favorite columnists, so I was surprised to see the response his columns on health care the last couple of weeks ago have gotten from the Obama campaign, who you would think would be all about someone like Krugman. Instead they’re attacking a solidly progressive columnist with the vigor of Republican attack dogs! Note to Senator Obama – we expect this from Republicans, but not from one of our own – and certainly not from someone who has talked about running a campaign of hope and positive ideals.
Krugman’s looking at all three health plans, those from Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, and talking about what of all those ideas make sense. Yes, Krugman is a little more critical now, but that’s in response to Obama being more critical of the others’ plans now. I like Obama, but it worries me that he’s getting defensive and attacking Krugman for raising legitimate questions about his plan. That’s what happens in elections and his campaign should have been prepared with answers, not arrows back at the columnist. Obama’s plan leaves more than 15 million people uninsured. He should spend some time answering those questions and less time on Krugman. It makes me wonder if he’s doing this with an eye toward the general election, taking on more conservative language that avoids sounding like he’s in favor of socialized health care or using the word “mandate.” Seems a little too early for that and don’t we get enough of that from the Republicans? Plus, this isn’t the first time. Remember the Obama – Krugman go-around over social security when Obama talked about the social security “crisis”? Put down the Republican playbook. We expect the scare mongering from the Right, not the Left.
I’m not sure I completely agree with Joan Vennnochi’s comparison of Obama and Deval Patrick this morning, but it’s interesting, for sure. Sometimes style, rather than substance, can be what makes the difference, especially with so much of America voting on style, not substance! Absurd, but true. How else was our current president foisted upon us?? Personally, I’ll take some more substance and urge all of our candidates to do the same.
Jonathan Stein over at Mother Jones calls the lack of a mandate in Obama’s plan “the biggest mistake of his campaign“. I don’t know whether it’s the biggest, but it’s definitely big.
<
p>First, it’s bad policy as Krugman and others have demonstrated. I think Krugman’s right that this is a product of his overly-cautious campaign. It’s this milquetoast style and refusal to confront the Republicans head-on that is probably the biggest mistake of his campaign, if not his entire, albeit short, career in the Senate.
<
p>Second, the lack of a mandate is really bad politics. He left himself open to the attacks that his plan is not universal. That’s the truth, and every time Clinton or Edwards raises the point, he’s put in the position of giving a convoluted defense, often drifting into some rightwing talking points in doing so. Even if Obama’s plan is the best overall — I don’t believe that it is, but even if it were — the lack of universal coverage will stick in people’s minds.
Paul Krugman is one of the smartest people in the US, and when he speaks, you will do yourself a big favor by listening carefully to his points. By attacking him, Obama is making a huge mistake.
<
p>Obama, as much as he is painting himself an outsider, is a politician. He is willing to make compromises to present himself as part of the mainstream. Joan Vennochi’s column correctly states that the difference between Obama and Clinton is that of style, not substance.
<
p>If you want real change, support a real progressive in the primaries – Dennis Kucinich.