Friday, March 28, 2008
Seriously. Paul Krugman's pieces in the Times should be followed by a short clip saying, "My name is Hillary Clinton and I approve of this editorial."
So again Krugman is arguing and insinuating that Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Obama. He says that her policy proposals on the financial crisis "suggests a strong progressive sensibility." Fine. I'm sure he is aware that a candidate's policy proposals are not automatically adopted once he or she is elected. Having bold ideas in not enough. We've already seen a very progressive health care plan by the Clintons crash and burn due to their attempt to jam it down the throats of Congress and in the process alienating both Republicans and Democrats that were essential to passing any meaningful legislation. And this gets to the primary reason why I'm against Hillary. It's not that I disagree with most of her policies but I think she has built up so much animosity, both fair and unfair, that she would have a very hard time getting anything passed.
While I'm sympathetic to anyone who is in danger of losing their homes because they can't make their payments I'm also not necessarily in favor of the government bailing out people who made very bad decisions on buying a house with little money down and an adjustable rate mortgage in the first place. It was hardly a secret that these adjustable rate mortgages were very risky. So Obama's somewhat "cautious and relatively orthodox" proposal might actually be the approach I favor.
Krugman turns up the hyperbole and says "Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive." I'm reasonably certain she doesn't torture puppies and eat babies. But I'm not as certain that she and Bill aren't intentionally trying to sabotage Obama's chances in 2008 and set her up for 2012 because she's finally realized she has no shot this year. Actively trying to defeat Obama and elect McCain who would continue the disastrous war in Iraq (a war Krugman doesn't like to remind you that Hillary voted to authorize because it doesn't fit his "progessive" label) would result in thousands more deaths and probably include puppies and babies.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I think there a plenty of good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton but perhaps one of the best is that it greatly increases the chance of McCain winning. But don't take my word for it. What does America's favorite Oxycodone addict have to say?
What if she's not the nominee? We've got make sure she's the nominee if the Republican Party is to be unified.
If our electoral victory in November requires her being in the race, we gotta stop him; because there's no fear and loathing on Obama. You can't run against Obama fearing him or loathing him or dissing him. It isn't going to work. He doesn't have the personality that makes any of that fit. So we need to keep her in it so we can win it.
All right, we have a campaign slogan here for Mrs. Clinton, because obviously the best shot for Republicans winning the White House is Hillary as the nominee, so I'm thinking of doing this fundraiser, the slogan: "Stay in It So We Can Win It."
Well, now Obama needs a slogan. If our slogan is, "Stay in It So We Can Win It," Obama's slogan is, "A Vote for Hillary Is a Vote for McCain." It would work. It would absolutely work. The Republicans want her to be the nominee since that's the best shot for Republicans.
I hate to say it but I agree with Rush here. I must bathe.
Friday, March 07, 2008
So when did Paul Krugman’s column become the weekly Hillary Clinton Booster? This bothers me for the predictable reason that I’m for Obama and he is not and he is a writer I have a lot of respect for. But his columns repeatedly says that Clinton is more progressive that Obama and I see very little evidence of this. Krugman made this striking remark in his March 3rd column:
Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing.
How does he come to the conclusion that Obama is in the center of the Democratic Party? Certainly not from his actual voting record in the Senate when the National Journal ranked him the most liberal Senator in 2007 and consistently more liberal than Hillary Clinton.
He consistently downplays Clinton's vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq War which was perhaps the most important litmus test of a politicians liberalism in the last 40 years and she wasn't on the same side as Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Paul Wellstone or even Lincoln Chafee.
From what I can tell his claims are based on Obama’s healthcare plan not including mandates to buy health insurance where Clinton’s would. I guess that is a fair criticism although I think Obama’s reasoning that mandates that penalize people who can’t afford healthcare premiums is far from progressive is a valid counterpoint. But beyond that where is the proof that Clinton is the better choice for progressive than Obama?