January 28, 2008

EVEN A BLIND TIMESMAN:

Lessons of 1992 (PAUL KRUGMAN, 1/28/08, NY Times)

So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.

I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.


One hardly expects sense from Mr. Krugman, so a column about how Senator Obama's sole selling point is hogwash and bemoaning the idea vacuum in the Democrat race defies the odds.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 28, 2008 4:29 PM
Comments

"Fake scandals"?

I guess that was hair gel on Monica's dress.

And Susan MacDougal went to jail for B&E. And Jim Guy Tucker went to jail for auto theft.

And the Buhddist monks were gay Americans in drag. And Charlie Trie was a democratic activist. And Johhny Chung was an exchange student. And Webb Hubbell was just a misguided paralegal. And Craig Livingstone was a misguided file clerk.

Krugman is nuts.

Posted by: ratbert at January 28, 2008 5:12 PM

Ratbert beat me to it, almost word for word.

"Unequivically false" Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 28, 2008 5:58 PM

Amen.

I'm sure Clinton signed his agreement with Robert Ray because the charges were 'unequivocally false'.

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 28, 2008 6:06 PM

Not to mention the implicit claim that the Democrats would never think of doing any such thing.

Posted by: Ibid at January 28, 2008 7:34 PM

"an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1)"

C'mon, give Krugman his due. At least he's acknowledging what happens to Presidents these days, particularily for the last seven years. At least he's genuine enough to point that out.

Ummm..... he is doing that..... isn't he??

Posted by: Andrew X at January 28, 2008 9:09 PM
« THE NUMBERED DAYS: | Main | THE BUCHANAN BOOMLET IS COMING: »