Yeah yeah yeah, you think Obama would be the worst mistake since the harnessing of fire, we get it, we get it. Sheesh.

Why don't you spend more time building up Hillary and less tearing down Obama? Without more of the former, the latter is starting to seem like a weird obsession. . .

A Krugman anti-Obama article? gasp where do you find such things?

All in all, the Democrats are in a place few expected a year ago. The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy. If the magic works, all will be forgiven. But if it doesn’t, the recriminations could tear the party apart.

If we are going to get into "personality politics", I'm sorry, but to ignore the right wings's hate of Clinton is dangerous. McCain is a weak candidate, and the only way he can win is if Repubs are driven to stop "the clintons" from winning.

Clinton isn't exactly a bastion of Progressivism, either.

Someone should tell Krugman something about the following tactics: "automatic 'super' delegates", threatening suing Texas over Caucus results, bad mouthing any state you lose, asking PLEDGED delegates to switch sides, Fear mongering (3 am), grandstanding (shame on you!), not showing up for the telecom-immunity bill; these things are not exactly a good way to "unite" the democratic party.

Hillary needs to realize that the last month of mud slinging

A Krugman anti-Obama article? gasp where do you find such things?

All in all, the Democrats are in a place few expected a year ago. The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy. If the magic works, all will be forgiven. But if it doesn’t, the recriminations could tear the party apart.

If we are going to get into "personality politics", I'm sorry, but to ignore the right wings's hate of Clinton is dangerous. McCain is a weak candidate, and the only way he can win is if Repubs are driven to stop "the clintons" from winning.

Clinton isn't exactly a bastion of Progressivism, either.

Someone should tell Krugman something about the following tactics: "automatic 'super' delegates", threatening suing Texas over Caucus results, bad mouthing any state you lose, asking PLEDGED delegates to switch sides, Fear mongering (3 am), grandstanding (shame on you!), not showing up for the telecom-immunity bill; these things are not exactly a good way to "unite" the democratic party.

oops double post, sorry.

But Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state.

Funny how in one post Nader does exactly this and is praised at 1gme and then obama implies it and suddenly that makes him less of a candidate.

Isn't this exactly what everybody wants democrats to do? Say, they won't win by being "republican light" as Dean said it.

Consistency is part of a good argument, which doesn't seem to exist here.

In what feels like a Perry Mason moment, the Obama campaign is going to have a hard time somehow claiming their chief domestic policy adviser was meeting with the Canadians as a University of Chicago professor and not as an Obama emissary.

I fail to see the shock value in this. The memo is someones summary of the statements of an Obama representative. They very likely said something like don't take offense to our heated discussion of the NAFTA treaty, we will have an honest renegotiation after the election at with Canada will be considered an important partner.

In any regard, people in Ohio aren't concerned about losing jobs to Canada and there is likely no need to change anything in the treaty in regard to Canada.

This leak from Ottawa concerning nafta comes directly from the PMO referencing anonymous sources.

This has the same credibility as Dana Perino critiquing the Canadian health care system.

It was telling, for me, that I could tell Krugman had written that article before I checked to confirm.

Same shit, different shovel.

I don't trust a word Krugman says on Obama, as past investigation of his claims has proven him not just wrong, but a liar.

So, the corn article (finally got to it):

There is all this concern that bad weather/la nina could ruin the corn crop season this year and hike fuel prices just as much as instability in the Middle East. Possibly yes, but...

1. the mid-west has had mucho amounts of snow this year; yesterday a friend told me we've had over 50 inches this winter. It would have to get pretty damn dry from la nina to eliminate the moisture content from the soil.. Again, possibly yes.

2. There have been years where corn just sits by a mill and rots because not all of it can be used. Perhaps a dry spell would even things out a bit? Or would it truly wreak havoc? I just wonder how much the ISU has looked at past harvests and economic prognostications. I do know they track this stuff pretty carefully up the road from me.

3. No mention at ALL about conserving energy to help wean us from fuels of any sort - lowering demand on the supply, what a novel concept! I guess since it's a LA Times article, I thought the Californians would be all about less fuel consumption on out part.

4. No mention of alternative sources for energy besides fossil fuels and ethanol. Wind power's growing in the mid-west, natch. Bio-diesel is another possibility.

5. Wouldn't it be nice to eat or drink something with sugar in it instead of high fructose corn syrup? MMmm, yummy.

6. I highly recommend Pollan's The Ominvore's Dilemma for the 1st bit on out corn nation. Food for thought, but not for eatin.

I don't trust a word Krugman says on Obama, as past investigation of his claims has proven him not just wrong, but a liar.

As a former student of Paul's, I take exception to your comment. Back up your assertion. Show us the lie.

Paul Krugman writes:

Bob Somerby of the media-criticism site dailyhowler.com predicts that Mr. Obama will be "Dukakised": "treated as an alien, unsettling presence." That sounds all too plausible.

Charles Lemos said:

Obama is a Dukakis in the making.

My reply was, unfortunately, delayed while I was banned.

I said:

I don't trust a word Krugman says on Obama, as past investigation of his claims has proven him not just wrong, but a liar.

Charles Lemos said:

((As a former student of Paul's**, I take exception to your comment. Back up your assertion. Show us the lie.

(my emphasis)

I trust you'll take as given that it is unlikely a NYT writer is an idiot (With a dishonorable exception for Bill Krystol).

Given that, and this, and this, (which simply refers to this,) the only conclusion I was able to reach is that Krugman knows what he is saying is wrong, or at the very least misleadingly one-sided, and continues to say it anyway. They're opinion pieces, and I'm sure he chose his words carefully enough to avoid any legal difficulty... but as far as I'm concerned, they're lies.

There was also Krugman's earlier remarks about Obama using "right-wing talking points" on social security. I can't find the link I'm looking forward to fully repudiate that claim, but I've found these:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2746

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/12/paul-krugman.html

Perhaps someone else has a better link in their bookmarks or recalls a better string to google for it.

I find your past association with Krugman to be very interesting, since so much of what you've said here reminds me of things he has harped on. Now, the reason becomes clear. Perhaps you indicated this previously... but I didn't see it until now.

I intend for this to be my final post at onegoodmove for some time, and I request that (should Charles have a problem with the above information) someone else with an opposing viewpoint at least take a stab at refuting his criticisms. Many thanks in advance, should someone choose to do so.