Krugman does get it. And what wearies me most of all is that a good percentage of the Obama supporters do not realize how difficult it is to get organizations, individuals - heck even your own family to gather round the table and agree on something.
Additionally, many people really don't know much about Obama other than is "aura" and his alleged "new ideas." I was speaking with a good personal friend when I mentioned his voting "present" record in the Illinois senate regarding abortion. Not only was she unaware of it but she was totally shocked that the candidate that allegedly is the most "liberal" in her eyes at least could not openly support abortion rights.
I have asked many, many times and will continue to ask Obama supporters: If your man is such a deal maker, if he can bring the different factions together around the big table, if he has the answer, the power, the pixie dust that will move this country "forward" (whatever that is), then I would like to know why he is not using his magic now as a US senator. There are only 100 members of that body and I'm assuming some agree on some things but I don't see Obama on the Senate floor, meeting with Republicans and Democrats to discuss issues and legislation, introducing new legistion (and yes I know he did co-introduce one piece) and get the two sides to agree.
I never go to Daily Kos because it is full of hateful people who spew out vile and degrading remarks about Mrs. Clinton but I did read this article because Taylor recommended it. Obama needs to read it also and realize that as a member of the senate he is part of the problem and he can do something now to prove he is the one.
The more one prates about "working together" or "bipartisanship" with criminal Repubs and vested interests, the bigger the fool.
Apparently "independents" need to hear this kind of delusional happy talk----the more they want to hear it, the less progress they will ever get. If this schtick is how Obama actually thinks, he just doesn't get it, and Repubs die laughing hearing such shit out of fool Dems.
Posted by euzoius at December 17, 2007 05:45 AMObama's campaign is tailored for the sweet spot of Tim Russert, David Broder, and people - especially so-called "independents" and Republicans - who feel that the "partisanship" and "problems" of the 1990s were primarily caused by the Clintons - and not the GOP and the media.
Posted by eriposte at December 17, 2007 06:10 AMHas it occurred to anyone that Obama's campaign seems to be a repeat of Bush 2000? It's almost the same words verbatim "I can bring people together" etc. and about the "wars" of the 90's. The only problem here is that Obama won't have a supreme court to put him in office.
Posted by Ga6thDem at December 17, 2007 06:46 AMI think Obama is not being naive - everywhere around the world, companies and government sit together to talk - that doesn't mean the companies rule the discussions, but realistically, they need to be involved. I do think Krugman is being the naive one - I wonder how much experience he has had in managing a company or conflicting groups?
Posted by BP at December 17, 2007 07:38 AMSo, can someone explain why Obama is naive for believing that "we" can talk to corporations, but he is NOT naive for believing that the answer to America's foreign policy problems lies in talking, around a big table, with the world's dictators? There's a logical disconnect here. Unless, that is, you believe that health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are more evil and less apt to see the light than, say, the regimes in Iran and North Korea.
Posted by JB at December 17, 2007 08:35 AM"we are so constipated in our politics that nothing will happen and we will be forced to watch our world burn while a few rich guys throw sand in the tank."
Yup. Seems so.
Have a nice day.
J
Posted by jaynicks at December 17, 2007 08:57 AMRIP Dan Fogelberg.
Posted by Seven of Six at December 17, 2007 12:43 PM