Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.


  • ***


« Could It Be True? The Whole GOP Death-Wish Thing? | Main | What next? -- Nasty and Nowhere »

February 12, 2008





Krugman's right.
You're wrong.
Deal with it.


Obama didn't support the war as a private citizen but he has supported it for two years as a U.S. Senator where his votes to fund it were about identical to Clinton's. And during that time he hardly mentioned it or spoke out against it. He is getting a free pass as the "anti-war" candidate. When he got to the Senate where he could have done something about the war and shown leadership, he folded.


I can't stand either Hillary or Obama, and see all too many of their supporters - on both sides - as being completely hysterical. And not in a funny, sitcom kind of way. How sad that the once glorious Democratic Party has devolved down to damned if you do, damned if you don't, chauvinist v. racist rhetoric.

With the candidates engendering so much hatred and animosity at the other side (not the Republicans) I think they will have to come together on a single ticket, or many of the loser's supporters will refuse to vote for the winner in the general election. And having already (both) lost the votes of true liberals such as myself, they don't have any to spare in November.

Mike R

Thanks for a post that had to be made. When I first read Mr. Krugman's words I was floored that a progressive I had so long read and admired was saying what I was reading. The first progressive principle for me is renunciation of the oil wars, and all others fought for profit. Only when this ends can we direct our resources toward curing our society's ills. Thanks for speaking up for me.

Jay Finkelstein

Krugman had Bush pegged from the start, and he is correct about Obama as well. Obama has
always voted to fund the occupation of Iraq, In the Democratic television debitates, he and the other candidates were asked if they would have the troops home by the end of their
first term as president. Only
Bill Richardson said he would do
it. This guy's opinion on the
was Reminds me of Sen. Vitter on
extra marital sex. I am against
it, but I fund prostitution. I
oppose the war, but I fund it too.


I'll go with PM on this one. After Bill's big mouth dragged the campaign into the gutter, I admit to a raised eyebrow over bashing the Obama campaign.

I wish both Clinton and Obama would avoid this type of cheap campaiging. It's all about saving the country from the last eight years of disaster.

Nothing else matters.

Sharon Lee Rosewoman

Yeah yeah yeah...
Hey guys, leave the Carpenter...but take the canoli.
IOW, there you go, doing exactly what Paulie noted in his column! Please confine your slapdowns to the ReTHUGs.


Krugman is such a pompous ass. And, he's a hypocrite, no wonder he's so fond of the Clinton's. Thanks for the smart words. Booh Krugman!


Two words "Kyl-Lieberman" make it impossible to support Hillary Clinton and I am a member of her supposed "constitutency." Does she not learn?

paul tucker

Krugman is right!!!!!!!! Paul Tucker

"Slouching toward Bethlehem"

Not that there's a "true or false" in this matter, but I thoroughly enjoyed the linguistic duel, not to mention the sophistry on both sides. Summary judgment granted.

On the other hand, while they're not so well written, some of the comments also have merit. When you're all done with it, the Clinton's are (dare I use the word?) not the only pimp. Obama is as well.

My only reason for progressives currently supporting the guy is that they "wish" he were moving to the left. They "wish" he'd find some balls. They"wish" he'd find his roots. They "wish" the changes he speaks of would be fundamental, not rhetorical.

My fear, however, is that it's all a surface-phenomena, not unlike charisma. In which case, we've all been snookered. Not unlike we've always been, time and time again. So much for wishful thinking in the wonderful world of politics.

Yeah, there's a part of me that would like Obama to win (not that I really "believe" Obama, but for Hillary's lack of principle and hypocrisy), and then I'd like Bloomberg to stand up and knock the two-party system to the ground.

Am not sure yet what Bloomberg is about at this point, but can he be that bad? The two party system is quite possibly the worst thing about this country. It would be a great goodness if, in the end, it can be turned on its ear. And Bloomberg is MUCH more likely to run if Hillary prevails. If Hillary wins, the current support for Obama will be siphoned off to Bloomberg in November. It's a crap shoot, but he has a possibility of winning the election with that level of support.

This, then, is the only reason I can think of voting for Mrs. Clinton. Once I slough off the Obama fog and assess things more objectively, I have to admit that it may a winning strategy. In my more lucid moments, I have to agree with all the women thinking with their genitals. May Hillary become the Democratic nominee in 2008.

Progressive Patriot

As an Edwards guy who has been viewing the Clinton/Obama battle from outside the fray, I made my decision based on the tactics that were being used by the camps since their policy views are not that different. The Clintons have used surragates to smear (drug reference), twisted words out of context (reagan situation), and used fake outrage (Shuster) in order to take the focus off of the news and issues. The outrage about the LBJ comment did not come from the Obama camp but from the black community and then it was projected to the Obama camp. With Clinton I see better policies but the same tactics as the Bush administration. These tactics just lead to more division in the country. Nothing will get done under Clinton because the rethugs will fight her all the way. We need a new way.

Dana Hatch

Slouching Toward Bethlehem rightly points out that progressive euphoria over Obama's candidacy is out of wack with the weak tea he's serving up, policy-wise, but Bloomberg? Sure, let's just transfer our blind faith in Obama to Bloomberg. After all, he's a billionaire, he's bound to push for the little people, right? Does that make any sense at all?


The argument that Obama's votes for war funding are equal to Clintons is valid as far as it goes however the resounding difference is that Clinton voted for the Iran war enablement relying on exctly the error of judgment that the administration would not use the legislation to actually go to war and again caving to the same kind of chicken game that caused her vote for the AUMF on Iraq. Obama voted against it. This is a major difference that the whole "Obama is a weak as Clinton on war opposition" meme ignores. Furthermeore Obama has stated at significant political risk that he would talk to Amercas enemies while Clinton adheres to the "war war rather than jaw jaw" policy of the bush administration. War can never be a "last resort" if no credence is given to any alternative to war.

Mike in Boston

Surely you can do better than this. Why can't the people supporting Sen. Obama simply admit that nothing -- neither the facts nor the evidence -- will deter you? As someone above wrote succinctly, Krugman is right, you're wrong, get over it.


Show me a progressive cause the Clintons haven't caved on against political will, no matter the moral right. Telecommunications bill, the original bankruptcy bill ("I voted for it but I'm glad it didn't pass"), flag burning amendment, Kyl/Lieberman, welfare "reform". They are totally comfortable pretty right of center -- how do the Clinton supporters not see that? Fight for "us"? When?

If Krugman (whom I have loved for years) thinks Obama's health care proposal is not as progressive as Hillary's -- who in their right mind thinks Hillary's plan is going to Congress, untouched, with all the money she's taken from the health care and insurance industry? She can't seem to persuade anyone of anything -- she can only curry favor with lies (questioning Obama's pro-choice record in New Hampshire -- I maintain that began the feminist groundswell), whining, trying to muscle a network into not criticizing her, (but seem fine with the vitriol from Fox). She tells us she's tough and then lives every awful stereotype about the treatment of women. It's shameful. I'd love to see her be this "tough" against McCain (her friend and who has little foreign policy differences with her). She's only legitimately tough when her personal back is against the wall -- she doesn't fight for policies, she fights to stay standing. We need someone who can persuade others, who has leadership skills that transcend the pettiness that the Clintons wallow in. If the mandate is strong, Obama will understand that progressive beliefs and policies are why he got to the presidency and he will act accordingly. Remember, FDR got into office on modest ideas, and the movement that elected him is what transformed him. Hillary is fighting 1990's wars that will come back to haunt her and haunt us all. Secretive about her tax returns, her papers from the Clinton library, the donations to Bill's foundation. I'm Hillary's demographic and although I believed in them for years, they have disgusted me beyond belief.


It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

No, no, the only sizable group of people who might think and care if they do think that Mr. Obama is a Muslim is white Christians. The Obama-is-a-Christian push was directed at them not the Jews. I don't know how and just when it switched to being about Jews, but I think the Obama campaign mailer lauding Mr.Obama's Christian bona fides was not directed at Jews.


One thing I'll say, as an Obama supporter, I've noted that whenever I've criticized Hillary's record online, I get the "you just hate Hillary" nonsense.

No, I don't hate Hillary. I just find her recent voting record indefensible. Yes on Iraq, Yes on Landmines/Cluster Bombs, Yes on the Kyl/Lieberman amendment towards Iran, and yesterday a noshow on Telecom immunity.

I think Hillary is smart and has a good command of the issues, but her voting record makes her impossible to support.


What kind of bi-partisanship can we have? You give us health care, and we'll give you the War On Iraq?
Keep Social Security and you can attack Iran?
Obama, if elected, will have to make the most basic kind of changes, to insure his own survival, if nothing else. Or will Obama see the super-secret evidence and Powerpoint Presentation and decide to continue the war? I doubt it.


Krugman is beginning to sound like an anti-Obama harpie. He has totally lost all objectivity on these candidates.

OK, OK. Krugman doesn't like Obama. We get it. We aren't stupid. He doesn't have to write column after column, where he WAY overstates his case... before long, he's going to look like a progressive Rush Limbaugh.

There are plenty of good, solid reasons to NOT want the Clintons, regardless of who else one supports...

...and the Obama supporters are gathering in those huge crowds, and CHANTING! OMG, they must be a CULT! Well, it has been a very long time since we progressives have had any fun, so shut up, and don't spoil it.

Freedom is slavery

Krugman can be forgiven for overlooking this endless war. How long would any candidate last, if he announced he would shut down the war machine, if elected? I don't hate Hillary Clinton, but it is difficult for me to see how my best interests could possibly match the best interests of the defense contractors:


I have an idea! Maybe if we let the neo-cons have the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, they will let us have health-care! Now that's bi-partisan, huh?


The energy of the Obama supports, their, youth are all great, but Krugman is right. This crap about I won't vote for anyone but My guy Obama is just plain stupid. (I sit in a cube with three people who have told me this. Hillary to them is a witch and if I ask how they know this they have no answer.) Don't get me wrong Edwards was my guy and he's out, so I will settle for whomever, because Obama or Clinton, with all their faults are a thousand times better then what we've got, and if the silly bastards on either side don't understand that and don;t vote or vote for McCain they deserver what they get! Unfortunately the rest of us will have to deal with it. So STFU and vote for a Democrat!


I love when people bring up the fact that Obama voted to fund the war. WE WERE ALREADY THERE. Bush wasn't pulling the troops out, so what was Obama, and Clinton, supposed to do? Leave the troops in Iraq with only spitballs to lob at insurgents.


It doesn't matter if Obama gains when Hillary is attacked. It matters less that Hillary gave bush "all the arrows in his quivver" upon his request, since, having been First Lady for 8 years she witnessed the threats from Hussein and knew he had indeed possessed WMD during her husband's 2 terms. Obama, once he became senator, voted consistently for funding Iraq's occupation, same as Hillary. That doesn't matter now either. What truly would be meaningful would be witnessing both of them repudiating attacks on the other along with a strong message sent to their respective supporters to back with THEIR VOTES, their worthy opponent in the general election against Grandpa Warmonger. No matter who I support (was Edwards, once), I will vote for the democratic nominee and work hard to push him/her to end this horror of bushism and endless carnage. That's what matters - NOW!


Americans are not stupid (ok some of them are). Americans know if they want to vote for Obama or Hillary. They don't need Paul Krugnan's advice -- we can read and listen to our candidates everyday on TV/radio and make a decision without putdowns from Mr. Krugman.


I did not read the original Krugman article -- but I have certainly noticed the "anyone but Hilary" tone of many progressive sites and mags, the minute examination of everything she does for evil intent. We (family) have dropped subscriptions and support for several. Not that I am such a "pro-Hilary" fan, but I am SICK of this.


Yes, Felicia.

Thanks for making that point. I'm sick of that wrong-headed argument: that voting to fund the war is the same thing as taking the country to war in the first place. These two things are not the same.

Anyone who was around during Vietnam learned that lesson decades ago. Once in a war, it can be hell to take care of our troops and at the same time, find a way out. It is a lose-lose situation.

It is why war should be considered only in the most extreme circumstances. Iraq did not qualify.


I think you missed Paul Krugman's point. Yes, the Clinton camp has used some dirty smears. Yes, the Obama campaign has been above such tactics as far as I can tell. But there is no contesting the ugliness of the insults being thrown between the two sides in blog comments by the FOLLOWERS--and that is whom Krugman was talking about. And as far as I can see, it is the Obama followers who are far and away the worst of the two (and I just voted for Obama). I am furious at Clinton for her Iraq war stance and on principle do not plan to ever vote for her, but as I have heard the nasty stuff thrown at her and her daughter from all directions, with such unconcealed glee, I am disgusted. It was almost enough to make me vote for her out of pity and to stick it in the eye of all comprising the ugly mob. Such talk and behavior should be beneath us, and out of the public discourse. We are doing ourselves no favor with this talk.


Hitlery has addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) TWICE promising the pro-Israel lobby that she would "deal with" Iran.

I hate both parties so don't have a horse in this race, but to answer the question, "Why do people hate Hillary Clinton?"

Because she's a war-monger.

Obama's being sucked in by the pro-Israel lobby too -- attacking Pakistan would be tantamount to shooting ourselves in our collective head, so I'm just staying home on election day.

McCain will destroy what's left of the U.S. -- but his poison might be so bad that Americans might finally wake-up.

Hitlery and Obama will destroy America too, because they both advocate war, and if we continue with endless wars we have no chance to fix our domestic issues.

We're screwed no matter who wins.

This whole Hitlery vs. Obama debate is futile -- they are both already in hock to lobbyists. It's just a damn circus designed to give us false hope.

There is no hope until Americans wake-up and stop accepting the candidates being pushed down our throats by the main stream media, the military-industrial complex and the pro-Israel lobby (all of which are one entity)

Wake-up America. Demand accountability from our representatives. Demand that they represent Americans first.

A war against Iran / Pakistan will mean that your kids will die.


When I read the phrase, "Krugman is right, you're wrong, get over it," I thought of the smug Repubs that offered similar counsel to angry Dems after the Supreme Court issued the ruling that appointed Bush. The phrase "get over it" is a Repub trope that aims to silence opposition by aggravating the opponent to the point of sputtering fulmination. It is a tactic used by those unable to justify their position. Summary judgment against the author of such advice is the only valid response.


Yea, you right, but you danced around the reall problem w/ Klugman - you didn't nail it. The problem is the dual loyalty thing, yes - the Zionist American, Israel the end all, be all, we be with it or we be square undertone.

We've seen the power of this divide before, for the first 80 years of our country's history - before the abolitionist movement found its footing and led us on the path to emancipation.

It's early days, be we are getting there - the day we realize how much of our soul and our destiny we sold out for our beloved Isreal.

Klugman knows the deal, he's not confused, he's a liberal as long as his liberalism does not conflict w/ his first principle: at all cost, Israel first.


Krugman, it should be remembered, pretty much used his column in 1999 to sneer at the protestors and activists in the Battle for Seattle, while he continually praised the participants of the conference. And he has written the same trash about every World Economic Forum or WTO meeting.

What Krugman dislikes are crowds of people that are not under the strict control of an elite of professors and pundits. He loves the Clintons because they are oligarchs who invite the Knowledge Class members behind closed doors to do the serious work while the hoi polloi waves signs for the cameras, but make no serious bid to derail the agenda of the professionals. Obama supporters show the impassioned energy of demos-cratic rule -- where the people, rather than sheepishly following their representatives and obeying the dictates of their high-minded rulers, actually sense their power. What alarms the oligarchs above all is that someone who trusts people and is trusted by them could accede to the highest office.

Myron Scott

I have been puzzled for some time by Krugman's waterboy for Hillary routine. He's demeaned his talent and integrity for her. In this latest column, he backhandedly blamed Obama or his campaign or at least his supporters for the sins of others, from media coverage of Whitewater to David Schuster. Non sequitur, Paulie!

One more point: At least as vicious as the Clinton critics Krugman chastises, and as illogical as many of Krugman's pro-Hillary screeds, is the attempt of so many Clinton supporters -including some commenters here and starting with Slick Willie - to befoul Obama's otherwise undeniable anti-Iraq-War credentials with his funding votes. Vicious and intellectually dishonest because they never note that most Democrats, including Hillary, also consistently voted for funding.

If Hillary truly opposes Neo-con neo-imperialist doctrine, why didn't she run in 2004, by which time the error of Iraq was obvious to most Democrats? The answer is classically Clintonesque: 2008 was a strategically preferable time for her personal ambitions. That's same reason, after she ineptly buried her health care initiative in '93, neither she nor Willie made any serious efforts in that direction for fifteen years. (Yep, 2008.)

With the Clintons, it's never really about doing the right thing unless, first, it's the right thing for their own political ambitions. Saying so probably makes me a "hater" in Krugman's book. I'd say it just makes me a realist, regardless of party.


I have always liked Krugman, but he has been somewhat petty. That is not to say some of his points are not correct -- a few are.

However his close relationship with the Clintons, Hillary in particular, is clouding his objectivity and likewise many of Hillary's supporters -- some I suspect may be republicans.

I do not notice that as much with Obama's supporters, but that is not to say it does not exist; it does.

Moreover it is bothersome when someone is critical of Hillary that her supporters consider it hatred. But least we forget that is the same mechanism used when anyone was critical of Bush's policies he or she would be accused of spewing hatred. Basically it is intended to shut-down discourse -- not a good sign.

Thus I cannot help but wonder if the same would occur should Hillary become president. If so it would be disastrous for the country.

Iam a middle-aged female who is voting for Obama. I believe if anyone can unite the country he can. That is one of his appealing qualities among many others.

If -- god forbid -- he does not win the nomination I will vote for Hillary because of the SCOTUS. With 6 of the Justices over 70 years of age it is highly likely at least one or two will step down.

I believe in Social Justice. Yet the Supreme Court rulings 5-4 have have empowered corporations and increased police powers.

Today I read that Justice Scalia said, "It is "extraordinary" to assume that the U.S. Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" also applies to "so-called" torture."

That is scary. And that is why I want a democrat in office. Bloomberg would be a disaster.

When it is all said and done I suspect Obama will become the nominee with or without Krugman's approval. Instead of swaying voters toward Clinton he is alienating his audience.


**"The Clintons as victims, again, with no mention THAT THEY HAVE DESPISED Fifth Estate for years, have never cultivated it, and are reaping their short-sided rewards."**
Hillary Clinton REFUSES to go on AM talk radio to DISCUSS HER agenda, talking-points, and SPECIFICS with us Democratic/"librul" voters. She would rather TAKE MONEY FROM RUPERT MURDOCH (one of the most virulent Clinton-hating media pooh-bahs of the era Krugman speaks of, the late 1990s, out there) THAN GO ON THE ED SCHULTZ, RANDI RHODES, Thom Hartman, or any other "librul" talk show!

Actually, the problem is far worse than just Hillary. Al Gore, Tom Daschle (in 2002 mid-term elections), John Kerry in 2006... every one of these ELITE INSIDER Democrats running national campaigns REFUSED TO TAKE THE GLOVES ALL, CALL their Republican opponent (George W. Bush) A LIAR, and therefore, their ENTIRE PR (media) package was based on EVASION, PULLED-PUNCHES, a condescending tone, which all masked the elitist notion "If the rubes are stupid enough to vote Republican, they deserve to loose their Social Security, pensions, job benefits, and jobs (etc.)."
In 2000, Al Gore REFUSED to highlight the many scandals of George W. Bush's career. (Including then Lt. Bush's failure to report for duty - going AWOL - from an Alabama Air National Guard assignment he was assigned after REFUSTING to take an Air Force flight physical exam during the Vietnam War era, Bush's keeping his DUI conviction and other records secret, and the on-going scandals in Texas, i.e. Funeral-gate and Texas Lottery no-bid contract to a Bush crony). Worse than giving Bush a "free pass" for his scandals, Gore REFUSED to speak up for Texas school-children KICKED OFF of pre-school, after-school, and health-care programs by then Gov. Bush's (what else) signature TAX CUTS FOR WEALTHY TEXANS, Social Programs SLASHINGS for everyone else. Eight years later, the cowering Democrats STILL follow Gore's dismal 'lead,' including her highness, Hillary Clinton, who will narry be caught saying a bad thing about the dismal reign of King George W (except to talk about the budget). In 2002 one could say that Tom Dashcle was not running a national election campaign, and, strictly speaking, you would be correct. BUT Daschle, as Majority Leader of the Senate at a time when Republicans controlled the House, WAS the most powerful Democrat in America. By throwing the 2002 ENRON investigation into treacherous JOE LIEBERMAN's Senate Govt. Affairs Committee, Daschl ALLOWED LIEBERMAN TO short-change, wet-blanket, QUASH any real investigation. Daschle ALLOWING Lieberman to QUASH an energetic, forcefull Enron investigation ROBBED Democratic voters, activists, and candidates OF THEIR BEST ISSUE in 2002, the opportunity to TIE GEORGE W. BUSH to ENRON's MASSIVE FRAUD. Daschle allowing Lieberman to KILL an meaningful Enron investigation by the only Democrat-led body in national politics at the time (the courts, White House, and House being controlled by Republicans) was a GIFT worth $50-million to $100-million for Republican campaigns that November, and not only did Daschle LOOSE the Dem. Majority in the Senate that year... but he lost HIS OWN DAMN Senate race as well, a victim of a concerted Karl Rove lead nationally funded SMEAR CAMPAIGN that drove South Dakota voters to give Daschle himself the boot! (Not to mention the smear-campaigns Republicans mounted on Vice President Mondale stepping in for the tragically killed PAUL WELLSTONE, or Max Cleland likely robbed of his re-election by the usual combination of Republican smear-attacks and vote-swiping in Georgia.)
In 2004, John Kerry REFUSED to MAKE A LIST OF Bush's SCANDALS, or PROSECUTE the CORRUPT and INCOMPETENT LEADERSHIP of the Iraq war, much less the lies leading to the Iraq war.
Kerry REFUSED TO SPEAK UP FOR US Army female VOLUNTEER _PRIVATES_ accused of "ABUSE" in the Abu Ghraib torture and sadism photos scandal....Kerry REFUSED TO LINK THE SCANDAL to the Bush-Cheney White House and DEMAND that they accet full responsibility... at a time when Bush and Cheney were ASSERTING THE 'right" to TORTURE PRISONERS, TO DEATH, at their sole discretion, whenever they wanted to!

Clearly, Hillary is following in the pattern of elite, inside-Washington Democrat "leaders" who would rather act civil and "bipartisan" in Washington than give the press & media the straight scoop. In making allies of RUPERT MURDOCH, Hillary takes that atrocious Democrat record to another new low. Her REFUSAL to go on the Ed Schultz show (she sends her campaign surrogates, who mouth empty platitudes) demonstrates that for Hillary it is "ALL ABOUT CONTROLLING THE MESSAGE."
No, it is NOT about "controlling the message," it is about SPEAKING THE TRUTH, and letting the chips fall where they may!
For REFUSING to go on liberal talk radio, ALONE, Hillary demonstrates her elitist "control the message" tendencies, which is to say, DISDAIN for viewers and listeners, who (she is effectively saying) CAN NOT BE TRUSTED to make up their own minds without carefully staged, controlled campaign events.
In 2000, Al Gore REFUSED to talk to reporters at the back of his plane. George Bush did often and frequently, even though Bush actually had far more to hide of his record, than Gore ever did. But Gore ALLOWED THE PERCEPTION that he was an elitist, out-of-touch, and arrogant to persist, ENABLING the Republican dominated elements of the media to portray him as an "exaggerator" (which is to say, portray him as a serial liar).
Hillary Clinton is REPEATING Gore and Kerry's ALOOF, "We don't have to talk to voters except in strictly controlled format" elitism, and if their is a public backlash, she has no one to blame but herself.
(Cue video of John Kerry STANDING IDLY BY, as University of Florida campus-police GANG-TACKLE A STUDENT for persistently asking the question, "Senator Kerry, Why Did you throw in the towel - CONCEDE DEFEAT on Election night 2004 - even though YOU KNEW that there were THOUSANDS OF allegations of massive voter disenfranchisement in that election?")


Your article just proves Krugman's point, irrational hatred that goes beyond self and national interests. The Democrats are doomed, again.

J Snow


You have overreacted to Paul Krugman's editorial. Clearly Krugman is writing as an economist who supports Clinton's flawed health plan over Obama's flawed health plan (both of which do not promise to boot the insurance companies out of the process).

Yes, the Clintons have been repeatedly been slandered by the corporate media and Obama's supporters apparently have dialed into this retrograde practice. However, that is the full extent of Paul Krugman's criticism of Obama supporters. He isn't criticizing Obama and he isn't criticizing Obama's campaign.

You have made a mountain out of a molehill. You should be attacking the corporate media for fueling this nonsensical tripe being perpetuated in the first place.

The real enemy is the entrenched interests of the military industrial complex, the oil industry, the insurance companies and the credit card companies. Bill and Hillary are clearly not friends of the oil industry though they are clearly not enemies of the other three. Who knows what Obama is for. He has hedged all his positions - even on the Iraq War.

Don't be so harsh on Paul Krugman. He's human like all of us.

J Snow


You have overreacted to Paul Krugman's editorial. Clearly Krugman is writing as an economist who supports Clinton's flawed health plan over Obama's flawed health plan (both of which do not promise to boot the insurance companies out of the process).

Yes, the Clintons have been repeatedly been slandered by the corporate media and Obama's supporters apparently have dialed into this retrograde practice. However, that is the full extent of Paul Krugman's criticism of Obama supporters. He isn't criticizing Obama and he isn't criticizing Obama's campaign.

You have made a mountain out of a molehill. You should be attacking the corporate media for fueling this nonsensical tripe being perpetuated in the first place.

The real enemy is the entrenched interests of the military industrial complex, the oil industry, the insurance companies and the credit card companies. Bill and Hillary are clearly not friends of the oil industry though they are clearly not enemies of the other three. Who knows what Obama is for. He has hedged all his positions - even on the Iraq War.

Don't be so harsh on Paul Krugman. He's human like all of us.

T. Barr

Seems Mr. Krugman touched a nerve with P. M. Maybe the truth hurts!


Why, after having stolen Elections
2000 and 2004, why would the GOP submit to a fair election in '08?
A-Ha! Because the 'candidates' have all been briefed on who's in charge and will do as told.
(That's why bush went to Israel- to get instrctions)

Mary T

Many women who support Clinton do so because we know that she voted for the war and a few other center/right issues because she knew her vote against it wouldn't stop it anyway, and she was really voting with the Nov. 2008 Presidential election in mind.

A woman can't look dovish when running against hawks like the Republicans; also she didn't know at that time how badly the war would go. Most of the recent wars (like the first Iraq war and Bosnia) had gone fairly well. If she'd voted AGAINST it and it had gone well she would have been ground up like horse meat by the neo-cons.

H-m-m. Gore and Obama, who weren't in national government at the time, gave speeches against the war. Kerry, Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. It was much easier to be against that war when you were not a Senator and not planning a Presidential run.


Mr. Carpenter must have read a different essay than I did, because he (and so many of the posters) got it all wrong. I'm actually surprised at how bad Mr. Carpenter's analysis is.

This is the thesis of Krugman's piece: Clinton is receiving the vast majority of negative press coverage, based on the character assassination and innuendo of the Clinton Rules. This is hardly in dispute, is it? Obama supporters are delighted with this, hence the venom of the current race. Nowhere did Krugman say that the Obama supporters were responsible for this. He merely cites three examples where such jaundiced press coverage has gone against the Clintons. He also, correctly, says that such biased reporting has gone against Gore, and that it will go against Obama should he get the nomination.

He correctly states that all progressive / liberals should reject such press tactics for the good of all concerned. Right now Clinton is the primary victim, as they have been for some time. But others will be victimized in turn, unless such tactics are repudiated by all.

Nowhere did he criticize Obama, nor did he mean to. And nowhere did he claim that Obama supporters created this phenomenom - only that they are wrong to take glee in it.

P.M, poor work on your part.

Timothy Liebe

You know what? Watching the "Progressive Democrats" feverishly devouring itself at the moment in history when its absolutely NEEDED would be amusing - if I were Karl Rove. Since I'm not, I just find it sickening.

I think Hillary's compromised on too many essential issues (voting for the Patriot Act - twice - for openers!), and I'm not sure if Obama is all flash or not - but either one, on their worst day, would be a VAST improvement over McCain or whoever else the Right tries to force down our throats.

If we keep this bickering b.s. up, we will have, once again, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - so maybe Rove IS right to laugh at us since we have all the organization of a herd of cats.

Quatrain Gleam

Krugman made a good point.

Some folks think that if they like their candidate they need to beat down yours.

Sorry PM but you sound a bit silly here.


President Obama ~

Start dealing with it now and adjust your lingo accordingly.

The comments to this entry are closed.