Paul Krugman agrees with me.
I admit, he didn't use the words "ICK factor," and he wasn't talking about Oprah. This is more along the lines of Obama's kumbaya attitude, and how he would drive a progressive agenda using that approach. Take it away, Mr. Krugman!
Although Edwards is not my favorite candidate, he has been the one (among the Big Three tied in Iowa) that has consistently fought the Man throughout his career. As a lawyer, he was extremely successful representing "little guy" clients that had been harmed by corporate negligence or malfeasance.
If the nominee is going to be one of the Big Three, at least let it be Edwards or Hillary, who both have demonstrated their tenacity in the face of unflagging enmity from right wing/conservative interests. I fear that Obama has too much right-wing sympathy - and not enough down-and-dirty fight - to effect real change in this country.
And I must be right, because Paul Krugman feels the same way.
I admit, he didn't use the words "ICK factor," and he wasn't talking about Oprah. This is more along the lines of Obama's kumbaya attitude, and how he would drive a progressive agenda using that approach. Take it away, Mr. Krugman!
O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.Bingo! That is exactly the problem with Senator Obama's "new kind of politics." The corporations have a stranglehold on our government, Barack, and they're not giving it up for the sake of your smile, as charming as it is.
As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.
As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. [emphasis added]
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
Although Edwards is not my favorite candidate, he has been the one (among the Big Three tied in Iowa) that has consistently fought the Man throughout his career. As a lawyer, he was extremely successful representing "little guy" clients that had been harmed by corporate negligence or malfeasance.
If the nominee is going to be one of the Big Three, at least let it be Edwards or Hillary, who both have demonstrated their tenacity in the face of unflagging enmity from right wing/conservative interests. I fear that Obama has too much right-wing sympathy - and not enough down-and-dirty fight - to effect real change in this country.
And I must be right, because Paul Krugman feels the same way.
3 comments:
That is exactly the problem with Senator Obama's "new kind of politics."
I often wonder what is really "new" about these folks with their "new politics." It strikes me that it's mostly the same old politics, with the American people just going back to drinking the Kool-Aid.
krugman also says "Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”
you know who that sounds like?
joe lieberman.
you know who that sounds like?
joe lieberman.
HEL-lo! Do NOT WANT.
Post a Comment