RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Krugman Nails It Again: “Self-Inflicted Confusion”

By SusanUnPC on April 25, 2008 at 5:54 PM in Barack Obama, Economy, Elitism, Employment, Hillary Clinton

God, I hope he doesn’t have to work near Maureen Dowd. Surely he gets to write his columns at his Princeton office, don’t you think? Paul Krugman’s latest, “Self-Inflicted Confusion” is damn fine, as always, even if he is the lonely voice for reason in the NYTimes op-ed department.

First, there’s Anglachel’s “shorter Krugman”: “Act like Democrats, not Obamacans.”

Then there’s Digby on a similar theme: “[Obama's] ‘change’ campaign may seem a bit distant and abstract in the current circumstances.” — and — “Unlike Perot, who ran as a reformer in a recessionary climate in 1992, Obama doesn’t have the decades of business experience to use as a proxy for successful economic stewardship, so he probably needs to be more explicit in his economic message now.”

And there’s my new favorite quotation: “The Democratic nomination contest is a process, not a suicide pact.”

And now here’s Paul:

A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. …

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

What’s gone wrong?

That, the Obamatrons say, is Hillary’s fault. It’s her negative campaigning. If only she’d get out of the way, Obama could get through to the white working class. Not so, asserts Krugman.

[M]aybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not. …

My answer? It’s what the people of Ohio, Texas, California, and most recently Pennsylvania have said: GIVE US HILLARY CLINTON.

Give us the candidate with the “no-nonsense style” and an “obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy.”

People may get a quick high off rhetoric. But in the end they want the one who can get it done.

Read all of Mr. Krugman’s fine column today: “Self-Inflicted Confusion.”