Who Gets It ? (Or Clark, Dean & John Kerry's Hair) Krugman 1/15

[KittyWampus]

Note: As an economist one of Paul Krugman's greatist gifts is seeing the Big Picture very often unadorned by sentiment.
.................................................................

Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."

In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide.

Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.

But even those who refrain from turning political reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories. Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals.

The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.

continued

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16KRUG.html?ex=1074834000&en=573c9657f5d55da6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[mzmolly]

1. Yikes, should Clark be bringing up Nixon?

:scared:

[KittyWampus]

It's A Ripe Analogy

:)

[greatauntoftriplets]

14. Yes, because Clark is correct.

The Bush regime is Nixonian.

[Clark4VotingRights]

2. Yeah! Great piece for Clark and Dean supporters!

"What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness — shared, we now know, by General Clark — to take a hard line against the Bush administration."

Love Krugman.

[KittyWampus]

It's A Great Piece For DEMOCRATS

that's what irked me about a few of Krugman's articles lately.

IMO, he wasn't seeing the Big Picture in regards to all the candidates.

[Leilani]

9. I love Krugman too

He was one of the few willing to take on this corrupt administration, and they can't paint him as a left wing crazy.

I've written several letters to him, after great columns.

I especially like: "Clark gets it."

[necso]

3. Spot on.

Krugman again is right on the money.

"Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless — but optimistic! — Moon-base program.)"

Priceless, absolutely priceless.

[aquart]

4. I adore this man.

Sanity and brains. And guts.

He's gorgeous.

[virgdem]

5. As usual, Krugman nails it

he consistently writes columns that deal with the reality of what is happening to our country. He is the only reason that I read anything from the NYT anymore - and I grew up with that paper.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

6. A great ending, explains why I'm for Dean

"So what's the answer? A Democratic candidate will have a chance of winning only if he has an energized base, willing to contribute money in many small donations, willing to contribute their own time, willing to stand up for the candidate in the face of smear tactics and unfair coverage.

That doesn't mean that the Democratic candidate has to be a radical — which is a good thing for the party, since all of the candidates are actually quite moderate. In fact, what the party needs is a candidate who inspires the base enough to get out the message that he isn't a radical — and that Mr. Bush is."

[cindyw]

7. It is clear to me that Krugman does not go to see Kerry speak.

He rightfully describes the divide in the party. But he defines Kerry as being on the side that refuses to question Bush and his motives. I may agree with him if he could see that the person on the other side of that divide is Lieberman.

[KittyWampus]

15. ACtually, I Think That's Why Krugman Referenced Kerry's Hair

What IS Kerry saying? Are the reporters talking about his words & deeds or his hair?

[Cassandra]

16. Kerry was very impressive in his...

condemnation of *'s policies early last year, but the Iraq vote appeared to take the fight out of him and I feel he's run a very disappointing campaign. He seems to be getting a grip in the last couple of weeks and we will see.

[Eric J in MN]

8. How has Dean questioned Bush's motives? (nt)

nt

[Bread and Circus]

10. Krugman nails it and gives a reason for Dean and Clark

[Cocoa]

11. Krugman gets it partially right

he's right that getting Bush right is a big deal, no doubt about that.

But for a lot of people, like me, it's also about the issues, and about who would be a good president. And in the general election, those things will be more important. It's not correct to leave that out.

[sandnsea]

12. Krugman buys the washington outsider meme

Whatever. It's clear to me Krugman doesn't get it. He doesn't get that it's absolutely critical to win this election and that we aren't going to do it buy scaring the shit out of the country with wild conspiracy theories against Republicans. We need a cool head who can lay out the case incrementally, like John Kerry has been doing and will continue to do. And like Wes Clark would do. The last thing we need is the appearance of a radical leftie, which Howard too often gives the appearance of.

Sorry radical lefties, but that's just the way I see it. It's not what your views are but how you express them that gets things done.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. I think he took a stab at Maureen Dowd

'Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.'

With that inane comment about Wesley Clark's sweater, I think she is the first to go down that slippery slope to tabloid journalism.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. Clark

knows what the PNAC is all about. He does "get it" and will stop them! He's not afraid to fight for his country. He has already shown us that by serving 34 years in the military. PNAC does not want Clark to win this election. There evil little doctrine will go up in flames along with there plans of world domination.

Go, Wes!

[trogdor]

18. Paul K. talks sense, as usual.

A Democratic candidate will have a chance of winning only if he has an energized base, willing to contribute money in many small donations, willing to contribute their own time, willing to stand up for the candidate in the face of smear tactics and unfair coverage.

This reminds me of Howard Dean's so-called "non-transferrable voters" comment. Can a candidate who got the nomination by being nasty to his fellow Democrats energize the base and hold the attention of those who enthusiatically supported other candidates only to have their man smeared mercilessly by people who were supposed to be on the same team?

When I bet with my hard-earned money, I want to win. If I get the feeling I'm just helping pay down Sen. Kerry's mortgage because our #1 and #2 choices were casualties of friendly fire, I may be a lot more reluctant to pull out my checkbook.

My $0.02.