Paul Krugman Has Never Liked Obama

[Barack_America]

Paul Krugman Has Never Liked Obama

by Paul Hogarth‚ Mar. 30‚ 2009

New York Times liberal columnist Paul Krugman is getting lots of attention for his hard-hitting critiques on Barack Obama’s economic policies. Hipsters have cut music videos on YouTube pleading the White House to hire Krugman, and now Newsweek has him on the cover as part of the President’s “loyal opposition.” Media Matters has wisely asked why the mainstream press ignored Krugman when he criticized George Bush, but a more basic issue needs to be raised about his attacks on the current Administration. The truth is, the guy never liked Obama to begin with. Krugman was a Hillary supporter in the primaries who repeatedly lashed out at Obama for his health care plan – only to then accuse Obama of being a Clintonite in the general for “betraying” the left. Do his new critiques of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have any salience, and is it time to conclude that our President has “sold out” to Wall Street? Hard to tell, because so much of what the media reports on AIG turns out to be wrong. I’m willing to question the direction that Barack Obama is taking us, but I don’t trust Paul Krugman’s criticism.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Paul_Krugman_Has_Never_Liked_Obama_6756.html

For those of you wondering why so many of us dislike and distrust Krugman, while possibly appreciating many of his ideas, I think this sums it up nicely. It does for me at least. Be sure to click the links in the original piece for a more thorough background on Krugman and Obama.

[AllentownJake]

1. Keynes never really liked Roosevelt that much either

:shrug:

[John the Revelator]

103. Paul Krugman, the Douchebag's Keynes

seriously,
Paul is no Master of Economics.

Nobody will remember his name in 50 years.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Krugman worked for Reagan and Enron... he shouldn't talk about "betraying the left"

[Reterr]

11. When did Krugman work for Reagan?

I have seen the BS behind he worked for Enron, but this is a new attack meme I am seeing. I am curious as to the story behind this one.


Can't wait to see the day we start claiming he worked for Bush too :tinfoilhat:! He is actually posts on Free Republic. I know this for a fact! Spread that one around too kids. Reduce it to sound bite size so you can just show up on any thread about Krugman and say "Krugman did this, this and this". It is the internet-most people won't actually bother to check it out. It is great for character assassination!

[ClarkUSA]

16. Krugman worked on Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers during 1982–1983

From 1982 to 1983, Krugman was a senior staff economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Oops...someone got quiet all of a sudden

:P

[ClarkUSA]

23. Heh heh

:smoke:

[Reterr]

96. Nah I have an actual life and a job and had to leave for that

Wow he was really joint at the hip with Reagan there!

This is all you got?

P.s.: Another DUer pointed this out to me...didn't your pal Larry Summers work on Reagan's council too?
Of course I guess the thing is Summers is so blatantly a centre right prick that that is hardly surprising.

[omega minimo]

48. so he bailed out of Reaganism -- after seeing it first hand -- about 16 years before the inevitable

[BeyondGeography]

71. By 1982, he still needed to see supply-side was a sham first hand?

That's funny.

[omega minimo]

73. What has he done in the decade and a half since then?

[BeyondGeography]

75. Apart from the $50,000 fee from Enron, you mean?

And speaking out against rent control? The occasional defense of sweatshops and criticisms of unions?

He has a few things to explain to the Sainthood Commission, believe it or not.

[omega minimo]

76. "The Sainthood Commission" -- this is just a game to you

[bornskeptic]

133. 26 years is a decade and a half? n/t

[Kalyke]

55. Wow... a whole year.

Woo Hoo.

:eyes:

[ArchieStone1]

69. Can you name one advice that Krugman gave Reagan?

Did Reagan follow Krugman's specific advice during the one year he worked there?

When you can answer that question, you will have a point.

[CTLawGuy]

98. uh oh

NT

[LooseWilly]

108. That is like criticizing a lawyer for working for the DOJ in a Republican administration.

And a 1 year stint hardly seems to be a character indictable offense.

I mean.. really?

[Wetzelbill]

117. yeah with Larry Summers

For one year, they worked together. Larry Summers is Obama''s chief economics advisor, omg Obama is a Reaganite.

Seriously, the council hires over 20 people on their staff for about a year, usually from all political stripes. They're the top young graduates or people who are finishing PHD work, those positions are highly sought after and are staff positions, not presidential appointments. They do research and help put together government reports, it's not the same thing as a political appointment because the work is largely nonpartisan. Krugman was under 30, a graduate of Yale and MIT and would have been a top pick for one of the academic staff positions. It helps to actually know what something is before throwing it out there like it really means something.

[ClarkUSA]

129. Did Summers work for Enron, too?

[Wetzelbill]

136. Do you always change the point

when you get caught talking about something you don't really know about? And Larry Summers did write a personal letter to Ken Lay saying he would keep his eye on deregulation etc.

[Every Man A King]

44. Don't be fooled by Krugman

he is a free-trading tool trying to cover his tracks.

[w4rma]

3. It's not about like and dislike. It's about a plan that rewards theft and won't fix anything. (nt)

[Barack_America]

5. The point of this piece that Krugman's obvious personal dislike of Obama...

Leads the author to not trust Krugman's criticism of Obama.

[LooseWilly]

110. Now that seems to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion

And I might be more swayed, if Krugman were, in my opinion, criticizing Obama. As I see it though, he is not criticizing Obama. He is being critical of the extent of spending in the stimulus bill... and he is voicing, very publicly to be sure, his opinion that more needs to be spent to actually sufficiently stimulate the economy.

I don't understand why his voicing this opinion is considered so verboten.

If he is right, then his loudly voiced opinion will have braced everyone for that possibility, and politicians may be more quick to respond appropriately. If he is wrong, then no loss (other than those who imagine a criticism of a policy that Obama has chosen is some sort of reduction of his intrinsic value as a... politician? human being?...).

I mean, let's face it.. no one should ever trust an economist... they're all basically out there trying to read trends and confluences of events and to draw conclusions from those things they've "read" from the economy's behavior and then trying to create semi-coherent theories to formula-ize those behaviors in hopes that they will be able to spot/predict them when they occur the next time around.
It's an inexact science to say the least.
To equate proposing an alternative economic theory to political opposition strikes me as paranoid. And, in my opinion, those who are making that argument have overly bought into the marketing tactics employed by the MSM to move product by having a liberal economist on to criticize Obama.
Congratulations... you've all proved, once again, that hysterical drama of internal dissension will sell with the public.

Of course, it has to be admitted... it does appeal to the humanity within us. Like MacBeth, perhaps... or King Lear. Not to mention "The Unameable".

[QC]

4. I have never really liked eggplant.

Sometimes I eat it just to be polite, though.

[Barack_America]

6. When has Krugman supported Obama?

To be polite or otherwise?

I'll be honest, Krugman's obvious personal agenda during the primaries has discouraged me from reading his blog. If there were times where he was 100% behind Obama, I'd like to know of them.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Here's an archive of video where he supports Obama's plans.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1085343-nobel-laureate-paul-krugman-says-obamas-economic-plans-make-sense-and-mccains-economic-plans-are-just-more-of-the-same-old-bush-policies-that-got-us-in-this-mess-

It's a little after the 2:45 mark. Interesting little interview.

[Barack_America]

19. "Everyone knows you for your flaming columns in the New York Times".

That is exactly what the author of the piece in the OP is faulting Krugman for, and exactly why the author says that he cannot trust Krugman's opinions. What has the drama and personal attacks achieve for Krugman? Does he really want the Newsweek column over the possible implementation of his theory? Because it seems that's what he's getting with all of this.

Notice how Krugman accepts this portrayal of his "journalism".

FWIW, I actually saw this live. I'll admit, I was impressed with it at the time. Too bad the ability Krugman showed in this interview to critique policy with a level head and not become overly dramatic and personal hasn't been seen often since.

[LooseWilly]

114. Hyperbole is a wonderful thing.

I really like it.

On the other hand, that clip shows a general agreement by Krugman with the Obama plans (albeit before the election).

As far as I know, his criticisms since then have mostly been criticisms that the stimulus needs to be larger.

I still don't understand why what appears to me to be a legitimate alternate opinion is being so demonized?

The MSM is playing it up to sell copy. What's your angle? There's obviously, from the clip, no visceral disagreement between Krugman and Obama's people... it's simply a disagreement over degree of necessity of spending.

What is wrong with "you people"?

(ahh, Tropic Thunder echoes in the mind...)

[chimpymustgo]

62. Y'all are really starting to look stupid with this. Do you think Krugman supported McCain??

He didn't even SUPPORT Hillary - as is the BIG LIE now. He said Hillary's healthcare plan was better than Obama's. WHICH IT WAS. He said Edwards' healthcare plan was better than both. WHICH IT WAS.

I am fucking sick of the LYING and slander against this man, who was one of the few LOUD LIBERAL VOICES these past 8 years. And now, he doesn't want to go along with the banksters continuing to steal from the taxpayers - so he must be villified!

God, this SUCKS>

[Cha]

90. You already look

stupid with this.

[LooseWilly]

125. What the hell are you talking about? (n/t)

[LooseWilly]

112. I'm confused...

Why does an economist need to be 100% behind Obama for his economics to be worth considering?

I mean, no need to invite him over for afternoon tea or anything... but how about looking at his economic theories to decide if they have any merit, rather than looking at his political affiliations to decide if his economic theories have any merit?

Or you can feel free to decide that you don't want anything to do with him because of his political leanings... but to try to convince others to ignore economic theories based on the political histories of their author, rather than the merits of the theories themselves?... it sounds kind of Bush DOJ-like to me.

And, aside from human nature imperatives, I think Obama himself would prefer that one give Krugman's theories legitimate analysis, even if Obama hasn't adopted them. And even if Krugman might genuinely hate Obama's guts (which I doubt).
What I wonder is: why has Obama chosen to go with Summers and Geithner's theories, rather than Krugman's?... that seems like it should be the discussion, rather than whether Krugman supported Hillary or Barack.

[dionysus]

7. eggplant is the enemy of the people

[Beacool]

31. I LOVE eggplant.

I make an eggplant dish at least once a week, even if it's just baba ganouj.

Oh well, one more thing we disagree on.........

Where's binkie? Haven't seen him in ages.

:9

[dionysus]

36. i've been giving him a break

:hi:

[Beacool]

41. Hi, yourself!!

:hi:

[LooseWilly]

124. You do realize that baba ganoush is an Iranian dish?

By cooking it you are violating several National Security Laws... and, if you don't immediately sign a waver to accept deportation to Guantanamo, you are making a tacit admission to being a terrorist?...

[Beacool]

130. Wow!!!!

All of that from one little eggplant???

Damn, there goes one of my favorite dishes!!!

:(



:7

[CTyankee]

57. Go to Sicily. Go into any restaurant or trattoria and order "Pasta Norma."

It is something of the national dish and is made with eggplant.

Come back and tell me then how you feel about eggplant. I guarantee you a happy, happy experience.

[dionysus]

60. ok, i have nothing against eggplant, i was riffing on a poster who spent the last few days replying

to everything with "______ is an enemy of the people"

[CTyankee]

63. Oh, sorry. I didn't get in on the joke. Thanks for telling me. Go to Sicily and order

that dish anyway. I loved my trip to Sicily and wish I could go back...

[dionysus]

65. if i ever have the money to make it to europe, i will, thanks!

:hi:

[Beacool]

131. It sounded delicious.

So I found a recipe:

Pasta Alla Norma

http://www.pasta-recipes-made-easy.com/authentic-italian-pasta-recipe.html

Does it look like what you remember eating?

There were more recipes, but this one claimed to be authentic. I want to try it and I would probably add the ricotta since I like it.

:9

[cali]

9. how can you not like eggplant? It's a prince of the vegetable kingdom?

[Beacool]

132. Finally!!!

Something we can agree on!!!

:7

[BzaDem]

8. No, Paul Krugman has never liked Obama's healthcare plan.

Healthcare happens to be an issue near and dear to Krugman's heart. He initially supported Edwards in the primaries because of his healthcare plan. Then he leaned towards Hillary, because Hillary's plan was very close to Edwards' plan. Krugman does not believe that the healthcare issue will be solved until we actually have universal healthcare, and Obama's plan from day one allowed the young and healthy to not have health insurance, increasing costs for everyone else.

Krugman also did not believe in the idea of "postpartisanship" that Obama kept talking about. As much as Hillary's "the skies will open, angels will be singing, and everything will be perfect" speech was derided by DUers at the time, it is obvious now (and back then to Krugman) that "postpartisanship" relies on Republican good will that just isn't there. 0 republicans in the House voted for the stimulus, and just 3 in the Senate, despite large concessions that probably damaged the bill's effectiveness.

I think most on DU agreed with Krugman on these two particular issues -- they wanted a system closer to universal healthcare, and they thought the idea of "postpartisanship" was silly. But they still liked Obama overall much better than Hillary (personally and based on other policy views), so they supported him. Krugman, on the other hand, realized that Obama's views on two issues most important to him did not conform to his own, and (gasp!) decided that he would support someone who's ideas he did support. This is a far cry from hating Obama personally.

[Barack_America]

13. If so, then why the overly personal tone when Krugman writes about Obama?

Krugman may not have explicitly expressed hatred for Obama, but much can be read between the lines in the language Krugman chooses to use regarding Obama.

For many of us, this piece is where it ceased to be a debate about healthcare policy and became something personal about Obama and his supporters.

In any case, the day that Krugman launched that personal attack against Obama supporters was the day that I stopped listening to Krugman. I can appreciate someone who has intelligent things to say about economics and policy matters, but the moment that person so obviously brings a personal vendetta to print, I will listen no more. I do not watch Fox News only because I disagree with their viewpoints, I do not watch primarily because I abhor their "journalism". Same goes for Krugman.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Cuz when he spanked Obama on mandates, we spanked him back

And The Tenured One isn't used to such treatment.

[BzaDem]

22. That article really just drives home my point.

"The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters."

He believes Hillary is more serious about achieving universal healthcare, and that Obama's own positions undermines his own efforts (for example, bipartisanship could result in damaging concessions to Republicans in something like the stimulus bill that undermined Obama's efforts to turn the economy around).

Yet, despite that, he feels that the bitterness of the nomination fight is bizarre, since both candidates are great and especially so compared to the Republicans.

The rest of the article to me was stating something so obvious that it didn't really need to be stated. Maybe using the words "hero worship" was a bit caustic, but his main point rings true to any person on DU who initially supported a candidate other than Obama during the primary fight. Many of these people have left DU -- permanently -- because of the personal attacks on them on DU from Obama supporters during the primary fight. Very few (if any) Obama supporters left DU because of anything said by non-Obama supporters during the same period.

[Barack_America]

24. Just because you agree with Krugman's personal attacks on Obama supporters...

...does not make it right for a person who considers himself a "journalist" to launch such personal attacks in the first place.

Personal attacks anywhere are regrettable and wrong, but when they're printed in the pages of the NYT, they are inexcusable. For someone who lamented the bitterness of the primaries, Krugman sure added a lot to it, particularly with this piece.

[BzaDem]

32. I agree that more care should be given to an NYT column than a DU post.

But Krugman was mainly attacking those who themselves were personally attacking Clinton and her supporters. While all personal attacks are regrettable, I don't consider equivalent those who personally attack others and those who personally attack others for personally attacking others.

[Barack_America]

37. Had Krugman come to DU or Kos to do that would have been one thing.

But he took it to the NYT.

And I can personally attest to how hurtful that was to Obama supporters who were out there volunteer for the candidate they simply thought had the best chance of winning. I also recall getting personal with several DU Hillary supporters over that piece, which I regret sincerely. For me, Krugman's piece was a big turning point where I went from feeling bewilderment that Hillary's supporters thought she had the best chance to out-and-out anger and bitterness.

[Bjorn Against]

116. Krugman is an op-ed columnist, he is not and has never claimed to be a journalist.

The job of an op-ed columnist is to write their opinions, Krugman never claimed to be a journalist he is a person who was hired to express his opinion not to give a neutral presentation of the facts.

[LooseWilly]

126. You've got to be kidding...

I mean, not paying attention to any source of critical information?...
you can offhandedly dismiss all you want... but the idea of not keeping up with changes is beyond stupid...

[LooseWilly]

128. I may be wrong, but I suspect you're out of your gourd...

I don't think your link is a personal attack, as you seem to think (and yes, I am an Obama supporter, really)... Reading "between the lines" hatred of Obama seems ridiculous to me. I don't read that...
I also don't think that Krugman ever launched any personal attacks against Obama. Or his supporters.

"Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters." That quote from your own link hardly sounds like a personal attack on Obama.

" Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod." again Krugman... doesn't sound all that personal vendetta-esque.

I'm curious what, exactly, made Krugman so "evil"...

[Beacool]

34. I agree with your post.

I also agree with the reasons Krugman preferred Hillary's healthcare plan, it WAS better. That's also the reason why she was endorsed by the AMA and the Nurse's Association.

As for bipartisanship, Hillary was also correct. On the other hand, I don't think that Obama believed in it himself either, just campaign B.S. like all politicians.

;)

[rucky]

49. Seriously, why can't people ignore the WWF posturing and stick to the facts?

Columnists and Politicians will pepper their language - that's expected. But it shouldn't detract from the substance of either viewpoint on a given issue.

[Aloha Spirit]

10. Krugman defending Obama,

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html

While I too am frustrated by the invention of a divide on the Left, and while Krugman often seems to me like a contrarian, it's not like he's never defended Obama.

[MadHound]

12. Yes, but,

It isn't just Krugman who is saying the same thing. Joseph Stiglitz, another Nobel winner in economics, James Galbraith, a respected economics professor, along with many other economist all think the same thing, that the Obama administration is going about this whole mess in the wrong way.

Meanwhile, on Obama's team you've got Geithner, who got his start under Bush the Elder, member of the CFR and Federal Reserve, along with Summers, who got his start under Reagan, and loved cutting taxes. Both of these men were instrumental in getting us into the mess we're in today because they were the ones pushing for more and more deregulation(lest you forget, it was under Clinton that the highest amount of financial deregulation in history took place).

So on the one hand we've got two Nobel prize winners, along with a large group of noted and respected economists who are saying we are going about this the wrong way. On the other hand, we've got two of the men who helped get us into this mess, and the President, who are stating that we must continue to throw piles of money at Wall St., even though that plan has yet to work, and in fact could very well be making things worse.

Who do you believe?

Me, I go with the smartest folks in the rook, Krugman, et. al. I think that most people who are objective about this, who don't have an axe to grind will do the same thing.

So if you reject Krugman, for whatever partisan political reason, fine. But realize that you are also rejecting many of the smartest economists out there in favor of the opinions of two of the men who enabled this mess to begin with, and who, from my position, look more and more like they are intent on helping their buddies on Wall St. rather than the rest of us. And why not, Wall St. sprung for more than fourteen million dollars in campaign donations to the Obama campaign, I'm sure that they're expecting a return on their investment. Sadly, it looks like they're going to get it too, at the expense of the economic well being of the rest of us.

[Barack_America]

17. Then why is only Krugman getting the attention?

Why are we not hearing more of Stiglitz and Galbraith?

Could it be that Krugman is getting attention because he is either willing (or appears to be willing) to make this a personal attack against the President?

That Krugman is not alone, but is getting the lion's share of the attention only strengthens the author's point; Krugman's tactics are driving away many people who would otherwise agree with him. Right or wrong on policy matters, Krugman appears all too willing to come across as a hack. And right or wrong on policy matters, that is an unforgivable sin for a "journalist".

[MadHound]

28. Could be, but more likely it is because Krugman is the best know economist out there

After all, he's been a regular contributor to NYT, Newsweek, and other media outlets, one who has bashed both the past Bush administration along with Obama's. He just received his Nobel prize, which elevated his profile even more. Thus, it seems he is the most visible and well known. After all, economics is not a sexy profession with a wealth of well known people populating it. So I imagine that the main reason that the media is glomming onto him is because he is the most well known.

Oh, and if you think that Krugman is coming across as a "hack" what do you think that Galbraith and Stiglitz are? They're saying virtually the same thing, just in not so mainstream venues. Are they hacks too? Just because Krugman chooses to make the best use of his bully pulpit to sound an alarm doesn't make him a hack.

[amandabeech]

137. If Galbraith or Stiglitz wrote two columns a week in prominent publication

and maintained an active blog there as well, I think that we would hear more of them here, too.

[Marrah_G]

15. I think we should decend on his home with torches and pitchforks!

[Barack_America]

21. Actually, no.

The author of this piece is questioning Krugman's tendency to take policy disagreements to a personal level.

So I hardly see why the piece would encourage others to do so.

[biopowertoday]

27. You are wrong, as the piece gives justification to those

who do not like Krugman. Posters can now say--gee, the piece is right, so am I. Yes it does. And I dare say you fall into that camp.

[Barack_America]

30. Um, since when do I need permission to like or dislike anyone?

I dislike Krugman for the reasons stated in the piece, yes, but my opinion requires no permission or justification from anyone.

There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to liking or disliking anybody, there is only opinion. And, yes, my opinion is that Krugman is a smart economist, but a poor journalist and a person driven primarily by ego.

[biopowertoday]

78. never said you needed

permission.

[smoogatz]

25. I don't think personalities have anything to do with it.

Krugman's making the same points now that he made when Bush was making the same mistakes.

[Maven]

26. This is the Enforcers' new tactic: discredit those who disagree by saying they never supported Obama

from the beginning. Hence, there's no need to examine any of their arguments as they can be dismissed out of hand.

Sorry. Paul Krugman has earned too much respect to be smeared by the likes of you.

Sad.

[Barack_America]

33. Oh I have no intention of smearing Paul Krugman.

Why should I bother? He's doing a good enough job himself.

And the author was not critiquing Krugman's arugments, he was critiquing his tactics. The problem with a journalist losing objectivity and letting their personal feelings slip into their work is that this cannot be undone and risks being very damaging to their credibility. Just look at what those tactics have done for the general respect of those at Fox News or the Washington Times, etc. With his tactics, Krugman is allowing himself to be set up in the same vein.

[Maven]

39. Nah. I have seen plenty from the Enforcers here, who use the same exact tactic.

Person A has a valid criticism of Obama.

Party Line Enforcer B says: "You never really supported Obama in the first place."

Party Line Enforcer B then drudges up something ancient from the primaries showing Person A opposing Obama's proposals.

Persons C, D, E and F then pile on Person A, certain that Person A is a mole trying to sow discontent and not a supporter with a valid criticism. Meanwhile, the point Person A was making completely goes by the wayside, which was Party Line Enforcer B's intention to start with.

Paul Krugman may be passionate about his views, but they are very well supported by evidence over years of research and experience. And he does give Obama credit on numerous occasions. However, when Obama is concerned mainly with propping up the status quo instead of delivering the change he promised, he gets called on it.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but again, Krugman still has oodles of credibility and certainly a lot more than this no-name you cited to fuel your personal vendetta against anyone who questions what Obama says or does.

[Barack_America]

42. Journalism should be objective.

You're right, my God, what a nasty smear tactic.

Also, please go through my old posts and provide me evidence of this "personal vendetta against anyone who questions Obama" that you claim I have.

[Maven]

45. Krugman is an op/ed columnist, with a point of view. An upapologetically liberal point of view.

In fact, you might have noticed that his blog is called "Conscience of a Liberal."

This point seems to bother a lot of fauxgressives who like to think of themselves as liberals yet find themselves in the awkward position of defending things like billion-dollar giveaways to Wall Street CEOs and health care plans that are stamped and approved by health insurance companies. Still, they must attack Krugman when he criticizes Obama's administration on these points because their only political calculus is:

I. Obama did it.
II. Therefore it must be good.
III. Stop.

But there I go not being supportive enough. I guess I'm next, huh?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. The problem is this: Obama never claimed to be a liberal. Everyone else assumed him to be

Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton are liberals, but I find it interesting that Krugman gives them a free pass.

[Maven]

53. I never assumed him to be.

In contrast to many here, I never thought he was really to the left of Hillary (in fact, on health care, he was arguably to her right). Ironically, the only people painting Obama as a new progressive hero were his most stalwart supporters from the primaries. Now, the very same people are here stomping on liberal dissenters to his centrist approach.

Health care, by the way, is the only issue on which Krugman noticably favored Hillary because he liked Edwards' plan -- basically the same as Hillary's -- better than Obama's. I didn't see him "giving her a pass" nor do I see him making the "ad hominem" attacks against Obama which you accuse him of downthread. By the way, I notice you're engaging in the same tactic I just laid out, right here in this thread:

I) Krugman says things about Obama and his politics that I don't like, therefore
II) Krugman must have a "personal agenda" and thus
III) Krugman has no credibility.

LOL.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. No I'm not. I think Krugman is unprofessional and hurting his credibility

And I do think that his attacks on Obama are personal. This is coming from someone who likes Krugman. And I do and have always liked him. But the tone of his writings do project more than they teach.

And I never said that I didn't agree with Krugman. I actually DO agree with him, so that knocks your illogical straw man theory on its ass. I criticize Krugman not because I disagree with him, but because of his tone and attitude...and the fact that he is allowing himself to be exploited by the wingnuts.

[Maven]

80. I think when you've been railing against one set of economic ideas for a long time

and then finally, there's a change in leadership, except the new leadership basically espouses a "lite" version of the same ideas, you're bound to get a little frustrated and disillusioned.

Krugman may be a tad dramatic at times but I don't blame him for being passionate, especially when he's been right on so many issues. That does NOT mean that he has lost his intellectual rigor or that he's any less of an empiricist because he makes the mistake of writing like a human being. Your characterization is no better--in fact, it's exactly the same--as those on the right who try to delegitimize liberals by calling us the "angry left."

And I don't think he's being exploited by the wingnuts any more than Peggy Noonan was exploited by certain DUers who liked to quote her when it suited them...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

84. Let's be honest, though. With all due respect to Krugman and his ideals, I don't

remember him being this passionate about the Clintonian economics that he now abhors. I don't agree with them, either, and I'm quite nervous about Obama's plan, but I don't remember this degree of scrutiny when the Clinton administration began a full-scale deregulation of the mortgage and lending industries...not to mention the media. While I understand his frustration, his relentless attacks reek of personal disdain. It's the tone. It's the rigor and the zeal in which he castigates Obama. It just makes him appear less credible.

[Maven]

86. Well, perhaps that's true but the circumstances were different.

I honestly can't remember what he wrote about Clinton's economic policies, and I don't have time at the moment to look into it. But the consensus at the time was that Clinton's economic policy was working. What was he going to do? Write a column that said, "You're all doing too well! We need to reverse course!"? Of course not. It also took some time to understand the damage that could occur longterm from policies that started with Reagan, and yes, were continued and expanded under Clinton.

Here's a bit from Krugman's column today:

The details of our current crisis are very different, but the need for cooperation is no less. President Obama got it exactly right last week when he declared: “All of us are going to have to take steps in order to lift the economy. We don’t want a situation in which some countries are making extraordinary efforts and other countries aren’t.”

That's someone who's hellbent on castigating Obama with "rigor and zeal?" No, it isn't. I'm sorry, Krugman gives Obama plenty of credit where it is deserved and speaks out unequivocally when he thinks we're on the wrong course. Your claim that Krugman has a personal bias simply isn't credible. And it's even less credible considering how many other "friends" DU has turned on when they had the temerity to question Obama, like Arianna Huffington, Maxine Waters, James Galbraith and on, and on. The M.O. I described is exactly what is taking place here: discredit someone with a valid criticism by painting them as someone with a secret agenda, someone who was never a "real" supporter and therefore need not be listened to. I'm not even sure if you're aware you're doing it.

[amandabeech]

138. Right now, neither Bill nor Hillary are making economic policy.

I don't think that Krugman is afraid to disagree with anyone on the topic of economics, and if the Messiah were implementing Obama's current plan, Krugman would criticize his policies, too.

[John the Revelator]

105. it doesn't really matter if he supported Obama or not, he's still a buffoon

his 15 minutes with that 'big megaphone' are almost up

toodles

[anonymous171]

29. That is why his voice is valuable. He is not blinded by his personal feelings like I am.

Although I do think that he is a bit too melodramatic at times.

[wisteria]

35. I think grownups would consider the entire idea that Krugman dislikes

Obama because he wanted Senator Clinton as President and that is why he is so outspoken against the administrations economic ideas very lacking in credibility. The entire suggestion is to simplified. Krugman was also outspoken for years against the Bush administrations economic moves. Mr. Krugman just has an intelligent and well thought out point of view that differs from President Obama's and his is based on his knowledge and experiences. Mr. Krugman might be right or he might be wrong, but he is entitled to his opinion and that opinion carries a lot of weight because of his credentials and the fact that he has been on the mark more time that not in the past.

[Barack_America]

38. I think the point is that Krugman has clearly allowed his personal feelings and personal agendas...

...to creep into his criticism before, diminishing his credibility (in the author's eyes at least).

So the agenda might not be the same as before, but one certainly has the right to suspect that an agenda is there...such as simple ego, perhaps?

[TayTay]

43. Or he thinks that the bailout plan is economically unsound

and has listed his reasons for that. Then again, why take the man at his word when it disproves your point when you can take him at his word only when it pleases you to do so.

A lot of people have a problem with the bailout plan that Sec. Geithner has put together. They don't think it will work. They believe it pours money down an unrecoverable rat-hole and that this is bad for the economic future of America. They believe that expressing this opinion might help change the course and might persuade Mr. Geithner to take other factors into consideration when implementing the rest of the Obama Administration plan.

Or you can believe that economic arguments against this plan prive there is a conspiracy going on, no doubt carried out by former Hillary Clinton supporters who have managed to get the media hypnotized so that they report conflict as the news. After all, it is the fault of the economists if the media reports on the conflict instead of examining the issues behind the conflict. It's all one big conspiracy to "get" the President because real Democrats don't have public differences of opinion.

Honestly, this is just silly.

[Barack_America]

66. I don't find objectivity in stating "facts" silly.

Sorry.

If Krugman truly wants me to believe that his policy is correct, then he needs to start leaving personality out of it.

[TayTay]

70. What personality?

If you want me to take your posts seriously, you have to cite some actual examples.

[Barack_America]

72. Please see the articles linked in the OP piece. nt

[omega minimo]

47. the "right" to "suspect an agenda" while eating our own, ignoring the urgent economic realities.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/profile.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/watch2.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03272009/transcript2.html
http://williamgreider.com/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. I agree wholeheartedly!! If you're going to have any kind of credibility, leave your personal

vendettas at home. I think Krugman makes some valid point, but he loses it for me when he starts down the ad hominem attacks route.

[WI_DEM]

40. I think that says a lot about the unrelenting criticsm of Obama on DU too

too many of those who do it day after day have never liked Obama to begin with.

[Vattel]

46. I didn't find any reason to dislike Krugman in the links.

I agree with Krugman that Obama's health care plan was worse than Clinton's. Krugman's arguments to that effect did not attack Obama personally. I also agree with Krugman that Bill Clinton achieved some notable economic successes but didn't fundamentally change the economic direction of the country, and I don't see the problem with Krugman's wondering whether Obama would foollow suit. Is the only worry here that Krugman gets a bit snarky or melodramatic at times? Or is the problem that Krugman was disappointed by the level of many of the attacks on Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters during the primary? Oh well, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. The contempt for Obama on behalf of Krugman is palpitable and goes back

before he even announced a run for the presidency. Therefore, he has no credibility. I don't agree with everything Obama has done. In fact, I'm quite pissed off at some of his decisions; however, Krugman's disdain for Obama seems more personal than anything else. His accusation of Obama being a Clintonite is laughable. He supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries and never questioned President Clinton as vigorously as he has Obama. I don't ever remember Krugman going after President Clinton with such vigor and zeal.

[paulk]

54. he never liked Bush, either

did that make his criticisms of Bush any less valid?


---------

btw - I think the statement that "Krugman has never liked Obama" is nonsense. Along with the constant accusations of ad hominems directed from Krugman to Obama and other such unsupported statements concerning the relationship between the two.

It's nonsense and this thread is nonsense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. I was just about to post that same line!

Beat me to it!

[paulk]

59. on the house!

:toast:

[Maven]

58. Succinct and well stated.

[Barack_America]

64. If his policy disputes with Bush were based on a personal dislike, then yes.

How could it be otherwise?

This is the same reason that I am not overly fond of Olbermann. He too often lets emotion cloud his objectivism. Whatever, that's his right, but I'm certainly not going to turn to him when I'm looking for facts.

Same with Krugman.

[paulk]

67. you haven't even begun to prove

that his policy disputes with Obama are based on a "personal dislike".

That's your subjective opinion only, and clearly influenced (Barack_America?) by your emotions...

[Barack_America]

68. Well, "paulk", if we're going by the notion that your screenname speaks for you...

Then why should I believe that your emotions aren't influencing your opinion regarding Paul Krugman.

Sheesh.

:eyes:

FWIW, my entire purpose of this OP is to show that, unfortunately, those of us looking for an objective, unemotional view of Geithner's plan (like myself) cannot trust Krugman's take.

[paulk]

81. LOL

touche!

I do think, however, reading through this thread, that your purpose here has failed. Like I noted, you haven't objectively shown that Krugman's opinions are colored by any personal feelings he may have toward Obama.

[Cha]

94. That poster is on

ignore for me since the primaries but I can tell paulk never like Obama, either.

[wisteria]

102. You are wrong about that. One can like a person but not necessarily all of his ideas. n/t

[Forkboy]

104. You're a deep thinker, that much is obvious,.

[paulk]

135. yup...

time for some hip waders

[CTLawGuy]

100. Bush is a conservative

Krugman is a liberal. Yes, he is not going to agree with Bush's policies.

[TexasObserver]

61. Krugman has become the biggest ass hat on the left.

He's always been a whiny little bastard, but now it's more obvious.

He was right about half the time before Obama became president, and he's still right only about half the time.

[omega minimo]

74. Oh, he's an ASS HAT... THAT explains it.......

:thumbsdown:

[burythehatchet]

106. Resistance is futile

Don't you get the feeling that teh stoopid will soon be too much to fight? I sure do.

[omega minimo]

115. LOL Honey, ah'm done.

:hi: :popcorn:

[mix]

77. get over it

8 years of Bush and people have forgotten what democracy is like...if you think Krugman's the enemy, that's absurd

[Barack_America]

85. Who said "enemy"?

The point of the OP is that Krugman is not an unbiased source of "facts" or "opinion". Krugman has a published history (documented in the piece the OP links) of muddling opinions on policy and personality.

[mix]

109. cheap smear

You go after Krugman, who like most progressives is trying to push Obama to the left, by misrepresenting his work and motivations, while Blue Dogs and Reaganites are trying to destroy his presidency?

Your efforts and ire are misplaced.

[Cha]

92. You "get over it" and reread the OP

that wasn't the point.

[Baikonour]

82. How many of you that "dislike" Krugman can say they've actually read his work?

Just curious.

Seems like a lot of sour grapes all over the place. It's childish, really. At least Krugman does offer alternatives instead of blindly latching himself to one ideal.

[quiller4]

107. I can. n/t

[lame54]

83. What happened to Obama's Team of Rivals?...

he should hire Krugman

[Starry Messenger]

87. This is a very short OPed.

The two main articles Mr. Hogarth uses to support his claim are as follows:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html
which is a bit of a meandering piece but ends with this sentence

"I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election."

(A sentiment I personally have come to agree with and would like to see more of on DU).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30krugman.html
which concludes with:

"One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama."

which is also a conclusion I'm sure most of us could agree on.

My conclusion: This "dislike" for Obama has been wildly overstated. And this is the first time that I have even touched a finger on this subject. And apparently it is also a first for Mr. Paul Hogarth. I could find only find a few other articles under his byline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/red-california-death-watc_b_178477.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/arnolds-may-special-elect_b_172876.html

He has more on DailyKos, where he is a regular diarist:

http://paul-hogarth.dailykos.com/

He seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders but I wouldn't take his opinion over anyone else's, myself. My .02

edit: typo

[NJmaverick]

88. This is correct

[Cha]

89. I didn't know this little rat cheese tidbit..

The underlined part.

"Krugman was a Hillary supporter in the primaries who repeatedly lashed out at Obama for his health care plan – only to then accuse Obama of being a Clintonite in the general for “betraying” the left.

[Sparkly]

91. What is this, Junior High?!?

I don't care who likes whom! It's a debate about ECONOMIC POLICY.

I can't believe DU is in such a tizzy, with little or NO actually debate about what Krugman is saying.

[tkmorris]

111. Couldn't agree more

I swear these threads look like everyone picks which clique they want to belong to and then the two sides have a massive food fight. It's rather embarrassing.

[Forkboy]

134. "embarrassing" is the word that keeps popping into my head when I read GD-P lately.

And I'm hardly the brightest bulb in the room. :)

If you say something positive about Krugman than you hate Obama. If you say something positive about Obama than you hate Krugman. The shallowness of this thought process is the epitome of embarrassing, and there's clearly a ton of people here who can't think beyond that simplistic framework. Too many try to reduce every single issue or personality down a basic either/or love them or hate them proposition.

It makes me want to live in the middle of nowhere like Jeremiah Johnson and just eat beef jerky all day. :crazy:

[QC]

118. No. GD: P is like hgh school. Nothing but cheerleaders and bullies. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

120. Hey, don't leave out the freaks and geeks!

[Skittles]

122. it surely is pathetic, eh Sparkly

it's making me feel literally ill

[camera obscura]

93. Oh, get over it. I'm sure Obama doesn't keep a Burn Book a la Mean Girls.

He's a grown-up. He can deal with people who didn't like his healthcare plan. Hell, if I have forgiven Krugman for the primaries, I'm pretty sure the POTUS has too.

As for the article, ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the desperate. Like O'Reilly. Can we please hold ourselves to a higher standard than that?

[Cha]

95. You "get over it"..

yeah, how the fuck does that feel?

[Reterr]

97. Seriously.eom

[depakid]

99. "Like O'Reilly. Can we please hold ourselves to a higher standard than that? "

Good luck. A LOT of posters seem to be stuck around that EQ range- unable to progress past Manichean thoughts and feelings.

[merkins]

101. My Obama, Right or Wrong?

[elleng]

113. "Never Liked?"

THIS IS SUCH B.S.

[Wetzelbill]

119. except he wasn't a Clinton supporter and he was right about Obama's health plan

He criticized it from the Left, as he always does, and he's also right about Obama being a Clintonite in many ways too. Obama's health care plan was to the Right of HRC's and his critique was valid, also Robert Reich's defense of Obama's plan was a good counter to the argument. Reich is the only person I have ever seen who has made a legit critique of Krugman's opinions, even then, Krugman was right in criticizing Obama for his position on health care mandates. And how could anybody argue that Obama is very much a Clinton-like Third Way politician? He is, that's not disputable. Maybe he's a little more progressive in certain areas and maybe not so much in others, but he's basically in the same mold and has surrounded himself with many of the same people. Some people just dislike Krugman for the sake of disliking him, especially since he likened some Obama supporters to a cult of personality when he got hate mail for criticizing his health care plan. Anybody who has been around DU for the last year and a half can attest to how goofy some Obama supporters will get even at a perceived slight.

Krugman is an impactful critic and a brilliant economist. He says things people don't like, that's always going to draw criticism, but most of it isn't viable. Blind Krugman bashing isn't much different than blind Obama bashing and there are people around here who take on a Fox News mentality just at the sight of the guy's name.

[Captain Hilts]

123. Nicely stated. nt

[Skittles]

121. that does not mean he is not telling the truth

[omega minimo]

127. .

[Juche]

139. Krugman was an Edwards supporter, not a Hillary supporter

That is what I remember from the primaries. I remember him saying more than once that he didn't think Obama was tough enough to enact the serious legislation this country needs.