"Thoroughly objective and factual observations."
Such as when he accused Obama of treason to the cause of reform.
It's amazing how much of a sacred cow Krugman is to some people.
Thanks, eriposte, for addressing this. It's amazing how much of a sacred cow Obama is to some people.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 8, 2007 11:28 AMGeek Esq.,
From Krugman's thoroughly objective and factual article:
O.K., before I go any further, let’s be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan — although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans — is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.Posted by eriposte at December 8, 2007 11:43 AM
Iamcoyote,
Well said.
It is fascinating to me that there is this cult of Obama that refuses to acknowledge that even the best people are imperfect at times. They cheer his repeated mis-characterizations of Clinton as being Bush-lite and as being a Bush enabler, but when others rightfully point out that Obama is aiding and abetting the enemies of social security and healthcare reform, it is those critics who are idiots. It seems like if Sen. Obama offers progressive visions but mixes in misguided and wrong tactics and beliefs that mirror those of the right - he should be The Untouchable. When Sen. Clinton, who has clearly offered progressive visions on almost every topic including Iraq and Iran sometimes does misguided things like vote for meaningless Sense of the Senate resolutions that are non-binding and have no legal implications, then she alone is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemies of reform. For the time being, I will give such critics the benefit of the doubt and assume cultishness rather than sexism is the driver of this dynamic.
Posted by eriposte at December 8, 2007 12:22 PMBe careful. I criticized Obama over at DU and got called a racist.
Posted by Stoic at December 8, 2007 12:43 PMCome now Geek, just who's using the word "treason?"
Posted by andgarden at December 8, 2007 01:19 PMI criticized Obama over at DU and got called a racist.
Stoic, same here. It's too bad that we do have to be careful, because we so desperately need to have a conversation about race and, just as importantly IMO, class. Seems no matter how good your intentions, someone's going to be offended, so no one talks about such glaring issues at all.
eriposte, well, I was just being my infuriatingly snarky self responding to Geek; but you're right, the cults surrounding each candidate are getting out of hand, just as they did with the last election. None of our candidates are perfect, all of them are making mistakes that could harm us in the general election. I happen to understand and believe in what you're doing, as thankless a job as it is. I suppose it's human, though, to follow your team without question, and view the questions of others as threats or an endorsement of another. Still, for a supposed 'reality-based' community, we get a little too cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face in these primaries, which is why I dislike them so much. I agree that on our (liberal/progressive) side, it is cultishness over sexism, though it's so much a part of human culture, as is racism, that despite our best intentions, we fall into social patterns that are inherently sexist, racist and classist. For our part, at least, we've tried to become more aware of those patterns and change them while the more overtly discriminating elements (Republicans, these days) cling ever more tightly to them in the name of "tradition."
Posted by iamcoyote at December 8, 2007 01:23 PMSooner or later Barak will be asked hard questions about race. Here are 2 potential hornet's nests to prepare for:
1. What is your position on reparations?
2. How did you feel when you saw the college classrooms of African-American students cheering when OJ was aquitted, while their White counterparts stared in silent disbelief?
Andgarden:
Krugman said that Obama was "aiding and abetting the enemies of reform."
That's the statement of a hyperbolic poo-thrower, not an issues-based analyst.
And Eriposte finally reveals her colors. "If you support Barack Obama and disagree with my advocacy for Hillary, you're either a cultist or a sexist."
Now that Obama is threatening to defeat the Clintons, I can only assume that Eriposte will spend more time attacking Obama's integrity, progressivism, etc etc.
Of course Obama has his flaws. But, he's not Joe Lieberman Jr. as people like Eriposte, Paul Krugman, and Taylor Marsh would have folks believe. (On foreign policy matters, Senator Clinton is much more closely aligned with Lieberman, as shown by her Iran vote)
Posted by Geek, Esq. at December 8, 2007 05:52 PM"If you support Barack Obama and disagree with my advocacy for Hillary, you're either a cultist or a sexist."
Could you please show where eriposte says that? I've read all his posts and don't see it anywhere. Poor thing, you're no better than the trolls here, or the wingnut pundits who turn their twisted conclusions into fake quotes to fool the unwary. Why you insist on misinterpreting these posts is beyond me, but you're not doing your candidate a favor, by any stretch.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 8, 2007 06:25 PMWell, as a Lamont supporter who saw his candidate be abandoned by St. Obama, I can tell you what type of Democrat the good Senator would govern as - a Lieberman Democrat. Obama had a chance to potentially change the race in CT and he punted. After all of the unchallenged assertions that he would support whomever the CT Democrats chose for their candidate, Obama just walked away from the race when his active support was needed to potentially make a difference. Instead, he allowed Lieberman to continue to lie his way back into office, with the results we've all seen.
I don't know if Obama is fatally flawed, but he certainly doesn't yet deserve the canonization which some accord him.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at December 8, 2007 07:27 PM@ Geek: It seems obvious that this is about rhetoric first, policy second, and character not at all. I see no problem for Krugman in responding to rhetoric he finds objectionable with rhetoric of his own. Frankly, I think he's on target.
"When Sen. Clinton, who has clearly offered progressive visions on almost every topic including Iraq and Iran sometimes does misguided things like vote for meaningless Sense of the Senate resolutions that are non-binding and have no legal implications, then she alone is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemies of reform."
if you're talking about Kyle-Liebermanm then you simply cannot accept the fact that Clinton made a terrible mistake
Posted by gay veteran at December 9, 2007 12:24 PMGay Veteran,
What part of "misguided" do you not understand?
Posted by eriposte at December 9, 2007 04:01 PMwell eriposte when it comes to war the term "misguided" is pretty goddamn weak when it comes to Hillary's actions
Posted by Gay Veteran at December 10, 2007 10:46 AM