Krugman: Clinging To A Stereotype
Submitted by kmissik on April 18, 2008 - 8:29am.
Democratic politics | Economics | society
Some more food for thought from Paul Krugman. I particularly appreciated his recognition of how Obama routinely dismisses and devalues the many positive accomplishments of President Clinton's administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Obama apparently is clinging to a very incorrect stereotype. Maybe he learned it at church.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Seems like Obama is a believer in 'pop' sociology rather than paying attention to writers who maintain a rigorous attention to data.
"What's the Matter with Kansas" seems to have permeated his worldview, probably because he has so had so little contact with non-urban, working class Americans.
It's as much about 'life' experience as anything. When all you know is Hyde Park, Harvard and Hawaii, it doesn't leave a lot of room to understand voters lives in Cuero, TX, Youngstown, OH and Altoona, PA.
Hyde Park, Harvard and Hawaii! HHH
The 3-H Club.
As opposed to the down to earth 4-H Club that embrace Senator Clinton!
Good framing indeed. :)
Submitted by ms in la on April 18, 2008 - 12:44pm.
the wrap up summary of the article:
And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.
This is such an important point - and a valid comeback to those who are whining about Hillary saying McCain has more national security credentials than O! and how could she- how dare she- what on earth was she thinking!!! We all know Obama's national security creds far outshine John McCains. Gasp! She is insane and obviously intent on destruction of the world. Because we all know it is sacrosanct and you do NOT criticize the other Dem in favor of any Republican, right?
Well how dare Obama repeatedly denigrate the Clinton administration's record? ESPECIALLY when he's lying or just ill informed about the stats- whichever is worse I don't know. Leaving the Reagan era in its "transformational" terms and HW getting a big pass for such shining foreign policy. But slamming the Clinton years over and over and over. Trying to clump it in with the GW Bush administration. Yeah- indistinguishable... right.....Talk about hurting the Dem party. The one time in 3 decades we manage to win a two term presidency and restore a broken economy, prosper and enjoy peace... our shining hour of success in national politics in so many decades -- and he feels he has to trash that? In favor of how he'll be adopting HW Bush and Reagan policies?
Give
me
a
break
Yes We Can
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
were so much better than what we had before and certainly after them. There's a reason people want to party like it's 1999.